| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/05/2007 07:28:25 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Explain to me your basis for stating that homosexuality isn't natural. |
It's a self-defeating sexual proclivity. Homosexuals can't reproduce, thus any argument that homosexuality is a genetic trait is an argument for an eventual demise of homosexuality.
Anyway, when most (some) people say it isn't natural that is typically what they mean. Sexual activity with no point, no possibility of passing along your genes. Modern "enlightened" philosophoes aside, that is still the basic driving force behind sexual intercourse in all species including human. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:32:02 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You think it's a choice?
Who would sign up for the abuse and harassment? |
This is actually a very weak argument. Humanity is full of examples where short term pleasures derived from an activity outweigh the social stigmas attached to the activity and those who practice it.
Who would choose to watch their family destroyed and their life ruined by dabbling with meth? Well, a few tens of thousands of people a year. Every year.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:34:25 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Again, you make wrong and harmful generalizations that have absolutely no basis in fact.
Homophobia is CLEARLY an incorrect and inflammatory word used solely to discredit the completely valid views people have about homosexuality. Those views are typically not toward any person directly -- except as false claims that unacceptance of their chosen lifestyle is "harmful" to them.
I have no dislike toward "homosexual" people, just toward their actions. I think most people incorrectly labelled "homophobes" feel the same way.
|
Completely valid views? That's like saying racism is completely valid. Which at a point in time and in some areas is still said to be valid... just like valuing males over females (still practiced today as well). All of these things that are thought to be valid for religious or "scientific" reasons or otherwise.
Disliking the action or the person, you are still passing judgment. |
Correct, passing judgment is not wrong. You judge photos here. You judge whether to see a movie. You judge what style of clothes you wear. Having an opinion about someone's chosen lifestyle is not wrong.
And it's different from racism completely.
No
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:36:12 AM · #29 |
One thing I wouldn't mind knowing.....how many of the people who are, shall we say, not particulary enamored by gay people in general, actually have any kind of relationship with any gay people?
Do any of your family members have gay friends, or have you ever worked closely with gay people and gotten to know them?
The longer I have gay friends, the less I understand the dislike of the principle.
And as much as you may not like to be associated with the type of people who killed Matthew Shepard, as long as the myths, fear, and ignorance are perpetuated, there will continue to be persecution and discrimination against people who are what they are......just the same as you and I are male, female, tall, short, left-handed, good at sports, musically talented......all of these things are part of the genetic mix and you cannot change any of them.
IMNSHO, the quiet, passive anti-gays are to a certain degree worse than the screaming gay-bashers because they aren't honest in their discrimination.
Don't want to be labeled as or *be* a homophobe?
Then research it and discover that it *is* genetic, it *is* a natural condition, and that homosexuality will not hurt you, cause you any harm, or ruin your life.
Please try to understand where your feelings about homosexuality come from and possibly you will have enough in your heart to at least entertain the idea that your conditioning may be where the issue lies.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:37:32 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Again, you make wrong and harmful generalizations that have absolutely no basis in fact.
Homophobia is CLEARLY an incorrect and inflammatory word used solely to discredit the completely valid views people have about homosexuality. Those views are typically not toward any person directly -- except as false claims that unacceptance of their chosen lifestyle is "harmful" to them. |
No, it isn't.
And views based on fear, ignorance, and/or conditioning, while typical, should not be labeled as valid.
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
I have no dislike toward "homosexual" people, just toward their actions. I think most people incorrectly labelled "homophobes" feel the same way.
There are exceptions where folks are intolerant or even violent toward those who have chosen this lifestyle, but those people are typically rejected by the community they claim to align with -- because their actions of intolerance and violence violate the beliefs and practices of said group.
So yes, homophobia is an incorrect word -- and is itself a term of hatred. |
Okay, folks, let's throw these into the mix here NOW!
Get off the whole inflammatory word thing, you're wrong.
Dictionary.com Unabridged ho·mo·pho·bi·a [hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh]
noun- unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
[Origin: 1955–60; homo(sexual) + -phobia]
Related forms
ho·mo·pho·bic, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - ho·mo·pho·bi·a
Pronunciation Key (hô'mə-fô'bç-ə)
n.-Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.
