I Hate Gays

[Theophane]

Intolerance is a polite euphemism for hatred, and "intolerance" cuts both ways. In my opinion, tolerance isn't enough. It's another polite word whose actual meaning is "Hatred barely concealed under a veneer of civility."

[Newme]

...The "intolerance of intolerance" argument makes sense to me, especially because a lot of this aversion to LGBTQ identities tends to stem from religious devotion, unfortunately.

Who says so?

People always claim this - even government representatives I wrote to & I didn't mention ANYTHING religious and all they responded with was, "Don't worry - religious rights will be honored."

Not liking special legal treatment based on homosexual fetishes that medically and statistically prove to be harmful... & not liking children to be denied a mother or father - have NOTHING to do with religion.

-- Updated July 2nd, 2013, 9:39 am to add the following --

Intolerance is a polite euphemism for hatred, and "intolerance" cuts both ways. In my opinion, tolerance isn't enough. It's another polite word whose actual meaning is "Hatred barely concealed under a veneer of civility."

"Tolerance applies to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error." -Fulton Sheen

Unfortunately, many have confused the two. Part of the problem is when those who've developed homosexual fetishes are labeled as the disorder they've developed, instead of as people with multiple components. I don't go around calling people, "cafeeine addicts" or "over-eaters" etc. IMO, it's very rude and unhelpful to call someone by the disorder or bad habit they've developed.

The truth is that a penis and vagina fit together - and that nature intended such because we each are able to exist by it. Any attempt to substitute that match, deviates from it and is considered a fetish. There are many fetishes - many are not harmful - but homosexual fetishes have medically and statistically proven to be harmful. Those with hetersoexual preferences also have fetishes - but aren't demanding special legal treatment based on their fetishes.

[Theophane]

Newme:

Do you not accept that homosexuality is a sexual orientation rather than a sexual fetish? Fetishes have to do with objects. Sexual orientations have to do with people.

[Xris]

Newme.Not admitting that you are guided and influenced by the church you follow is not exactly honest. If your church dictates that homosexuality is a mental illness are you going to oppose it? I don't think so.We know your opinions, so what would you suggest is the answer to this sickness you obviously oppose? What would you like the answer or the cure to be?

[Newme]

Newme:

Do you not accept that homosexuality is a sexual orientation rather than a sexual fetish? Fetishes have to do with objects. Sexual orientations have to do with people.

"Fetish: any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation."

It is impossible for 2 of the same sex to have true sexual intercourse - so instead they resort to substitutes - fetishes.

If it was purely about people and not sexual desire, then fetishes wouldn't be a part and it would be a platonic relationship.

However, sexual desire is part - so it is not just about people, but also fetishes (anal sex, dildos etc.).

-- Updated July 2nd, 2013, 10:10 am to add the following --

Newme.Not admitting that you are guided and influenced by the church you follow is not exactly honest. If your church dictates that homosexuality is a mental illness are you going to oppose it? I don't think so.We know your opinions, so what would you suggest is the answer to this sickness you obviously oppose? What would you like the answer or the cure to be?

Actually, the church I attend (but don't believe all & don't pay tithing to) is beginning to cave in to the pressures of the homosexual fetish herd and I disagree with them. They accepted boys with homosexual fetishes into youth programs even before Boy Scouts of America recently did (which again is not smart to have a horney teen boy sleeping next to a temptation in tents). There are other things I disagree with them about - like charging for celestial worthiness (must pay 10% of income to be considered temple worthy) and I don't like how they've turned the church into a money-making corporation instead of helping those in need - they rob them. There are also many cognitive distortions they, like many other religious groups, teach that I disagree with.

Although I acknowledge that I haven't reinvented the wheel, so to speak, & appreciate that I've learned and continue to learn from others, I generally, think for myself instead of accept ANY belief package.

[Harbal]

homosexual fetishes .

To append every instance of the word homosexual with the word fetish sounds provocatively derisive, what is the point of that? It's like following every mention of the word religious with "nutcase", it's just unnecessarily insulting.

[Xris]

Newme.Your views arive from scripture and your beliefs, not from any deliberation on medical understanding. You simply imply a fetish to enforce your faith held opinions. If you simply told us that your objections come from the bible we may understand that no argument would change your opinion. A dogmatic stance is beyond reasonable argument.

