Homophobia

You bring up an interesting point that people do forget about, Hissora. A phobia is a fear and it doesn't mean someone is going to go out and do something bad because of it. Most often if someone has a phobia, they run the other way instead of going to confront it with violence. I.e. if you have arachnophobia, if there's a spider, often the person will do whatever it takes to get away from it, to include nearly killing themselves as they dodge around and freak out.

I think phobias are generally wrong overreactions to stuff, but yes, homophobia in itself isn't what is the worst. It's people that hate instead that are the problem. People can be worked on for phobias if they want to and strive to overcome a fear. However, if someone hates, that's when the real danger comes in. Hate can arise from fear, sure, but not always. Hate also arises from people just being disgusted with something, or if someone is doing something against their core beliefs. There doesn't have to be any fear involved at all.

 

Its okay but im 15 i dont think in those kinds of ways i guess..its not my fault people throw around the word homophobia either..not knowing its real definition and stuff...I guess I never thought of it that way..and no sorry but you didnt burst my bubble just gave me a new way of perspective i guess...

 

No... People can choose to be homo. When your a certain skin tone your stuck that way and you can't change it without the risk of turning into another "Michael Jackson". Everyone thinks it's like racism but IT'S NOT! And for those of you who said you can't change being homo you actually can! how? You have to train yourself into a certain way of thinking.

Sounds weird and impossible. But yes, you can change by training yourself

(my post above covers this quote)

 

i agree. i'm tired of them complaining that "they were born that way". there's no way that's possible.

 

Out of curiosity, can you two change being straight and what you are attracted to?

 

i could, but i won't. being straight is the way i am. if i had really and i mean really bad luck with girls, i might consider it.

 

So, you could find a person of the same gender attractive just like that? I guess that would make you potentially bi then. I know I can't and have thought about it. It just doesn't happen for me at all. I can say a guy looks 'good' but in no way do I feel drawn to really want to be with any man. This is why I don't think it's as simple as people try to say it is and if they can switch from male to female that easy, then their attractions would be bisexual in nature. Not all people are bi and just as I have no attraction to a person of the same sex, if someone is only attracted to someone of the same sex only, I think they aren't going to be happy with someone of the opposite sex, regardless of how they try to force themselves.

 

you miss took what i said. i said i could but i won't, because to me, it's wrong

 

No, I didn't. The point is in what you stated so you aren't getting the problem here. You stated you -could- find a person of the same gender if you had no luck with women.

This would make someone potentially bisexual. Just because you don't act on it doesn't mean that you could not find the person attractive to be sexually aroused. You think it's wrong so you don't act on it.

I know I am straight because I really have -no- attraction to another man. It just doesn't exist. I don't think of it as wrong or right. It's just the way I am.

If someone is gay and is not attracted to another person of the same sex and it is in fact a turn off to be with someone of the opposite sex, well, that sexual attraction isn't going to be needing a justification of right or wrong. It's the way it is. Why is it wrong? How is it a choice if they have no desire or sexual arousal to the opposite sex?

 

but i an NOT attracted to men.

 

Despite the constant norm people judge us by:
Homphobes aren't exactly anti-gay.

Anti-homosexual is more twoards what it's leaning towards when
it comes down to it.

And it being the "new racism"....?
HELLO!
There is no such thing as African/hispanicphobia.

There is a phobia on people who come from a different counrty,
but that's still far different from the people who say the "N" word.

I have homophobia, and I get bashed for it all the freakin' time.
"Learn to deal with it n00b!"
"You're wrong to be so against something!"
"And I am speaking blablahblah nonsense about something I don't know anything about."

And actually, the last quote is something everyone who bashes homophobia
is really saying,
when they say the two things above.

If there can be gays,
why can't there be people who feel just a little quesy around them?

That's called, say it with me now: Hypocrypcy.

I know some people who are Gay/Bi,
and swear to God,
I'm OK with it.

I wish they wouldn't be for their own sake,
because quite literally:

They commit a great sin in Catholicism, and no, I'm not just
being a Religious nitwit.
There is next to no such thing....unless you count
Jerimiah Wright and that other Priest from Chicago that made Wright
look like a patriot.

But they also influence others
to follow them, by organizing Parades for the cause
of making more people gay.

To me, and I'm not being biased, there
are two kinds of gay people:

Good ones, who don't
want everyone to be gay,
they just want to be that way,
but they're very supportive of people who already are.
Ex: Ellen Degeneris, who to me is
a great comedian and TV Host despite her sexual Orientation.
it's one the very few TV shows on daytime television
that a straight guy can watch,
and not have to worry about teary-teary, cry-cry all the time.
There are certain points where something tragic has
happened, and Ellen can adress it,
but most of the time it's great comedy.

And than there is bad ones.
Just as some heteros(Notice how I don't say "normal people) can
be evil in intentions, doesn't mean that if you're gay,
you're automatically nice.
They organizae different places and parades different from the ones
that are more widly publicized for people who are already gay,
and they try to make other people gay.
At that rate, you can say goodbye to the the human-race
making it to the 22nd century.
There's no real examples
I can think of,
except for Michael Jackson.
Neverland ranch....should I say more?

And I'd like to point out:
Two different types of homophobia:

1.) Irrational: You scream and run from the room
in terror if somebody looking Gay walks in.