[homo(sexual) + -phobia.]
ho'mo·phobe' n., ho'mo·pho'bic adj.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
WordNet-homophobia
noun-prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary - Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun-irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals —ho·mo·phobe /'hO-m&-"fOb/ noun —ho·mo·pho·bic /"hO-m&-'fO-bik/ adjective
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
To me, the operative word is irrational.
Notice that the MEDICAL dictionary considers this fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality as irrational.
I don't disoute that this behavior isn't all too typical of conditioning, but I have a reall problem with its perpetuation. |
And here's the flaw in your argument. I'm completely reasonable. Your automatic dislike of people who don't toe the line with political correctness is not very open-minded or tolerant. My (and many others) viewpoint is valid, is reasonable, is logical, is not harmful to anyone.
There is no FEAR involved.
Homophobia is the redneck and his buddies going gay-bashing because those folks are different.
Homophobia is not someone loving and caring enough to take an honest stance on the chosen gay lifestyle, while at the same time not harming them or discriminating against them.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:41:42 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
One thing I wouldn't mind knowing.....how many of the people who are, shall we say, not particulary enamored by gay people in general, actually have any kind of relationship with any gay people?
Do any of your family members have gay friends, or have you ever worked closely with gay people and gotten to know them?
The longer I have gay friends, the less I understand the dislike of the principle.
And as much as you may not like to be associated with the type of people who killed Matthew Shepard, as long as the myths, fear, and ignorance are perpetuated, there will continue to be persecution and discrimination against people who are what they are......just the same as you and I are male, female, tall, short, left-handed, good at sports, musically talented......all of these things are part of the genetic mix and you cannot change any of them.
IMNSHO, the quiet, passive anti-gays are to a certain degree worse than the screaming gay-bashers because they aren't honest in their discrimination.
Don't want to be labeled as or *be* a homophobe?
Then research it and discover that it *is* genetic, it *is* a natural condition, and that homosexuality will not hurt you, cause you any harm, or ruin your life.
Please try to understand where your feelings about homosexuality come from and possibly you will have enough in your heart to at least entertain the idea that your conditioning may be where the issue lies. |
Anyone with intellectual honestly KNOWS there is no proof homosexuality is genetic -- it's never been scientifically proven. Yes, I've worked with many gay people and have never treated them differently.
I think you need to point you focus toward those you disagree with and get to know them and quit bowing to stereotypes.
What two people do in their bedroom will not hurt me or my family. Just like the religion someone chooses won't hurt me. But when you try to force people to accept those choices without criticism... then THAT is something to be feared.
Message edited by ClubJuggle - No personal attacks, please. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:42:48 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Again, you make wrong and harmful generalizations that have absolutely no basis in fact.
Homophobia is CLEARLY an incorrect and inflammatory word used solely to discredit the completely valid views people have about homosexuality. Those views are typically not toward any person directly -- except as false claims that unacceptance of their chosen lifestyle is "harmful" to them.
I have no dislike toward "homosexual" people, just toward their actions. I think most people incorrectly labelled "homophobes" feel the same way.
|
Completely valid views? That's like saying racism is completely valid. Which at a point in time and in some areas is still said to be valid... just like valuing males over females (still practiced today as well). All of these things that are thought to be valid for religious or "scientific" reasons or otherwise.
Disliking the action or the person, you are still passing judgment. |
Correct, passing judgment is not wrong. You judge photos here. You judge whether to see a movie. You judge what style of clothes you wear. Having an opinion about someone's chosen lifestyle is not wrong.
And it's different from racism completely.
No |
Homophobia is only different than racism if you believe homosexuality is a choice. It is not. Homosexuality, in most cases as there are always exceptions, is not a choice. That is what the person is and nothing is going to change that. As has been argued, even if they choose abstaining, they are still homosexual by nature.
Apparently there are those that do believe it's a choice and therefore justify their bigotry.