[Spiral Out]

Do you believe others don't have the right to vilify you as a "homophobe' if you display homophobic tendencies?

What exactly is homophobic (the fear of homosexuals or homosexuality) about stating a general dislike or even a revulsion of the lifestyle? How does not being supportive of the lifestyle, or the people who live that lifestyle make someone "homophobic"? You should use that term more efficiently because the term is rapidly losing its meaning.

Why wouldn't you accord gays the right to protest their case?

I never said they couldn't. They can do whatever they want, but I don't have to support them or cheer them on. I can express my opinion of disapproval of it all in a peaceful and logical manner. That doesn't give anyone any more right to call me a "homophobe" than I have right to call them a "****". Agreed?

Isn't that exactly what you would be saying about gay activists?

I already said that. You've lost context. Read the OP again and you'll see it.

If you show intolerance to homosexuals why would you be surprised that those who support their rights, or even those who are not particularly interested in gay issues, should show intolerance to you?

But I've not shown any intolerance, that's my point. I've only shown disapproval and lack of support. Show me how disapproval is intolerant.

Gay activists are agitating for the right of people whose sexual orientation doesn't accord with the 'norm' to enjoy exactly the same rights to be happy and live their lives as they see fit, as 'normal' people do.

How are "normal" people to live "normal" lives with all of the "abnormality" that pervades society?

If you hate gays you are not disliking them for their views but for being what they are are.

You cannot separate the beliefs, actions and lifestyle from the person doing the believing, acting and living. They are one and the same. If I express my disapproval or dislike of a belief, action or lifestyle then I also disapprove of or dislike the one doing the believing, the acting or living the lifestyle.

But you will have to accept that in today's society you will be one voice of a minority even smaller than the minority you are vilifying.

You use such strong words such as "vilify". I am not vilifying, being intolerant or homophobic in showing disapproval or dislike. The title of the topic is just a title. Don't get hung up on it. However, if I were to be in the minority in my position on the issue, then I guess I'd have the upper hand in appealing my minority "helpless" status to the masses.

If you are simply tired of or bored with their protestations, why not simply ignore them?

Surely you're joking. Oh no, society will have none of that! No one will be allowed to simply ignore them. The anti-discrimination laws will see to that.

Intolerance is a polite euphemism for hatred, and "intolerance" cuts both ways. In my opinion, tolerance isn't enough. It's another polite word whose actual meaning is "Hatred barely concealed under a veneer of civility."

You can hate someone or something and still tolerate it. Intolerance is an inability to tolerate someone or something and the person who is intolerant will actively seek to destroy the person or thing they cannot tolerate. Disapproval, dislike, non-support, resistance, or any other means short of actively seeking to destroy is not intolerance.

The people who are throwing around these terms of "homophobic" and "intolerance" are destroying the credibility and meaning of the term. Soon it will have no effect whatsoever.

To append every instance of the word homosexual with the word fetish sounds provocatively derisive, what is the point of that? It's like following every mention of the word religious with "nutcase", it's just unnecessarily insulting.

That is a very good point, Harbal.

I appreciate this thread.

Why?

I'll say right off the bat that I'm a strong supporter of LGBTQ rights...

I also "support" their rights in my non-interference with their activities. But I won't pretend to agree or accept their lifestyle as being a normal or natural lifestyle. I am not at all religious and I don't take a religious standpoint on the issue. What irritates me is that it is expected that I must let them express themselves as they feel free and right to do (which I do), but that I cannot express myself the way I feel free and right to do. I have never once engaged in "hate speech", gay bashing, bullying or any other activity aimed at physically or emotionally harming gays. Yet I'm constantly labeled a homophobe as soon as I express my dislike, disapproval or not actively supporting the gay agenda. It's absurd.

Throughout history there are always patterns of oppression. There is an intolerance toward a minority group (generally fueled by ignorance and fear), the minority group reclaims its identity and fights against intolerance, people become allied with the minority group because of their new visibility, the Intolerance shifts from "intolerance toward a minority group" to "intolerance toward the intolerance of that minority group."

