Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
Post Reply Why Are Homophobes Obsessed with Gay Men But Ignore Lesbians?
2395 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 8/20/13
Because most homophobes tend to be men... and the thought of gay men makes them have a funny feeling in their pants and thus uncomfortable and self-loathing.
3171 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38
Offline
Posted 8/21/13

dougeprofile wrote:



Yes DAD, Hate is a term thrown about to shut up conservatives by liberals



I thought we were talking about homosexuality versus... whatever apolitical term the anti-homosexual crowd wants to adopt for themselves, here. Not liberal versus conservative (which would include the Log-Cabin Republicans) partisanship.

Also, it's hard to deny that Matthew Shephard's sexuality was a factor in his murder, when the murderer himself cited "gay panic" in attempt to invoke a temporary insanity defense...


dougeprofile wrote:
Tradition can be bad or good it is wrong to just throw it out just because it is old.


Likewise to preserve it "just because it is old." Tradition for it's own sake is arguably defensible, though I'm not particularly fond of even that; but tradition in spite[/b ]of contradictory evidence is just the stuff of flat-earth and trepanation.


dougeprofile wrote:
The Old Book isn't even required to make the argument. Why can't liberals run adoption agencies that place children with homosexual couple and allow Catholic groups to follow their faith? Why do they have to force the Church to choose between their faith and serving children?


Same reason they had to choose between their faith and serving blacks back in the '60s. (Coincidentally, where the so-called 'religious right' movement actually started...) And from what I can see of the incident (mostly biased reporting from lifesite,) that's not actually the choice they were faced with. They were asked to choose between maintaining their faith-based discriminatory policies and maintaining their government subsidies, and they shut themselves down in response. (Either out of petulance or a genuine inability to operate without said subsidies...)

Also, I'm not so sure I'd be looking to a church that covers up for child-molesters in it's ranks while preaching against consensual acts between adults outside it's walls as my beacon of 'moral consistency.'


dougeprofile wrote:
Discrimination (even sex based) isn't always wrong - a man going into a ladies room can (and should) get arrested. Well, there is California where men can discover their femininity and be with the girls. Stating that heterosexual marriage would decline is neither speculative nor "fear mongering"; I wasn't saying it will go away bout it would be affected negatively. People will always get married and the institution should be protected from this kind of radical change - even in Canada.


Then you have verifiable evidence, rather than just thought-crafting and ideological posturing, to back that claim up? If not, then 'speculation' and 'fear-mongering' is exactly what it is. If your only response to evidence that directly contradicts what you claim will happen... is to repeat your claim that it will happen even where it's clearly not happening, then clearly you fit the 'irrational' criteria listed in the official definition of homophobia.

Again, I point out that it's not actually happening in Canada. Approximately 1000 more marriages in the year after same-sex marriage was legalized than in the year before. (Discounting the year that it did happen, as that year had a fairly big spike upwards possibly due to the number of same-sex couples who jumped on the opportunity when it happened.) I won't say 'marriage is stronger than ever' - the trend in divorce rates remains unchanged - but opening it up to homosexual couples has at least increased (rather than reduced) the interest in it.


dougeprofile wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with Jefferson but here try this:

[Liberals], by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).
[Liberals]...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800).
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a [Liberal infested] people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).
In every country and in every age, [the Liberal] has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).

Jefferson may have respected private religion, but he had a serious distaste for [liberal indoctrination]

It's amazing how well that fits!


It's amazing how much it had nothing to do with either the topic at hand or what Jefferson actually said. You're clearly more interested in partisan liberal-baiting than the actual topic at hand.
3171 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38
Offline
Posted 8/21/13

berries-382 wrote:

Because most homophobes tend to be men... and the thought of gay men makes them have a funny feeling in their pants and thus uncomfortable and self-loathing.


Noting how many of them are also rather chauvinistic (if not outright misogynistic, though the difference is trivial) - I suspect part of it may be discomfort over the idea of being treated by gay men in the same manner that they treat women.
13582 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 8/21/13

MountainMew wrote:

Well, I wouldn't say they "ignore" lesbians; they objectify lesbians. To the point they don't see lesbians as anything more than for pleasure, and ignore lesbains that aren't "hot" enough. So, still incredibly homophobic!
But lesbians do get incredibly ignored none-the-less, since a lot of pro-gay is towards gay males and barely acknowledges female homosexuality, among other things. It's complicated, there's all sorts of shades to homophobia and support. Making assumptions isn't really fair when talking about weirdly complex beings such as humans.


