The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

I Hate Gays

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5012
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: I Hate Gays

Post by Spiral Out » August 29th, 2013, 8:07 am

Also, according to one religious person that I used to work with, the homosexuals have "stolen the symbol of the rainbow for their perverted purposes".
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: I Hate Gays

Post by Xris » August 29th, 2013, 8:47 am

Well Noddy and BIg Ears had many a gay day. They were very good friends.

User avatar
Discards
Posts: 1002
Joined: December 6th, 2011, 3:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hanuman
Location: Canada

Re: I Hate Gays

Post by Discards » August 29th, 2013, 6:00 pm

I am not gay, I am not against the homosexual act, and I am not against homosexuality. People who say they are not against homosexuals, but don't like the homosexual act are uncomfortable with two attractive men falling in love. And if a person cannot be comfortable that two men, just by looking each other in the eyes, can feel attraction and affection for each other, then those people are against both the act and the "life-style". "Broke Back Mountain" is a movie about two cow boys who find affection in each others eyes. That affection turns into lust and they have anal sex in order to quell the lust. They are not "homosexuals" or anything. This is a stupid label. People should not be labelled according to their passions.
To be is to do. To do is to be. Do-be, do-be, do-be, do. - the philosophical importance of Scoobie-do is to Scoobie-be!

Stormcloud
Posts: 661
Joined: July 24th, 2013, 6:20 am

Re: I Hate Gays

Post by Stormcloud » August 29th, 2013, 11:06 pm

Discards, you are entitled to perceive as you wish. I, like many are not against homosexuality but neither am I for it. We respect one's freedom to choose; 'whatever turns you on' as we used to say. Unfortunately peoples heads have been screwed in the Victorian era and the following repressions have unleashed themselves in bizarre ways which are now so common that they are no longer seen as bizarre. You mention "falling" in love? Homosexuality is exclusive rather than all-inclusive and cannot sit with Love but rather, with lust. I get a warm fuzzy feeling when I see blokes embrace; I am a touchy-feely person myself and get a buzz when men show affection towards each other. Anyway, the whole sex trip is in transition and will sort itself out as we Evolve. @ Spiral out - great symbol! :D

User avatar
Thinking critical
Posts: 1793
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)

Re: I Hate Gays

Post by Thinking critical » August 29th, 2013, 11:16 pm

Stormcloud wrote:Discards, you are entitled to perceive as you wish. I, like many are not against homosexuality but neither am I for it. We respect one's freedom to choose; 'whatever turns you on' as we used to say. Unfortunately peoples heads have been screwed in the Victorian era and the following repressions have unleashed themselves in bizarre ways which are now so common that they are no longer seen as bizarre. You mention "falling" in love? Homosexuality is exclusive rather than all-inclusive and cannot sit with Love but rather, with lust. I get a warm fuzzy feeling when I see blokes embrace; I am a touchy-feely person myself and get a buzz when men show affection towards each other. Anyway, the whole sex trip is in transition and will sort itself out as we Evolve. @ Spiral out - great symbol! :D
So are you saying , you believe that two men cannot be in love with each other, in the same sense that a man and woman can be in love with each other?
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

Stormcloud
Posts: 661
Joined: July 24th, 2013, 6:20 am

Re: I Hate Gays

Post by Stormcloud » August 30th, 2013, 12:39 am

@Thinking critical, no am not saying 2 men cannot be in love with each other although I would question what you mean by love, but it cannot be the 'same' as a man/woman as It is physically different for a start. As far as I am concerned the bottom line always comes back to nature's intention: To procreate and reproduce, the rest is just gloss. Sure, 2 men can lust for each other just as does a man and a woman. Please, let us not drag Love down as has been done with the meaning of Gay. As for looking each other in the eyes - great! Enter Narcissus.....

User avatar
Quotidian
Posts: 2681
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 7:47 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sexual Politics

Post by Quotidian » August 30th, 2013, 12:50 am

you believe that two men cannot be in love with each other, in the same sense that a man and woman can be in love with each other?
I'm sure they feel the same way. Otherwise there wouldn't be anything to debate. But there's more to it than simply creating an emotional bond, even a life-long one. The genders are complementary, and the defenders of traditional relationships maintain that this complementarity is real and fundamental.

You will notice that in the press now, the 'correct' way to refer to this is 'LGBT' for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual. The idea that there are male and female genders it itself under attack - in fact if you say in some council areas that 'there are two genders' you can be in hot water. According to LGBT activists, 'gender identity' is strictly the perogative of the individual. The idea that there really are just males and females is itself being described as discriminatory.
Wikipedia wrote:Sexuality and gender identity-based cultures are subcultures and communities composed of people who have shared experiences, background, or interests due to common sexual or gender identities. Among the first to argue that members of sexual minorities can also constitute cultural minorities were Adolf Brand, Magnus Hirschfeld and Leontine Sagan in Germany. These pioneers were later followed by the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis in the United States.
Note the reference to 'these pioneers'. Part of the game plan is to present the gay movement is representing 'progress', so that those who oppose it can be characterised as 'regressive' or 'bigoted' in the same way as those who opposed racial de-segregation.

