What Is Your Stance On Homosexuality?

[Tyrant Tar]

"The Bible says it's wrong". Many christians don't even now that:

- Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior.
- The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.
- Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today.

Also, the Bible hints at homosexuality in some key figures, according to the site Slash4life provided us earlier:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

 

[randomspot555]

- Your 2% of gays statistic is almost assuredly wrong right off the bat, since many people stay in the closet and just keep saying "no, I'm TOTALLY straight". Brought this up before, but.

It's generally accepted as 2-5% of the US population. While homosexuality as a sexual orientation isn't new, GLBT as it's own culture is. Now how that'll effect people identifying themselves as GLBT is yet to be seen, but we'll get a clearer picture in the years to come.

- I want to see some sources on your study for percentage of STDs in gays.

Ironically, HIV/AIDS isn't killing off GLBT so much as it is blacks. They make up almost half of those with HIV, despite being only 12% of the population.

I believe that did occur to me when I was writing that post. I maintain however, that in the case of someone who does not wish to be identified as gay, their perspective is just as valid as that who wants to be known as gay. Just because you are homosexual doesn't mean you're mandated to tell everyone, assert that your sexuality is O.K. (as if, you know, everyone needs validation for who they are) and then join a massive movement to make everyone accept you and let you marry.

Just as people who participate in black culture aren't also necessarily protesting against whitey, the gay culture is not purely about political and social equality. It is literally a culture, just like many other sects of American society have developed throughout the years.

I get what you're saying, I really do. That people don't have to be defined by what they can't control. I see where you're coming from and I respect it. I just think it's a bit misguided. I have a pacemaker and a service dog. And even though being disabled is not a defining part of me as a person, it does affect me in activities where it does not affect those without disabilities. So until going through airport security isn't a completely humiliating process and rent-a-cops at stores stop giving me crap, I'm going to communicate with other people with disabilities and discuss with them, as a community, on how best to handle these situations, and hopefully change how they work.

Five minutes of Googling? Hard to disagree with that. Sorry, I'm going off anecdotal experience, drug usage floats along in the gay bar my mom frequents. Though I'm sure this has more to do with being lower-middle class, and of course, a bunch of people coming out of the closet in less than ideal circumstances, getting into trouble, and getting together probably creates that environment.

Bars are not the epitome of good health, regardless of if it's a gay bar or not.

This is where your whole viewpoint stems from, but there are two major flaws with this. Morality is a matter of opinion, not fact. No one person shares your exact view on morality. Plus, morals don't really hold up well in here. Most people who have argued agaisnt you have supported their stance on homosexuality through a scientific basis.

To be fair, I think many people (including myself to some extent) don't see morals as pure opinon. Many are raised with morals and they're so ingrained into our minds that even though it is subjective, it's really hard for us to see it any other way.

 

[Fused]

To be fair, I think many people (including myself to some extent) don't see morals as pure opinon. Many are raised with morals and they're so ingrained into our minds that even though it is subjective, it's really hard for us to see it any other way.

I understand, but the fact that morals have been hammered into your mind doesn't change the fact that they are completely opinion-based.

Also, the Bible hints at homosexuality in some key figures, according to the site Slash4life provided us earlier:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

I'm not sure where I read it, but there was a theory that Ruth had some underlying lesbian themes.

 

[Slash4life]

ruth and naomi, and it's on that same site. follow the link

 

[CSolarstorm]

Just as people who participate in black culture aren't also necessarily protesting against whitey, the gay culture is not purely about political and social equality. It is literally a culture, just like many other sects of American society have developed throughout the years.

I get what you're saying, I really do. That people don't have to be defined by what they can't control. I see where you're coming from and I respect it. I just think it's a bit misguided. I have a pacemaker and a service dog. And even though being disabled is not a defining part of me as a person, it does affect me in activities where it does not affect those without disabilities. So until going through airport security isn't a completely humiliating process and rent-a-cops at stores stop giving me crap, I'm going to communicate with other people with disabilities and discuss with them, as a community, on how best to handle these situations, and hopefully change how they work.