2.) Rational(Which I have): You feel a little quesy around Gays and Lesbians,
but you don't totally hate them.

Please respect Homophobes,
because we're way different from
people who literally hate gays.

 

I could if I wanted to but I really don't. I really don't think that people were meant to like the same gender. Why do you think that you need a male and a female to have a baby?

 

Humans aren't MEANT to fly, either. We're not MEANT to ward off diseases with medicine. We aren't MEANT do many things, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Also, the '1 male + female = baby, ergo, homosexuality = wrong' argument is stupid. What about hetero women who don't want to or simply biologically CAN'T reproduce? Is loving a woman with her tubes tied wrong?

 

Okay, so you could if you wanted to, which again gives you the preference that there is a possibility. With everyone it isn't like that. What are you sexually repulsed by? Could you be made to find something sexually attractive to you that you thought at the same time was gross? Most people cannot and to have sex with someone you aren't interested in in any way is just empty to the soul. It leaves you with a bad sense of being and self.

Of course man + woman = possible baby, but some people can't have babies. Some men are infertile and some women are too. Some women must have ovaries removed or men get prostate cancer or something. Do these people have a right to have sex despite the fact they can never reproduce? It would be considered very cold to say so. As I've said before, humans have sex for more reasons than just the biblical reproduction mandates. Sex is enjoyable and healthy for people as long as they practice it safely. So why then should people be told not to enjoy each other's social company and have sex if they are attracted to someone else, be it of the same gender or opposite gender or if the person is incapable of 'breeding'? We aren't just out to populate the world. Sex is not just for that purpose. If it was in our natures to only have sex for reproduction then yes, there would be no such thing as homosexuals. But it just isn't the case.

 

Very true.

But some men don't have seed.
Inferile means they can't have a baby through themselves.
Which, until now, has been nature's imposibility.

Women are Infertile,
not usually men.
If you read the news alot,
and skip all of the stupid crappy lies,
than you'd know what I'm talking about.

 

I think they're trying to put it a metaphor, about how it's similar to the sixties.

But racism and anti-gay is all based on the being prejudice.

-

And at the whole, "They're born with it factor", for the first time in a while, I strongly agree with Mari. People were never only allowed to love someone who is a certain gender. Think about it. You love your friends, don't you all? Don't you have some same sex friends? Now I'm not saying any of you guys are homosexual or heterosexual, but because we were never actually give the rule of, "Oh yeah, and if you love another guy, you'll die" everyone has the god given right to fall in love with any man or woman that they want.

Of course some don't like it, but that's okay, because it's not normal, it's understandable if someone is not used to it.

 

Copypastaingdarkylolol

I can't say I support gay/lesbian pride,like Darky said,it's quiet pointless. Being a show-off and say "HAISUPIRGAY",because most of the people seriously don't give a fuck.

Not really,I have nothing against lesbian/gay people,but if a lesbian (in my case) crosses the line with,I will act naturally and tell them I don't roll that way :/ I think it's a natural responce.

It's not wrong,it's more like any normal phobia but some people just take it to the next level and don't respond like normal people should,they're just humans like us,no need to reject them :l
I had a friend who is a lesbian and I didn't ignore her whatsoever,although she crossed the line..but that's not the case here.

 

1. Humans built/invented all of those things. It's not like someone installed some microchips into our arms so we could fly or whatever. Medicine is what we need to survive and planes are meant to make travel easier. We have brains and hands. Don't you think we have them for a reason? Homosexuality is wrong. Inventing isn't.

2. I don't know how to answer this. You completely don't understand what I'm saying. Women and Men are supposed to have children. Women and Women or vise versa will not work. If it does then the kid will not be normal. Women and Men are meant to love love each other. If women and women or vise versa love love each other then that is wrong.

(see number 2)

 

Actually it has been true quite often in history that men have been infertile and blamed it on their wives and thus had reasons to kill them off or divorce them, pick up new women and still end up not producing heirs. In studies, it has been a pretty 50/50 split and sometimes in surveys conducted, men actually have been more often times infertile than women. I would still go with the fact that it is both a male and female issue of equal standing though because the reports on men being infertile more often than women are rare as of yet.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050622134550.htm
http://www.asrm.org/Patients/faqs.html

Those are two sites on it and there are many more. Most go with it affects men and women equally in medical information and just history itself even proves it as men could do some awful things to women and still end up with no children because they blamed females.

Why again is it wrong? Animals in the wild do it. Why exactly is it wrong? If there is no answer other than God says no, and that they aren't reproducing, then what else is there? Not everyone wants to have children. So, if you make a choice to have sex only to have children, that is a personal choice. What makes it right for everyone? Every time a woman takes a pill then, or a man wears a condom, we are violating the very thing you are saying is right. What makes it so much different? The results will still be no children will be born and the people involved had a good night of fun with someone he/she liked.

 

1. When God says no He means NO. That's all I'm gonna say about that...

2. Animals have different anatomy than humans.

3. If you don't want a kid then don't have sex. There's always a risk of a pill being defective or the condom not fitting.

4. I haven't taken biology yet so half of the terms your using go right over my head.

5. I never said sex was wrong. You should be married and old enough to take care of a kid on your own. Besides I don't see the big deal with it. If you like someone that doesn't mean that you have to do it. I guess it's an adult thing.

6. I don't understand that sentence...