But I question the very notion of sexuality as cultural identity, and I think it should be questioned. What it is really about is not a real cultural identity but the validation of particular behaviours. But the protagonists in this debate are extremely clever at manipulating public opinion so rather than emphasizing behaviours, the debate was cast in terms of identity - the 'gay community', the 'lgbt movement', and so on, so that any attempt to criticize it could immediately be described as being basically like a form of racism.
'For there are many here among us who think that life is but a joke' ~ Dylan

User avatar
Thinking critical
Posts: 1793
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)

Re: I Hate Gays

Post by Thinking critical » August 30th, 2013, 1:29 am

Stormcloud wrote:@Thinking critical, no am not saying 2 men cannot be in love with each other although I would question what you mean by love, but it cannot be the 'same' as a man/woman as It is physically different for a start. As far as I am concerned the bottom line always comes back to nature's intention: To procreate and reproduce, the rest is just gloss. Sure, 2 men can lust for each other just as does a man and a woman. Please, let us not drag Love down as has been done with the meaning of Gay. As for looking each other in the eyes - great! Enter Narcissus.....
I dis-agree, the physical side has absolutely nothing to do with the emotional side, people don't fall in love with each others body, they fall in love with the person inside, the physical attributes play a role in some of the initial sexual and lust side of things, but to love someone completely makes physical attributes pretty much redundant. I'm not going to explain love, I don't believe words do it any justice, love is experienced and expressed, not spoken.

You say you're argument fall's back to natures intention, love defies natures logic in every turn, people will willing kill themselves to protect the ones they love, is killing oneself natural?
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

Stormcloud
Posts: 661
Joined: July 24th, 2013, 6:20 am

Re: I Hate Gays

Post by Stormcloud » August 30th, 2013, 1:58 am

@Thinking critical: The physical side has absolutely nothing to do with the emotional?? Let us take love out of this and use the proper term 'attraction' shall we? You say they fall in love with the person inside? How can you know a person inside other than by what you know about yourself? What you are doing is projecting yourself onto the other person and then "falling" in love with yourself. Alot of other animals will kill if necessary to protect their posessions and we are no different though I wouldn't say it were motivated by Love but by natural preservation. It would be wonderful if we could Evolve beyond posessiveness.

User avatar
Thinking critical
Posts: 1793
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)

Re: I Hate Gays

Post by Thinking critical » August 30th, 2013, 2:18 am

Stormcloud wrote:@Thinking critical: The physical side has absolutely nothing to do with the emotional?? Let us take love out of this and use the proper term 'attraction' shall we? You say they fall in love with the person inside? How can you know a person inside other than by what you know about yourself? What you are doing is projecting yourself onto the other person and then "falling" in love with yourself. .
What? :lol: Attraction and love are to very different things. Attraction is a specific aspect that draws us to something or someone, it could be something as simple as perfume, clothes, figure, personality or a combination of many things, this does NOT automatically equate to love.

You ask how can we know a person inside. it's simple really, we watch, observe, listen and learn. Humans have developed this great thing called language as a means of communication which can also be used to express ones thoughts, basic common sense really. If falling in love with some one is as you suggest, just projecting ourselves on them 1) you've just contradicted your argument that two men can't fall In love with each other and 2) people could quite easily and contently fall in love with a tree or a rock. Humans experience each other at metaphysical level, when we talk to each other it means we are each speaking our minds and expressing our opinions and thoughts were not actually speaking at the body.
Alot of other animals will kill if necessary to protect their posessions and we are no different though I wouldn't say it were motivated by Love but by natural preservation. It would be wonderful if we could Evolve beyond possessiveness.


You've completely misunderstood what I said, Humans will risk there own lives knowing perfectly well they will most likely die in order to save or protect someone they love. This act goes completely against the nature of living organisms which will ordinarily stop at nothing to prevent there own death, yet love eliminated this inherent trait, ergo love defies nature.