I can totally relate to what you're saying as well, in fact I refrained from using my own disability (Spina bifida, wheelchair bound, annual surgery) as a likewise example. About a year ago I struggled with the question of whether my handicap should be considered my defining point as a person, or as an element which holds me back, you know the saying, "I'm handicapped but not disabled." Eventually I did come to the conclusion that the way my handicap effects my everyday life DOES shape me as a person and to an extent I did embrace sort of a handicap culture. This is despite the fact that some saw this culture as one of self-pity and a cry for sympathy, and my partner in particular couldn't understand how I would ever find something good and worthy in embracing a culture of the wheelchair bound. I can understand how this would be applied to the way homosexuals live and create a culture...although I am reluctant to compare being homosexual with being handicapped, for the sake of being homosexual. That is not a disabilty, disorder, or handicap as what I have is. However they are relatable because both, in a wake of going through troubles related to their circumstances, make their own culture of grievance, pride and progress.

That's me standing up for how I feel, and you standing up for how you feel, but if someone else feels differently; if The Agorist feels that his homosexuality isn't worth his attention at this moment I think it's important that we continue to stand up for the sake of anyone having an opinion rather than prevent someone from having a new opinion because it clashes with our viewpoint. The Agorist offers some rather ignorant statistics, but has a standpoint valid to his own experiences. In other words, just because we have a culture, does not give us a right to damn the beliefs of others. We don't want to adopt a religion lest we perscute the way we have been persecuted, and I believe the alarm bells are ringing from the other side that this is happening. I think that it's important to discern our feelings from morals. Our experiences don't necessarily forge an end-all paradigm of wrong and right, because others have experiences that lead them to believe something different, and no human in particular has every single experience possible to see the absolute truth of all. Should we make a thread about that?

EDIT: In the Holocaust, pink triangles were used to label homosexuals and black triangles were used to label the handicapped. The gay community adoped the pink triangle as a symbol of pride, but I don't think the handicapped community grabbed the black triangle. The U.N. handicap symbol is used to mark accomodations for the handicapped.

 

[wordy936]

On Heterophobia

It seems like we get an endless stream of propaganda from homosexuals about so-called "homophobia." In the interest of balance, I'd like to offer three quotes from homosexuals.

From homosexual author Dennis Altman: "Undoubtedly for many homosexuals there is something threatening in the idea of intimacy with the other sex."1

One well-known homosexual, David Geffen, has admitted that he "was afraid of the opposite sex," according to biographer Tom King, a fellow homosexual.2

And a homosexual named Mark Dennis has actually admitted in the Wall Street Journal that "the gay agenda...plans the end of 'breeders' (heterosexuals) through a takeover of public education."3

It's pretty evident that when homosexuals, especially those who like to label straights as "breeders," accuse others of homophobia, they are just projecting a version of their own phobia, heterophobia, onto others. It would be nice if we heard from other honest homosexuals here about heterophobia.

Also, many blacks are offended when they are compared to people who voluntarily engage in sexually aberrant activity, which comparison homosexuals often make. Homosexuals should apologize for this. There is no valid comparison.

1. Dennis Altman, The Homosexualization of America, the Americanization of the Homosexual (NY: St. Martin's Press, 1982), p. 222.

2. Tom King, "I am in love with Cher," Chicago Sun-Times, March 15, 2000, p. 50.

3. Mark Dennis, "AIDS and deep denial," Wall Street Journal, May 26, 1993, p. A19.

 

[CSolarstorm]

It seems like we get an endless stream of propaganda from homosexuals about so-called "homophobia." In the interest of balance, I'd like to offer three quotes from homosexuals.

From homosexual author Dennis Altman: "Undoubtedly for many homosexuals there is something threatening in the idea of intimacy with the other sex."1

One well-known homosexual, David Geffen, has admitted that he "was afraid of the opposite sex," according to biographer Tom King, a fellow homosexual.2

And a homosexual named Mark Dennis has actually admitted in the Wall Street Journal that "the gay agenda...plans the end of 'breeders' (heterosexuals) through a takeover of public education."3

It's pretty evident that when homosexuals, especially those who like to label straights as "breeders," accuse others of homophobia, they are just projecting a version of their own phobia, heterophobia, onto others. It would be nice if we heard from other honest homosexuals here about heterophobia.