Yep, so pretty much not only are they homophobes, but are misogynists too. Though, I don't think they are mutually exclusive.
13582 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 8/21/13

dougeprofile wrote:

I avoid overt Yuri or homosexually themed anime ...just don't enjoy it so don't watch it - certainly don't want to stop anyone who does; more of a leeway with yuri but still don't enjoy when things get too explicit (personal definition); men are usually attracted to girls so Yuri won't seem as strange.

Heterosexual relationships are more consequential than Homosexual relationships. Marriage can only exist between a man and women, as only a man and woman can produce children (in most cases they desire and have children - 0% of homosexual relationships produce children); the ideal situation for children is to have both a mother and a father. Homophobia? That is just a made up word to "shut up" those who disagree for whatever reason ...heterophobia? No matter what the legal redefinition of the term (there is no such thing as "gay" marriage - marriage is marriage, marriage is the joining of male and female). WHO"S obsessed??? - honestly I don't think about same sex attraction.

Hate is a term thrown around in an attempt to demonize and silence the opposition - the very premise I reject. The Catholic church can no longer give needy children homes in some states because the side of "love and tolerance" could not accept a group who only placed children with heterosexual couples. Even leaving all Biblical arguments out of it (very wise these days) reason makes the case - without hate too; though the biblical definition is limited to the union of male and female.

Any homosexual can marry ...any woman he wants; any heterosexual cannot marry any man (or woman) he wants (in most states) - there has never been any discrimination. If marriage (traditional definition) loses its meaning fewer men and women would likely get married - and that is a very bad thing for society (think of the children). That said, if two women or two men want to have a ceremony they should be left alone; government should not prohibit but neither should it endorse. If a florist decides she doesn't want to cater to a homosexual wedding they should leave her alone as well and find someone else. I could be wrong, but I don't think most homosexuals even desire to get married or would even if they could get a marriage certificate.

"Separation of church and state" is not in the constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [unless they do not endorse homosexuality of course]; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances." `Separation of Church and state' is an out of context quote from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson defending churches from government interference which an activist court decided to rewrite history with.



Any couple, whether heterosexual or homosexual, deserves to be able to adopt children if unable to have their own. The fact that the catholic church is unwilling to let some couples, no matter how well off they are or are looking forward to raising a child, just shows how much farther they have to go in acceptance of others. Which is funny, doesn't the church always preach acceptance and to love thy neighbor or is that just a lie they tell everyone so they can feel good about themselves at night?

Stop acting like suddenly everyone is going to become a homosexual and get married, which cannot happen by the way since it's not a choice. I do say that the term gay marriage sounds a bit silly since marriage is marriage and is for anyone in a loving and caring relationship, but that term is important right now. Also wouldn't "marriage" lose it's definition because of so many heterosexual couples getting divorced? Everyone likes talking about how a homosexual couple getting married is going to destroy "marriage", but never looks at the facts of how many people (especially celebs) like to get married and then in a matter of hours up to years later will end it. If there's anything you should be mad about, it's how many heterosexual couples don't take the time to sort out issues with each other and will take the easy way out by getting a divorce. Another thing to think about, just because a heterosexual couple can produce children doesn't mean they should or that they even want to. Not all of them are even close to fit enough to be having children and they still do and those children suffer for it, so why aren't you getting mad about that? Also why aren't you mad at single parents, because those child(ren) could be missing out on care from one of their parents. So why don't you get off your high horse and stop trying to blame stuff on homosexuals. Besides no where in the constitution does it say that everything in there only applies to straight people. It doesn't even mention anything, besides the now defunct DOMA, about sexuality so from that standpoint all the rights given in the Constitution apply to everyone regardless of orientation.