Not saying that you are a bigot, you seem to have a more level head than most who believe homosexuality is wrong. I just disagree with your believe, strongly. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:44:34 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
And here's the flaw in your argument. I'm completely reasonable. Your automatic dislike of people who don't toe the line with political correctness is not very open-minded or tolerant. My (and many others) viewpoint is valid, is reasonable, is logical, is not harmful to anyone.
There is no FEAR involved.
Homophobia is the redneck and his buddies going gay-bashing because those folks are different.
Homophobia is not someone loving and caring enough to take an honest stance on the chosen gay lifestyle, while at the same time not harming them or discriminating against them. |
No, READ the definitions.....it's NOT just the redneck and his buddies.
You are homophobic, read the definitions again, and it's not a dirty word.
And thanks, you're the first person who as EVER accused me of political correctness......and that isn't remotely the issue here.
You are the one whose arguments get negated with that whole "chosen gay lifestyle" . It is NOT a choice.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:47:54 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Egads, what a stupid comment. Associating those against homosexuality with Matthew Sheppard. It's shame we don't have an ignore feature and you deserve it.
Anyone with intellectual honestly KNOWS there is no proof homosexuality is genetic -- it's never been scientifically proven. Yes, I've worked with many gay people and have never treated them differently.
I think you need to point you focus toward those you disagree with and get to know them and quit bowing to stereotypes.
What two people do in their bedroom will not hurt me or my family. Just like the religion someone chooses won't hurt me. But when you try to force people to accept those choices without criticism... then THAT is something to be feared. |
I think this conversation is more geared towards those who DO fear homosexuality and DO feel like it will affect them in their every day lives. As I have said before, I don't agree with you, but I don't find your views to be the completely what is the issue at hand, which is homophobia.
There is a difference between criticism of homosexuality and those that actively pursue laws and actions against the homosexual community. Criticism kept to yourself is your business. When you go to the voting booths, you are pushing your views onto someone else's life. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:48:04 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
And here's the flaw in your argument. I'm completely reasonable. Your automatic dislike of people who don't toe the line with political correctness is not very open-minded or tolerant. My (and many others) viewpoint is valid, is reasonable, is logical, is not harmful to anyone.
There is no FEAR involved.
Homophobia is the redneck and his buddies going gay-bashing because those folks are different.
Homophobia is not someone loving and caring enough to take an honest stance on the chosen gay lifestyle, while at the same time not harming them or discriminating against them. |
No, READ the definitions.....it's NOT just the redneck and his buddies.
You are homophobic, read the definitions again, and it's not a dirty word.
And thanks, you're the first person who as EVER accused me of political correctness......and that isn't remotely the issue here.
You are the one whose arguments get negated with that whole "chosen gay lifestyle" . It is NOT a choice. |
Read them and none of them apply as they all indicate fear of or irrational. Sorry, you lose on this score.
And I'm done here. This is nothing but gainsay and it does no good.
See you in the challenges.
Message edited by ClubJuggle - No personal attacks, please. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:49:38 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
And here's the flaw in your argument. I'm completely reasonable. Your automatic dislike of people who don't toe the line with political correctness is not very open-minded or tolerant. My (and many others) viewpoint is valid, is reasonable, is logical, is not harmful to anyone.
There is no FEAR involved.
Homophobia is the redneck and his buddies going gay-bashing because those folks are different.
Homophobia is not someone loving and caring enough to take an honest stance on the chosen gay lifestyle, while at the same time not harming them or discriminating against them. |
No, READ the definitions.....it's NOT just the redneck and his buddies.
You are homophobic, read the definitions again, and it's not a dirty word.
And thanks, you're the first person who as EVER accused me of political correctness......and that isn't remotely the issue here.
You are the one whose arguments get negated with that whole "chosen gay lifestyle" . It is NOT a choice. |
Read them and none of them apply as they all indicate fear of or irrational. Sorry, you lose on this score.
And I'm done here. This is nothing but gainsay and it does no good. Closed-minded folks like yourself have made up your mind, refuse to study the issue, and lean too heavily on stereotypes to make your weak and invalid points.