Also, many blacks are offended when they are compared to people who voluntarily engage in sexually aberrant activity, which comparison homosexuals often make. Homosexuals should apologize for this. There is no valid comparison.

1. Dennis Altman, The Homosexualization of America, the Americanization of the Homosexual (NY: St. Martin's Press, 1982), p. 222.

2. Tom King, "I am in love with Cher," Chicago Sun-Times, March 15, 2000, p. 50.

3. Mark Dennis, "AIDS and deep denial," Wall Street Journal, May 26, 1993, p. A19.

Look, Wordy, "sexually abherrant" is a matter of opinion. Pro-gay rights activists often compare their struggle to be recognized as a group with equal rights to the civil rights movement of blacks in 1960's. In fact, I believe many civil activists for black rights often simultaneously fought for gay rights - the former was one that that was easier to assert. And I think there are many, many black people who stand up for gay rights. My parents are gay and we have a black Christian friend who has two kids, and his whole family is completely gay friendly...

Um, do you honestly think gays are trying to end the reign of "breeders", or even think that they can, considering the human race has ardently bred for thousands of years? Moreover, how do you think homosexuals group together in order to share this agenda? Thirdly, how do you relate coming out of the closet, which teenage gays do naturally, to their being some sort of communicable effort to end heterosexuality? Even if there was "heterophobia"...is there really a threat to our heterosexuality? You could say the gays have claimed Hollywood, or the educational system, or the government, or anything that could "teach" people to be gay, which is an overt impossibility, but still gays are the minority, and most of the people, despite school, TV, and government programs...still breed!

And it remains that you provide some quotes of gay people who are afraid of straight people, yet you openly say that homosexuality is sexually abherrant! Now why do you think they're scared of people like you? What except your clinical rejection of them leads gays to be "heterophobic"?

 

[Fused]

wordy, does your stupidity have no end?

It seems like we get an endless stream of propaganda from homosexuals about so-called "homophobia."

"So-called homophobia?" To question the existence of homophobia is about the same as questioning the existence of water. Look up the murder of Matthew Shephard, or read about the Adam Lambert controversey, and then try to ****ing tell me there is no such thing as homophobia.

In the interest of balance, I'd like to offer three quotes from homosexuals.

From homosexual author Dennis Altman: "Undoubtedly for many homosexuals there is something threatening in the idea of intimacy with the other sex."1

That doesn't really mean anything. All that says is that homsoexuals don't like intimacy with the other sex. Something anyone could have told you about a gay person.

One well-known homosexual, David Geffen, has admitted that he "was afraid of the opposite sex," according to biographer Tom King, a fellow homosexual.2

Again, this doesn't really mean anything. It says he was afraid of the opposite sex, but it doesn't go into more detail than that. Is he completely afaraid of every single woman out there or is he just afraid of having intimate relations with a woman?

And a homosexual named Mark Dennis has actually admitted in the Wall Street Journal that "the gay agenda...plans the end of 'breeders' (heterosexuals) through a takeover of public education."3

Can I get a link to this article or quote or soemthing because the only way a homosexual would admit is if they a) don't exist or b) were joking, which obviously doesn't really come across in text form.

But this may be true, homosexuals gathering to put an end to all the Breeders. I go to the meetings every Tuesday and Thursday night.

It's pretty evident that when homosexuals, especially those who like to label straights as "breeders," accuse others of homophobia, they are just projecting a version of their own phobia, heterophobia, onto others. It would be nice if we heard from other honest homosexuals here about heterophobia.

Heterophobia is a real thing I guess. But it isn't expressed or felt by all homosexuals. In fact, it seems odd that they would as gay men tend to relate more with straight women and gay women relate better to straight males. it also seems odd that anyone would be afraid of heterosexuals as we spend our entire lives around heterosexuals and come into obvious contact with them since the day we are born.