Are you saying that all minority groups, simply by nature of their minority status, will invariably gain momentum due to the Human societal need to "fight for the little guy"? So then if (or when) heterosexuals are the minority, they will have the right to fight against any established homosexual system that they might find an inequality in?

[Fishing]

Hi Newme,

Who says so?

People always claim this - even government representatives I wrote to & I didn't mention ANYTHING religious and all they responded with was, "Don't worry - religious rights will be honored."

Not liking special legal treatment based on homosexual fetishes that medically and statistically prove to be harmful... & not liking children to be denied a mother or father - have NOTHING to do with religion.

Many people say so. It's no accident that the majority of people who are opposed to gay rights are also religious, and it's no surprise that the "hottest" issue in the gay rights movement is gay marriage. It's very much a religious issue. To try to remove your views on this subject from their religious grounding is dishonest, I believe. Your stance is defensible from a religious perspective, but it is not from outside such a perspective. If you could direct me to religiously unaffiliated documents that suggest homosexuality is "medically and statistically" proven to be harmful, go for it. All that I've read on the subject suggests that gay marriages tend to have fewer divorce rates than their "straight" counterparts. As for the AIDS predicament, it is unfortunate that HIV began spreading through the gay community; however, it has nothing to do with homosexual behaviour itself, as I'm sure you're aware. AIDS was prominent in Africa before it made its way to America. One more thing: many scientific and psychological studies have been completed to suggest that homosexuality is not a lifestyle "choice." Whether one chooses to engage in the behaviour is a choice, and that's where a religious stance can come in: you could argue that one must simply abstain from such behaviour, regardless of urges. If, however, you want to leave the realm of faith and enter a secular discussion, there is no reason why the LGBTQ community shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.



Hi Spiral Out,

I also "support" their rights in my non-interference with their activities. But I won't pretend to agree or accept their lifestyle as being a normal or natural lifestyle. I am not at all religious and I don't take a religious standpoint on the issue. What irritates me is that it is expected that I must let them express themselves as they feel free and right to do (which I do), but that I cannot express myself the way I feel free and right to do. I have never once engaged in "hate speech", gay bashing, bullying or any other activity aimed at physically or emotionally harming gays. Yet I'm constantly labeled a homophobe as soon as I express my dislike, disapproval or not actively supporting the gay agenda. It's absurd.

Who's not letting you express yourself? You have every right to go out and speak against gays in a peaceful way; it's just that public opinion has shifted against you, and you will likely be ostracized. This is the exact issue that plagued the gay community in the past: they couldn't speak up for fear of being ostracized. The tables have simply turned. If you want to turn them back, then band together and start a movement. Do what the gay community did; change public opinion. But don't just complain about it; there's been no injustice done toward you specifically just because the Majority is not on board with your views anymore. Society is a dynamic organism.

Are you saying that all minority groups, simply by nature of their minority status, will invariably gain momentum due to the Human societal need to "fight for the little guy"? So then if (or when) heterosexuals are the minority, they will have the right to fight against any established homosexual system that they might find an inequality in?

That's not what I'm saying at all. Nowhere did I mention that the gay rights movement gained momentum because humans like to "fight for the little guy." Humans like truth. When the gay rights movement became visible, people began realizing that it was nothing to be afraid of; they began understanding and rationally decided that their "alternative" lifestyle really isn't hurting anyone. Live and let live. "When" heterosexuals are the minority? I believe your phobia might be showing... you can't "catch the gay."

[Spiral Out]

Fishing,

Thanks for your intelligent reply but I think you might be interpreting my posts a bit too literally and personally.

"When" heterosexuals are the minority? I believe your phobia might be showing... you can't "catch the gay."

I fear nothing of the sort, and I leave all possibilities open. Did you think I was expecting that condition and that I feared it for some reason? Are you projecting your fears on me?

The point of this thread was to show that there would be a lot of people making a lot of assumptions and interpretations based on their past personal experience without asking the necessary questions to verify that there are any justifications for their assumptions and subjective interpretations. This is the very definition of prejudice, is it not?

[Fishing]

Spiral Out,

My apologies if my replies seemed like I was taking this personally.

The point of this thread was to show that there would be a lot of people making a lot of assumptions and interpretations based on their past personal experience without asking the necessary questions to verify that there are any justifications for their assumptions and subjective interpretations. This is the very definition of prejudice, is it not?