I honestly don't understand why people make such a big deal, no one has a right to butt in on someone's personal business. No one's being repressed; just a group of people are gaining access to the rights they deserved from the beginning. This is basically the same BS argument when inter-racial couples wanted to get married and look at us now, they can freely get married and do what every other "normal" couple can do and no one makes a big deal about it (with maybe the exception of the old folk who have outdated ideals). Also, no one is telling you that you have to be gay so you have no business telling others that they should be straight. Heterosexuals have no reason to be afraid of homosexuals; they aren't going to try and change you, they just want to have the same rights as everyone else.

There are some people who might very well be heterophobes and I think it's because of all the repression and the way heterosexuals view homosexuals and are always trying to criticize, hurt, or in extremist fashion out right kill them. They have lived in fear for so long, that some or all of that fear isn't going to go away just because we're starting to make progress.
31228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Kentucky
Offline
Posted 8/21/13
Keep In mind that not all of them are "homophobes", in some cases they are just grossed out or just "shocked" or "disturbed". Phobia implies fear, it's not that they are all afraid.

I personally don't mind it but really if I walked in on it or some guy was trying to do something strange to me personally, I'd probably be shocked for a minute (not scared) and then just grossed out (still not scared).

As for why it doesn't effect lesbians... ... I'm a guy so yeah... I guess you should wonder why or if there aren't any girls that aren't phobic of lesbians. Lesbians just seem to be more socially acceptable, the world is full of hypocrites. Deal with it.jpg
Dragon Mod
41778 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / OK, USA
Online
Posted 8/21/13 , edited 8/21/13
Hi,

Please keep posts on the topic and civil. I've had to delete a few, and if this keeps happening, we may have to lock the thread. Play nice, please!

Thanks,
-Makoto
14316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / in the land of th...
Offline
Posted 8/21/13
Homophobes should consider a little self-reflection, suggests a new study finding those individuals who are most hostile toward gays and hold strong anti-gay views may themselves have same-sex desires, albeit undercover ones....

In other words, "Thou doth protest too much".....
Homophobic men do not see lesbian relationships as a 'threat' to their own sexuality, where as two men together sparks
hidden desires..
14774 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17
Offline
Posted 8/21/13 , edited 8/21/13

Mycow8me wrote:

Keep In mind that not all of them are "homophobes", in some cases they are just grossed out or just "shocked" or "disturbed". Phobia implies fear, it's not that they are all afraid.

I personally don't mind it but really if I walked in on it or some guy was trying to do something strange to me personally, I'd probably be shocked for a minute (not scared) and then just grossed out (still not scared).


Homophobia is one of the many words used to define bigotry which doesn't actually make sense at all. Yes, phobia implies irrational fear, homophobia has little to do with fear. Being grossed out or disturbed is just as homophobic and being fearful, and while I couldn't really care less how people personally feel the fact those types of people try to take rights away from others does bother me quite a lot.
Anyway, point is homophobia has nothing to do with being "scared", although fear can indeed be a major part of it. Not fear as in scared because homosexuality is ~scary~, but fear in the sense they fear change. They fear that the homosexuality bug will spread. They fear homosexuals getting married will "ruin marriage", and so on.
So, at the end of the day, even if you claim not to have those fears or claim not to be scared of homosexuals, you're still quite homophobic for considering homosexuality gross or disturbing. I'm not calling you personally one, mind you, just in general clarifying that homophobia, like many words, does not mean exactly what it's root words imply.
12223 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / California
Offline
Posted 8/21/13
Because they like lesbians. I mean....who doesn't?
42061 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 8/21/13 , edited 8/21/13
Whats this nonsense if somebody has a preference over straight couples than gay couples that they are somehow bigots?

I like white blue eyed blonde hair girls, does that mean I FEAR or HATE any girl that doesnt meet that standard? No obviously.

I think horseradish is disgusting when compared to other toppings. Does that mean I FEAR or HATE horseradish?

I support government getting out of marriage entirely, but you people who demonize those who don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle by calling them closeted homosexuals, or just straight up bigots are the biggest bigots of all if you ask me.

Are people somehow not allowed to have preferences and must automatically like everything equally?