Also, many blacks are offended when they are compared to people who voluntarily engage in sexually aberrant activity, which comparison homosexuals often make. Homosexuals should apologize for this. There is no valid comparison.

Again, I must ask for some sort of source which details such a comparison being made because the only time I hear of homosexuals comapring themselves to blacks is when they say that blacks at one time had very little freedom.

1. Dennis Altman, The Homosexualization of America, the Americanization of the Homosexual (NY: St. Martin's Press, 1982), p. 222.

2. Tom King, "I am in love with Cher," Chicago Sun-Times, March 15, 2000, p. 50.

3. Mark Dennis, "AIDS and deep denial," Wall Street Journal, May 26, 1993, p. A19.

By the way, if you're going to copy **** from a website, especially a ****ed-up place like HOME, you may want to actually understand what you are copying stealing (since you didn't cite/credit it) beforehand.

 

[randomspot555]

It seems like we get an endless stream of propaganda from homosexuals about so-called "homophobia."

It's almost as if people want to discriminate based on no other reason such as sexual orientation.

Oh wait, that's exactly what's going on.

The irony is that the vocal minority who act as if these are "special" rights that GLBT are asking for are also on the side of free market thinkers. Tell me, is it really in the best interest of a business to fire a competent employee only because of a trivial matter such as their sexual orientation?

]From homosexual author Dennis Altman: "Undoubtedly for many homosexuals there is something threatening in the idea of intimacy with the other sex."1

What is so bad about this quote?

One well-known homosexual, David Geffen, has admitted that he "was afraid of the opposite sex," according to biographer Tom King, a fellow homosexual.2

I like how you define these people by their sexuality and ignore Geffen's accomplishments like, you know, being a huge record executive with a record company named after him.

And a homosexual named Mark Dennis has actually admitted in the Wall Street Journal that "the gay agenda...plans the end of 'breeders' (heterosexuals) through a takeover of public education."3

Seriously? This is just crack-pot type of crazy on the level of Alex Jones.

Also, many blacks are offended when they are compared to people who voluntarily engage in sexually aberrant activity, which comparison homosexuals often make. Homosexuals should apologize for this. There is no valid comparison.

First off, false.

Second, let's pretend that sexual orientation is a choice *never mind that earlier in this thread, we all pretty much concluded that it was a combination of environmental factors and is not something people conciously choose*. You know what else is 100% a choice and is one of the most protected rights in the United States? Religious freedom. You can not be discriminated based on one's religion. EVEN THOUGH that religion is 100% a choice and people can switch of their own free will.

So this whole "BUT THEY CHOOSE TO BE GAY" argument is not valid at all when denying rights.

 

[snare]

Okay honestly, almost everything Wordy has said has been directly copy and pasted from outward sources. (Home, Wayne Lela...)

Besides, it seems like this thing's account was created solely to post in this topic. Probably to piss ya'll off too. :[

 

[J.T.]

It seems like we get an endless stream of propaganda from homosexuals about so-called "homophobia."

"So-called"? Are you seriously questioning the existence of homophobia?

From homosexual author Dennis Altman: "Undoubtedly for many homosexuals there is something threatening in the idea of intimacy with the other sex."1

Yeah, that would be because he's gay. You know, like how a straight guy doesn't like the idea of sex with another man.

One well-known homosexual, David Geffen, has admitted that he "was afraid of the opposite sex," according to biographer Tom King, a fellow homosexual.2

In terms of sexual feelings, he might be afraid. It's entirely possible he's entirely afraid of women, but that would make him a misogynistic asshat, and it does not represent the entire gay community any more than a black person saying he hates whites represents the entire black community - in other words, not at all.

And a homosexual named Mark Dennis has actually admitted in the Wall Street Journal that "the gay agenda...plans the end of 'breeders' (heterosexuals) through a takeover of public education."3

Yeah, because homosexuality is a cult. Have you been to some of their rituals? They conjure up the spirit of Oscar Wilde for guidance.