You're right. I may have squeezed some bias into the second part of my reply to you. The first part still stands, though. You are just as free to express your opinion on the subject as always; it's just that the tables have turned and public / political opinion tends to run opposed to you. The reason I would, in the end, say that this is "progress" is because, although public opinion has sided with this minority group, the groups opposed to the minority group will not suffer the same discrimination and hardship that the minority group itself experienced in the past. I think "intolerance of intolerance" is by its very nature a more peaceful and removed form of intolerance.

That said: I wasn't kidding about you and likeminded people starting a movement to change public opinion once again. If you think there are valid reasons to oppose gay behaviour, convince the world! The ball is in your court. Of course, it's an uphill battle until public opinion again shifts to your side. Anyway, I think this sort of dynamic movement in the values of society is great; it allows us to reach a sort of equilibrium eventually. So yeah. I don't really see anything wrong with the trends I'm noticing... we're pretty fair, I'd say.

[Newme]

To append every instance of the word homosexual with the word fetish sounds provocatively derisive, what is the point of that? It's like following every mention of the word religious with "nutcase", it's just unnecessarily insulting.

I believe in calling things what they are. Homosexual practices are not intercourse - but they're not platonic activities either - they are fetishes. Would you prefer lies?

-- Updated July 3rd, 2013, 11:44 am to add the following --

Many people say so.

Is that reason to believe it?

It's no accident that the majority of people who are opposed to gay rights are also religious, and it's no surprise that the "hottest" issue in the gay rights movement is gay marriage. It's very much a religious issue. To try to remove your views on this subject from their religious grounding is dishonest, I believe. Your stance is defensible from a religious perspective, but it is not from outside such a perspective. If you could direct me to religiously unaffiliated documents that suggest homosexuality is "medically and statistically" proven to be harmful, go for it. All that I've read on the subject suggests that gay marriages tend to have fewer divorce rates than their "straight" counterparts. As for the AIDS predicament, it is unfortunate that HIV began spreading through the gay community; however, it has nothing to do with homosexual behaviour itself, as I'm sure you're aware. AIDS was prominent in Africa before it made its way to America. One more thing: many scientific and psychological studies have been completed to suggest that homosexuality is not a lifestyle "choice."

"Scientific" studies that have attempted to claim that babies are born having sexual fetishes, have been discredited...

"First, in August of 1991, Simon LeVay, a scientist at the Salk Institute in San Diego, reported that a group of neurons in the hypothalamic region of the brain appeared to be twice as large in heterosexual men than in homosexual men. [7] Previous studies had suggested that the hypothalamus is a region of the brain involved in the regulation of sexual behavior in non-human primates. Furthermore, other studies had shown that these neurons are larger in men then in women. Thus, LeVay concluded that sexual orientation had a biological basis.

There are three problems with LeVay's paper. First, LeVay compared the brain structures of 19 homosexual men with the brain structures of 16 men whom he presumed were heterosexual. However, he was unable to confirm the heterosexuality of the men in his control group. Significantly, six of these 16 presumed heterosexual men had died from AIDS, a disease whose transmission is often associated with homosexual behavior! Thus, it would not be surprising if some of LeVay's presumed heterosexual men were in fact, homosexuals, a possibility which would seriously discredit the conclusions of his study. Second, LeVay obtained his brain samples from homosexual men who had all died from AIDS. In contrast, for his control group, he obtained brain samples from men who had died not only from AIDS (6 subjects) but also from a diversity of other causes (10 subjects).

As LeVay himself acknowledged, however, this raises a legitimate scientific question: Could the differences in the sizes of the neurons have been caused not by sexual orientation but by AIDS? This certainly is a possibility that was not definitively ruled out the study. Finally, LeVay concluded that the differences in neuronal size could explain homosexuality. In other words, they could be linked to a biological cause for a homosexual orientation. This, however, is an illegitimate conclusion arising from faulty logic. One alternative explanation for the differences in the sizes of the neurons in the hypothalamus is that homosexual behavior is the cause for rather than the effect of the difference in neuron size. To illustrate this, let us say that a scientist tells you that he has discovered that there is a difference in the size of the bicep muscles between weight lifters and pianists. Furthermore, he concludes that the large muscle mass is the cause for these men becoming muscle builders. What would you say? Would you not respond by pointing out that it is more likely to be the case that the large muscle mass was in fact not the cause for but the effect of muscle training? In the same way, LeVay's study was unable to rule out the possibility that homosexual behavior was not caused by, but rather, caused the differences in neuronal cell size. In sum, in light of these significant problems, it is difficult to conclude with any certainty that homosexual orientation is caused in any way by the neurons of the hypothalamus.