See you in the challenges. |
As long as you say it's not irrational it doesn't fit the definition. That is convenient. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:50:13 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Egads, what a stupid comment. Associating those against homosexuality with Matthew Sheppard. It's shame we don't have an ignore feature and you deserve it.
Anyone with intellectual honestly KNOWS there is no proof homosexuality is genetic -- it's never been scientifically proven. Yes, I've worked with many gay people and have never treated them differently.
I think you need to point you focus toward those you disagree with and get to know them and quit bowing to stereotypes.
What two people do in their bedroom will not hurt me or my family. Just like the religion someone chooses won't hurt me. But when you try to force people to accept those choices without criticism... then THAT is something to be feared. |
I think this conversation is more geared towards those who DO fear homosexuality and DO feel like it will affect them in their every day lives. As I have said before, I don't agree with you, but I don't find your views to be the completely what is the issue at hand, which is homophobia.
There is a difference between criticism of homosexuality and those that actively pursue laws and actions against the homosexual community. Criticism kept to yourself is your business. When you go to the voting booths, you are pushing your views onto someone else's life. |
Well, you had me until you talked about the voting booths. Laws against homosexuals are wrong. Laws keeping marriage to its definition are not. Special rights for homosexuals are wrong -- such as gay marriage. Marriage = one man + one woman. Anyone can "marry" who wants to marry someone and fulfill this time-honored definition. So no one is being deprived except by their own choosing.
But again, I'm out of this thread.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:50:15 AM · #38 |
| The only reason a male could be homophobic is if they are sent to jail. The fear of being raped by a homosexual. Now that'a a real homophobic fear. Other wise the word is really silly. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:54:09 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Egads, what a stupid comment. Associating those against homosexuality with Matthew Sheppard. It's shame we don't have an ignore feature and you deserve it.
Anyone with intellectual honestly KNOWS there is no proof homosexuality is genetic -- it's never been scientifically proven. Yes, I've worked with many gay people and have never treated them differently.
I think you need to point you focus toward those you disagree with and get to know them and quit bowing to stereotypes.
What two people do in their bedroom will not hurt me or my family. Just like the religion someone chooses won't hurt me. But when you try to force people to accept those choices without criticism... then THAT is something to be feared. |
I think this conversation is more geared towards those who DO fear homosexuality and DO feel like it will affect them in their every day lives. As I have said before, I don't agree with you, but I don't find your views to be the completely what is the issue at hand, which is homophobia.
There is a difference between criticism of homosexuality and those that actively pursue laws and actions against the homosexual community. Criticism kept to yourself is your business. When you go to the voting booths, you are pushing your views onto someone else's life. |
Well, you had me until you talked about the voting booths. Laws against homosexuals are wrong. Laws keeping marriage to its definition are not. Special rights for homosexuals are wrong -- such as gay marriage. Marriage = one man + one woman. Anyone can "marry" who wants to marry someone and fulfill this time-honored definition. So no one is being deprived except by their own choosing.
But again, I'm out of this thread. |
Oh boy here we go. SPECIAL RIGHTS!!
I want to marry who I love. But I love a woman. I can't get married. Oh darn, guess I don't get my "special rights" and I'll just have to pretend I love a man to get the "regular rights" like everyone else except the thousands of other gays who also don't get the right to marry who they love.
I take back what I had said. I do believe you are homophobic. Someone else's marriage has nothing to do with yours so it's really not your business what 2 consenting adults want to do with their lives and their vows. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:55:40 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
The only reason a male could be homophobic is if they are sent to jail. The fear of being raped by a homosexual. Now that'a a real homophobic fear. Other wise the word is really silly. |
There it is. The jail scenario is a rational fear. I don't even think that would be called homophobia... though I suppose it could be. The homophobia we are discussing here is an irrational fear as illustrated in the definitions. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 08:00:05 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Egads, what a stupid comment. Associating those against homosexuality with Matthew Sheppard. It's shame we don't have an ignore feature and you deserve it. |
But it's not so far off the mark. You may not think that you're part of the same ilk, but certainly you have some feelings/thoughts about where I'm from with my attitude towards homosexuality. I mean if I ain't "Us", I must be "Them", right?