Though to the question of why lesbians are not as negative as gays, its obvious. More people find girls making out hotter and more watchable than guys doing it. Men generally are taught/conditioned to be the hard type, while girls are taught/conditioned to be the soft type. Soft things doing cuddly stuff would therefore be more watchable than hard things doing cuddly stuff

16450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/21/13
Might I suggest the following Biblical verses: 1 Samuel 18:1, 1 Samuel 18:2, 1 Samuel 18:3-4, 1 Samuel 20:41, 2 Samuel 1:26
14774 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17
Offline
Posted 8/21/13

superluccix wrote:

Whats this nonsense if somebody has a preference over straight couples than gay couples that they are somehow bigots?


Nobody thinks this, like at all. It's people who say they prefer straight couples and consider homosexuality disgusting that bothers people. Nobody's stopping you from having a preference, in fact nobody would even stop you from finding homosexuality disgusting. However, when people shove their disdain in front of everyone's faces, I think it's fair to say they're obnoxious and rude people.


I support government getting out of marriage entirely, but you people who demonize those who don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle by calling them closeted homosexuals, or just straight up bigots are the biggest bigots of all if you ask me.


Haha, it kind of sounds like you don't really know what bigotry is. Not tolerating intolerance is far from bigotry. Trying to stop people from doing something they want to do which isn't hurting anyone (marriage in this case) is horrible. People should have the freedom to marry if they so desire, not have people telling them we should stop marriage or they should find other options.
Characterizing people who disapprove of homosexuality (to the point of trying to remove their rights) as being cruel or evil isn't exactly what I'd call bigotry. Taking away someones rights, anyone's rights, is a cruel act; demonizing people who do just that seems like a perfectly acceptable reaction.
Sure, I don't agree with calling those who do not approve of homosexuality as closeted themselves, but I wouldn't say the people who do are bigots.
As the saying goes, people are free to say whatever they want, including cruel disapproving things about someone's sexuality, but that doesn't mean they're free to say those things without consequence.


Are people somehow not allowed to have preferences and must automatically like everything equally?


No, of course not. You should, however, consider treating humans equally and giving them equal opportunity in life. That's really all most people want, they wouldn't be as bothered by people disapproving of the way they were born or having a preference that isn't their sexuality if they had equal rights and more respect and tolerance. You don't have to like what people do in bed, but you could at least treat them as humans. (that isn't directed at you, just a general statement)
42061 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Arnold Maryland
Offline
Posted 8/21/13 , edited 8/21/13


So if I find ANYTHING about human beings disgusting, I am therefore I bigot in your mind. Ok lets test this logic.

I hate pedophiles, does that make me a bigot? (Note Im not saying pedophilia is just like homosexuality or any of that nonsense, just showing you the error of your logic)

"However, when people shove their disdain in front of everyone's faces, I think it's fair to say they're obnoxious and rude people."

I could reverse this back on you. Whenever people show their disdain of people who dislike homosexuality in front of people, I think its fair to say they're obnoxious and rude people.

" Not tolerating intolerance is far from bigotry."

I could also reverse this back on you. You are demonizing people who have a different opinion than you. How is that tolerance? You think that labeling your opponents as intolerant then gives you endless free shots at them without any shot back at you? The people who disagree with homosexuals could label YOU the intolerant ones. The ones who think that anybody who disagrees with homosexuality is somehow a bigot.

"Characterizing people who disapprove of homosexuality (to the point of trying to remove their rights) as being cruel or evil isn't exactly what I'd call bigotry. Taking away someones rights, anyone's rights, is a cruel act; demonizing people who do just that seems like a perfectly acceptable reaction."

So basically you consider somebody a bigot when they are forcibly blocking somebody elses rights due to their own prejudices? I agree, but lets see if you really do in a consistent fashion. Because if you slip up once, then people can call you a bigot in some other area of society.

Do you support private property owners being allowed to discriminate who they bring onto their private property? As in, would you vote against a private property owner to choose who he/she wants to bring on their private property.

"As the saying goes, people are free to say whatever they want, including cruel disapproving things about someone's sexuality, but that doesn't mean they're free to say those things without consequence"

Nobody is denying that, what is being denied here is that somebody is a bigot for having a preference of one thing over another.