You can't be serious. I Googled the source you listed here. The only mention anywhere on the web was on, you guessed it, the website H.O.M.E. (Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment), which is a terrifyingly anti-gay website and is much more likely to give fake sources and quotes. A search for the Wall Street Journal brought up revealed nothing either. When your source material is irretrievable and the only place this is quoted anywhere on the Internet is a heavily biased site essentially dedicated to keeping gays from getting the rights straight people do, something needs to be called into question.

Is this the only place you get your arguments? Because all you've really said have been copy-pasted from either Wayne Lela's personal site or the official H.O.M.E. site, peppered with your own comments that basically amount to "you're wrong, I'm right, deal with it".

It's pretty evident that when homosexuals, especially those who like to label straights as "breeders," accuse others of homophobia, they are just projecting a version of their own phobia, heterophobia, onto others. It would be nice if we heard from other honest homosexuals here about heterophobia.

Just as there are some straights that are homophobic, it is entirely possible that some gays are heterophobic. However, just as a few homophobic straight people do not represent the entire straight community, a few heterophobic gays do not represent the entire gay community. In addition, these heterophobic gays are clearly not very vocal or influential, seeing as how no one has ever seemed to question the rights of straight people to things like donating blood, marrying the person they love, and the right to enjoy life without being beaten for their orientation.

Also, many blacks are offended when they are compared to people who voluntarily engage in sexually aberrant activity, which comparison homosexuals often make. Homosexuals should apologize for this.

"Sexually aberrant" is a subjective term, so uh.

There is no valid comparison.

Black people had to fight absurdly hard against a racist majority to get the rights that white people had from birth.
Gay people have to fight absurdly hard against a homophobic majority to get the rights that straight people have from birth.

Almost any argument against gay rights could be applied just as validly to black people with only a few word substitutions. Reminds me of an amusing political cartoon, as well.

EDIT: Snare, I doubt he's a troll. He's putting too much thought and energy into it, actually bringing up sources and such for his claims. They're ******** sources, but sources nonetheless.

 

[RichRI322]

Love is never wrong. period.

 

[Profesco]

I understand, but the fact that morals have been hammered into your mind doesn't change the fact that they are completely opinion-based.

Wait, it's a confirmed fact that all morals are 100% opinion-based, with no other form of rational justification behind them? Holy heck! This blows my mind!


Also, it would be hilarious if you guys were all getting your pants in a twist arguing with a bot.

 

[snare]

Also, it would be hilarious if you guys were all getting your pants in a twist arguing with a bot.

Is..Is vhat I say, yes?

 

[Tim the turtle]

Wait, it's a confirmed fact that all morals are 100% opinion-based, with no other form of rational justification behind them? Holy heck! This blows my mind!

Profesco, I love you, in every possible sense of the word.

 

[wordy936]

Sometimes you have to wonder if some pro-homosexual people can read. They say I said things I never said. For example, I never said sexual orientations are choices. Sexual BEHAVIORS are.

Also, those of you who say sexual aberrations are subjective, are matters of opinion---I suppose you're going to say that the statement "necrophilia is a sexual aberration" is just an opinion, not fact. Give me a break.

Deny the facts all you want. Misinterpret me all you want. You just look foolish and destroy your credibility.

Too, for those who want to see part of a Wall Street Journal page that contains Mark Dennis's comment about the "gay agenda" go here http://home60515.com/Dennis.jpg.

 

[Fused]

Sometimes you have to wonder if some pro-homosexual people can read. They say I said things I never said. For example, I never said sexual orientations are choices. Sexual BEHAVIORS are.

Sometimes I have to wonder why you are alive but the nine year old girl with cancer next door is obviously in extremely poor health. Life, huh?

Deny the facts all you want. Misinterpret me all you want. You just look foolish and destroy your credibility.

This coming from someone who can't make a logical post that stands for more than two minutes or can't even respond to the faults in their argument. Thank you for playing, see you next time.