Q- Regarding the post you deleted, it's interesting you brought that up, I have mentioned on a number of occasion relating to Homosexual behaviour, the importance of separating the physical act and the mental connection of homosexual activity. The general consensus seems to be that people don't have a problem with same sex couples being attracted to each other, they just don't like them acting on it.
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

Stormcloud
Posts: 661
Joined: July 24th, 2013, 6:20 am

Re: I Hate Gays

Post by Stormcloud » August 30th, 2013, 4:16 am

I would like to feel that Love is all-inclusive and not an exclusive relationship - especially one that is sexually warped. Nature operates fluently by eternally re creating and this can only occur as nature intended. Penis to anus is an abberation, a perversion of natural process. We do have a mis understanding Critical thinking. :D :D

User avatar
EMTe
Posts: 784
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 5:58 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jessica Fletcher
Location: Cracow

Re: I Hate Gays

Post by EMTe » August 30th, 2013, 4:21 am

Spiral Out wrote:you can disagree with the lifestyle of a whole group of people!
Regarding your fierce (and rightful) defense of children from child molesters who, for unknown reasons, appear to use this forum as their tube the above argument can be unfortunately used in favour of them. Since you can disagree with the lifestyle of a whole group of people, a paedophile can say that he disagrees with the lifestyle of people who don't practise paedophilia. I don't like fruit drops, so I can disagree with fruit drop lifestyle, but what's the sense in it. There are people who eat fruit drops and there are people who are gay and they'll always be there, so your "disagreement" appears to be nothing more than overdramatized attempt to focus people's attention on you. I can start my own topic where I will bash hard candy eaters to the ground, but what will it prove? That each of us has their own likes and dislikes.

This topic, sadly, would have much more sense if you were gay hater and attempted to prove why homosexuality is "wrong", "bad" whatever. Otherwise, it's empty.
The penultimate goal of the human is to howl like the wolf.

User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5012
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: I Hate Gays

Post by Spiral Out » August 30th, 2013, 11:10 am

EMTe wrote:This topic, sadly, would have much more sense if you were gay hater and attempted to prove why homosexuality is "wrong", "bad" whatever. Otherwise, it's empty.
Then you've completely misunderstood the purpose of this topic, haven't you. Tell me, what is the purpose of this topic?
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

User avatar
EMTe
Posts: 784
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 5:58 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jessica Fletcher
Location: Cracow

Re: I Hate Gays

Post by EMTe » August 30th, 2013, 1:37 pm

I misunderstood it at first, which I admit and my answers were based on the title (actually most people do so when they face topic with so many pages and replies, it's impossible/not worth to read them all). Now I responded to one of your replies, which, I admit again, is taken out of context. But even if it is my answer is logical.

I will read the first post and will probably agree with you, but mister, you should change the title of the topic. The provocation worked ok, so now once everybody around knows it, you should make the title clear. Many forum newbies will come here and reply simply because they read the title and youll end up answering every single new member what is the purpose of the topic. Blame yourself.
The penultimate goal of the human is to howl like the wolf.

Greatest I am
Posts: 959
Joined: October 3rd, 2012, 7:29 pm

Re: I Hate Gays

Post by Greatest I am » September 1st, 2013, 9:46 am

The Beast wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


My morals: The golden rule. I am not against homosexuals; some of the best people are homosexual but, I am against the homosexual act. There is also the alcohol gene. Would you embrace it or fight it? … And if you think that I am wrong then answer the question about medical code 302.0 and why is it different than pedophilia.
So. You would bring hardship, death and discrimination against people because you do not like how they use what you give yourself all the freedom to use as you wish. I guess that reciprocity, --- a moral tenet that you seem not to know how to use, ---- is not a part of your moral code.

You have perverted your now twisted version of the golden rule. Just because it is not your thing.

Pedophilia is a control crime and likely what we would call a mental condition. It may have a cure.

Being gay is at the genetic level. It is a genetic defect. It is a condition that can only be cured at the genetic level, --- if desired.

Regards DL

-- Updated September 1st, 2013, 9:50 am to add the following --
Stormcloud wrote::mrgreen: Theres nothing "gay" about homosexuality or a perverted sexual nature. The word gay means something entirely different to what is implied here and has been stolen and superimposed on gross behaviour to make it look respectable or, at least, acceptable. Looks like they've sucked you all in! Please, homosexuality is HOMOSEXUALITY.

Code: Select all

http://www.theonion.com/articles/revolutionary-new-homophobia-immersion-therapy-inv,19264/
Regards DL

-- Updated September 1st, 2013, 11:19 am to add the following --
Discards wrote:I am not gay, I am not against the homosexual act, and I am not against homosexuality. People who say they are not against homosexuals, but don't like the homosexual act are uncomfortable with two attractive men falling in love. And if a person cannot be comfortable that two men, just by looking each other in the eyes, can feel attraction and affection for each other, then those people are against both the act and the "life-style". "Broke Back Mountain" is a movie about two cow boys who find affection in each others eyes. That affection turns into lust and they have anal sex in order to quell the lust. They are not "homosexuals" or anything. This is a stupid label. People should not be labelled according to their passions.
Labels are a fact of life.

Fight the oppressors when you can. Morality demands it.

Regards DL

Post Reply