There's no middle of the road here, it's like sorta dead or kinda pregnant.......it's one or the other.
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Anyone with intellectual honestly KNOWS there is no proof homosexuality is genetic -- it's never been scientifically proven. Yes, I've worked with many gay people and have never treated them differently. |
Can you substantiate that?
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
I think you need to point you focus toward those you disagree with and get to know them and quit bowing to stereotypes.
What two people do in their bedroom will not hurt me or my family. Just like the religion someone chooses won't hurt me. But when you try to force people to accept those choices without criticism... then THAT is something to be feared. |
Umm.....I'm not the one bowing to stereotypes.
I believe that everyone has a right to their own genetic mapping, their environmetal conditioning, and whatever their beliefs are......I just don't want it anyone perpetuating hurtful bias, and irrational fear.
The only way that can be stopped is for people to be willing to accept and tolerate that some people are different no matter what their feeling on the subject is.
You think I like being a middle-aged, fat white guys that's into cars and loves the outdoors?
I get categorized as a redneck by people who first get an eyeful of me.....I'd WAAAAAAAAY rather be mistaken for gay.
Let's do a comparison......
Gay: style, taste, generally intellectual and cultured, can cook, is a great housekeeper, sensitive, emotional....
Redneck: narrow-minded, one-eyebrowed, mouth-breathing, Neanderthal who has a pickupo the he drives drunk and too fast, watches cars for hours drive around in a circle, has questionable hygiene and denatl care, and might have slept with a close relative.
Ooh, ooh!!! Can I be a redneck, PLEASE??????
Okay, so I'm being ridiculous, but do you see my point?
Look, I'm not trying to force anyone to believe anything. First, that's futile, second, that's incredibly ignorant, like preaching, and third, I'm just trying to have another point of view for you to see.
You don't have to do anything at all to suit me. I'm just offering this up.
I'm not trying to "win" here, or change who and/or what you are, but I actually like to have different ideas about my beliefs so that I can make intelligent decisions and not get blindsided by obvious available information.
I don't think for one second that I could ever change your beliefs. But I'd sure like it if maybe you would at least consider investigating some of this info and not necessarily pass along quite as strong of a dislike of other people who don't happen to be like you to your children.
Message edited by author 2007-11-05 08:08:15.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 08:05:45 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Explain to me your basis for stating that homosexuality isn't natural. |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
It's a self-defeating sexual proclivity. Homosexuals can't reproduce, thus any argument that homosexuality is a genetic trait is an argument for an eventual demise of homosexuality.
Anyway, when most (some) people say it isn't natural that is typically what they mean. Sexual activity with no point, no possibility of passing along your genes. Modern "enlightened" philosophoes aside, that is still the basic driving force behind sexual intercourse in all species including human. |
It doesn't have anything to do with perpetuation of the species, obviously, and that argument doesn't wash or it won't show up so many other places in the animal kingdom.
As to the demise of homosexuality? Remember the Shakers? DUH!!!
Talk about guaranteed self-destruction!
I'd still like to know where homosexuality is born if not genetic.
There are too many gays that I know that have come from the most staunch of puritan, conservative backgrounds.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 08:29:12 AM · #43 |
I think people really need to look inside and find out why they are "against" anything. You have to assess your situation.
For me, a heterosexual white male, (non practicing catholic)- its easy to be anti everything.
But I think I have to keep reminding myself to mind my own business; to put myself in other peoples shoes; and not judge anything because I wouldn't want people to do it to me. America is too repressed, especially sexually- look at europe to see this. Peoples "morality righteousness" should end where others basic rights start.
What strikes me as really funny, hypocritical and even ironic, is the so called "Christians" be it in Bible thumping Red states or at Catholic mass, are the least tolerant people in the world. And even teh word "tolerate" is a loaded word. It means to "put up with something that bothers you. - But why would the sexual orientation of another person "bother you?" Becuase of the Bible? Religion. give me a break.