There is a distinction between people who disagrees with homosexuals but dont block somebodies rights, and people who disagree with homosexuals, but who DO block somebodies rights.

Im saying that putting both of those 2 people in the same bigot category is bigoted itself. Put only one of them in
22723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 8/21/13

dougeprofile wrote:
Any homosexual can marry ...any woman he wants; any heterosexual cannot marry any man (or woman) he wants (in most states) - there has never been any discrimination.

CollegeHumor made a cute video about this. It's titled "Gay Men Will Marry Your Girlfriends".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8

I confess, I don't know the difference between hummus and baba ganoush.
14774 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17
Offline
Posted 8/21/13

superluccix wrote:
So if I find ANYTHING about human beings disgusting, I am therefore I bigot in your mind. Ok lets test this logic.

I hate pedophiles, does that make me a bigot?


I don't think you honestly get what I was saying. Finding things which do not harm anyone which people were born with disgusting to the point of harassing those people and trying to take away their rights out of pure intolerance and hatred is in fact bigotry. I can't believe I had to spell that out for you, do you honestly believe finding a pedophile disgusting and finding a homosexual disgusting are the same thing? Honestly?


"However, when people shove their disdain in front of everyone's faces, I think it's fair to say they're obnoxious and rude people."

I could reverse this back on you. Whenever people show their disdain of people who dislike homosexuality in front of people, I think its fair to say they're obnoxious and rude people.


Sure, I won't disagree with that.


" Not tolerating intolerance is far from bigotry."

I could also reverse this back on you. You are demonizing people who have a different opinion than you. How is that tolerance? You think that labeling your opponents as intolerant then gives you endless free shots at them without any shot back at you? The people who disagree with homosexuals could label YOU the intolerant ones. The ones who think that anybody who disagrees with homosexuality is somehow a bigot.


You really like going in circles with all these "reversals", don't you? They aren't demonizing opinions, they're demonizing people who harass them for the sexuality they were born with and try to take their human rights away. Demonizing bigotry doesn't make you a bigot.
By the way, I never said it was tolerant! "NOT TOLERATING intolerance".
Anyway, of course there's a line. Supporters of homosexuality CAN be bigots and they CAN be intolerant, it's almost as if they're human or something! What I'm arguing isn't that, though. What I'm arguing is being against people who disagree with homosexuality and harass homosexuals and try to take homosexuals human rights away which I am arguing. Which IS bigotry and IS intolerant and there's absolutely no excuse or defense for it. I don't necessarily think anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a bigot, I think that those intolerant and harmful are bigots.


"Characterizing people who disapprove of homosexuality (to the point of trying to remove their rights) as being cruel or evil isn't exactly what I'd call bigotry. Taking away someones rights, anyone's rights, is a cruel act; demonizing people who do just that seems like a perfectly acceptable reaction."

So basically you consider somebody a bigot when they are forcibly blocking somebody elses rights due to their own prejudices? I agree, but lets see if you really do in a consistent fashion.

Do you support private property owners being allowed to discriminate who they bring onto their private property? As in, would you vote against a private property owner to choose who he/she wants to bring on their private property.


Sure, private property is private property and if they want to have their own circle of specific people I guess that's perfectly acceptable. They aren't out-right harming anyone in this situation. But it's a complex situation, with all sorts of "what ifs" to consider, so that's about the vaguest response I can give for a relatively vague question.


There is a distinction between people who disagrees with homosexuals but dont block somebodies rights, and people who disagree with homosexuals, but who DO block somebodies rights.

Im saying that putting both of those 2 people in the same bigot category is bigoted itself. Put only one of them in


I believe there's more to bigotry than simply removing rights, as I've already stated harassment is another big part of it. People harassing homosexuals and claiming it's an opinion also bother me and I do very much consider them bigots.
I'll be very clear here with what I consider bigotry; I feel bigotry is treating another human with hate, disgust, or intolerance for what they were born into (out of their control) due to one's own prejudice. I don't think considering someone a jerk for their "opinion" is bigotry. Ever. And that being said, I don't always agree that some who doesn't like a type of person for what they were born into is a bigot, but the likelihood of being a literal definition of a bigot is relatively high.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.