Too, for those who want to see part of a Wall Street Journal page that contains Mark Dennis's comment about the "gay agenda" go here http://home60515.com/Dennis.jpg.

I laugh since he is talking about the meanings connected to the word "gay" and not anything about actual homosexuals and whatnot. Then he mentions Reagan, who was president 20 years ago, giving us a nice time frame this was written in, and the fact that you attached this individual's views to the entire gay community. Thanks for trying, though.

 

[randomspot555]

Sometimes you have to wonder if some pro-homosexual people can read. They say I said things I never said. For example, I never said sexual orientations are choices. Sexual BEHAVIORS are.

3 guesses on how sexual behaviors are based on, and the first two don't count.

Also, those of you who say sexual aberrations are subjective, are matters of opinion---I suppose you're going to say that the statement "necrophilia is a sexual aberration" is just an opinion, not fact. Give me a break.

Deny the facts all you want. Misinterpret me all you want. You just look foolish and destroy your credibility.

I won't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't attacking, misquoting, or anything other than responding to your post. You come back with a list of vague sentences that don't give you an ounce of credibility.

Too, for those who want to see part of a Wall Street Journal page that contains Mark Dennis's comment about the "gay agenda" go here http://home60515.com/Dennis.jpg.

Just because someone wrote it doesn't make it true. If you honestly think there is a "gay agenda" to destroy America, you need to prove it. It sounds just as ludicrous as the crap Alex Jones pushes day in and day out, and guess what, he hasn't proved that the New World Order is happening.

 

[Rabidmunchlax]

Sometimes you have to wonder if some pro-homosexual people can read. They say I said things I never said. For example, I never said sexual orientations are choices. Sexual BEHAVIORS are.

Also, those of you who say sexual aberrations are subjective, are matters of opinion---I suppose you're going to say that the statement "necrophilia is a sexual aberration" is just an opinion, not fact. Give me a break.

Deny the facts all you want. Misinterpret me all you want. You just look foolish and destroy your credibility.

Too, for those who want to see part of a Wall Street Journal page that contains Mark Dennis's comment about the "gay agenda" go here http://home60515.com/Dennis.jpg.

What you say about the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behaviours is, like your main arguments, illogical. It's like saying; you can love that person but you may not kiss or carress etc them.

Also, your analogy about necrophilia has a major flaw. A corpse can't consent, a live human can.

By the way, I'm not gay or anything but have many LGB friends and aquaintences and I stand up for there rights as a peer

 

[J.T.]

ever said sexual orientations are choices. Sexual BEHAVIORS are.

Now, let's assume two gay partners don't have any STDs and are using condoms just to be really careful. What is so wrong with that? Why do you want to punish even the safe gays because some gays MIGHT get an STD?

Also, those of you who say sexual aberrations are subjective, are matters of opinion---I suppose you're going to say that the statement "necrophilia is a sexual aberration" is just an opinion, not fact. Give me a break.

Yes, yes I would. Why does this matter?

Also, what Rabidmunchlax said. The day you show me a corpse that can consent to sex in its current state is the day the zombies take over that necrophilia would be acceptable in my mind.

Deny the facts all you want. Misinterpret me all you want. You just look foolish and destroy your credibility.

Says the guy who only quotes from an extremely right-wing anti-gay organization's site. Tell me what you have said and how I misinterpreted it.

Too, for those who want to see part of a Wall Street Journal page that contains Mark Dennis's comment about the "gay agenda" go here http://home60515.com/Dennis.jpg.

Let's ignore for a second the fact that this guy was a reader and in no way a representative or spokesman for the gay community - he was just a guy writing in to the Wall Street Journal, possibly attempting to make gays look bad. Let's ignore the fact that you might be misrepresenting what he said - it's entirely possible he was referring to the idea of the gay agenda, which is pretty damn stupid in the first place because it implies gays are altogether some whole group or cult or something. Let's ignore the fact that just because some guy writes in to an editor and makes a comment on the "gay agenda" that doesn't exist doesn't make it true. Then, and only then, would you have a point.