If Jesus was here, who would he be hanging out with? What would he say was most important? skin color, sexual orientation, or loving your neighbor as yourself? |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 08:40:01 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I think people really need to look inside and find out why they are "against" anything. You have to assess your situation.
For me, a heterosexual white male, (non practicing catholic)- its easy to be anti everything.
But I think I have to keep reminding myself to mind my own business; to put myself in other peoples shoes; and not judge anything because I wouldn't want people to do it to me. America is too repressed, especially sexually- look at europe to see this. Peoples "morality righteousness" should end where others basic rights start.
What strikes me as really funny, hypocritical and even ironic, is the so called "Christians" be it in Bible thumping Red states or at Catholic mass, are the least tolerant people in the world. And even teh word "tolerate" is a loaded word. It means to "put up with something that bothers you. - But why would the sexual orientation of another person "bother you?" Becuase of the Bible? Religion. give me a break.
If Jesus was here, who would he be hanging out with? What would he say was most important? skin color, sexual orientation, or loving your neighbor as yourself? |
What he said!
Like that username, too!
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 08:40:31 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
What if a heterosexual is born that way? Not an irrational bias, but ingrained in our "ability" to survive? They were born to have a natural feeling to not like and not want homosexual behavior, because it is not good for the tribe/pride/herd. 12000+ years of trying to keep the human race alive by propagating the species, may be hard to weed out of society in less than 100 years. |
That could be extended to any who are not the same.
Those who dress differently.
Those with different colored skin.
Those who speak differently.
Those who worship differently.
etc. |
??? He ( dacrazyrn) was headed in the direction of procreation and survival of the species. That has nothing to do with "differences". I think he made a solid point. Homosexuality is not natural (we wouldn't have male/female combinations if it was). A built-in bias against the "unnatural" could have some long-term survival roots. |
Think about it a bit more.
Any of those differences would be equally "unnatural" to someone who had never seen a person with different skin color, heard a different language, seen people dress a certain way, worship in a different way or any other common difference.
Also, just because one particular combination is necessary to produce offspring, doesn't mean others are, as you put it, "unnatural". |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 08:43:05 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Anyone with intellectual honestly KNOWS there is no proof homosexuality is genetic -- it's never been scientifically proven. |
you seem like the last person on earth who should be arguing against a concept because it's "never been scientifically proven." |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 08:46:34 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Explain to me your basis for stating that homosexuality isn't natural. |
It's a self-defeating sexual proclivity. Homosexuals can't reproduce, thus any argument that homosexuality is a genetic trait is an argument for an eventual demise of homosexuality. |
there are a number of genetic abnormalities that are fatal to children before they reach the age of reproduction. going with your line of thinking, shouldn't those have been wiped out long ago because the victims never reproduced?
genetics is not as simple as 1+1. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 08:50:47 AM · #48 |
spaz - i have hidden your last post.
please do not drag this argument into a religous debate or it will be locked like the other thread.
thanks. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 08:53:01 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
there are a number of genetic abnormalities that are fatal to children before they reach the age of reproduction. going with your line of thinking, shouldn't those have been wiped out long ago because the victims never reproduced? |
Which abnormalities? |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 08:58:00 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by vtruan:
The only reason a male could be homophobic is if they are sent to jail. The fear of being raped by a homosexual. Now that'a a real homophobic fear. Other wise the word is really silly. |
There it is. The jail scenario is a rational fear. I don't even think that would be called homophobia... though I suppose it could be. The homophobia we are discussing here is an irrational fear as illustrated in the definitions. |
The homophobia being discussed here is a linguistic way to take all opinions that homosexual is morally wrong or a risky sexual lifestyle to be avoided and immediately dismiss them as 'irrational fears'. As usual, freedom of expression (both in sexuality and religious belief) is the first thing that one side of the argument tries to remove from the other. People should be free to be homosexual. People should also be free to think it isn't right. Both sides can try and shape society accordingly.
I find the term as grating as deeming people who don't support the war as not un-patriotic. |
|