Second, in December of 1991, John M. Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, reported that it was more likely for both identical twins to be homosexual than it is for both fraternal twins or for both adopted brothers. [8] They found that 52% (29 pairs out of 56) of the identical twins were both homosexual; 22% (12 pairs out of 54) of the fraternal twins were both homosexual; and 11% (6 of 57) of the adoptive brothers where both homosexual. Thus, Bailey and Pillard concluded that there is a genetic cause for homosexuality.

Again, there were significant problems with the study. First, if homosexuality is genetically determined, why did only 52% of the identical twins share the same sexual orientation? How about the other 48% of the twins who differed in their sexual orientation? How do we account for them? Second and more importantly, the study was based upon a sample of twins which was not random. As critics have pointed out, Bailey and Pillard did not rule out the possibility that they had preferentially recruited twins were both brothers were gay by advertising in homosexual newspapers and magazines rather than in periodicals intended for the general public. Indeed, it now appears that preferential recruitment did occur in the 1991 study - a more recent 2000 study by Bailey and his colleagues, using volunteers recruited, not from the gay community but from the Australian Twin Registry, revealed that only 20% and not 52% of identical twins share the same homosexual orientation. [9] This is not as significant a difference between identical and fraternal twins as earlier reported. Thus, as the authors of the 2000 paper conclude, it is very difficult to distinguish the genetic from the environmental influences on sexual orientation.

The third and most publicized study suggesting a genetic link for homosexual orientation was a paper published by Dean Hamer and his colleagues at the National Institutes of Health. The researchers studied 40 pairs of homosexual brothers and concluded that some cases of homosexuality could be linked to a specific region on the human X chromosome (Xq28) inherited from the mother to her homosexual son. [10] This study has come under much criticism - the Office of Research Integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services even investigated Hamer for alleged fraud in this study though it eventually cleared him [11] - and most significantly, has never been reproduced. In fact, two subsequent studies of other homosexual brothers have since concluded that there is no evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by an X-linked gene. [12]

In sum, all the scientific evidence to date has not conclusively proven that genes determine homosexual orientation in human beings. The existence of a human gay gene remains a scientific myth."

=

Regarding the The Kinsey scale, also called the Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale...

"...much of Kinsey's work has been revealed as junk science and even fraud, and that he aided and abetted the molestation of hundreds of children in order to obtain data on "child sexuality."

"Five of these infants and children were subjects for months or years, and it is reported that much of the “testing” occurred when they were either strapped or held down. There is no evidence that the institute followed up to see whether they were adversely affected as a result of this sexual abuse/experimentation. We do know that today many of the adult “subjects” refuse to discuss Kinsey’s research; some 50 years later, they don’t even want to talk about the horrific experience" -Crouse

=

Do you seriously think that human anatomy and sexual reproduction facts are religiously based? If that wasn't utterly ridiculous it might be a nice try at a strawman.

It doesn't take much research to realize human anatomical functions - like the anus is not meant to be an entrance. We each have experience EVERY DAY that proves it is an EXIT ONLY.

It also doesn't take much research to realize that we are born with brains only 25% developed so we can better adapt to environmental influences. Because of cyclical metaphysical (thought/endocrine) effects, one may feel as if sexual fetishes are innate, but the reality is that a newborn is unable to even distinguish between self and another for several months... And it takes several years to realize gender distinctions.

Peer pressure may try to get those gullible to fall for this or that - but if it's not backed up by truth - then you're just adopting dogma - this time one that is based on sexual fetishes.

[Fishing]

Greetings Newme,

I don't have time to write a lengthy reply right this second, but I did notice that the article you quote here is from the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). While the organization seems to be secular, from browsing their website, I have noticed that many of the therapy techniques involve "spiritual" support. One might also wish to take this into account:

...no major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation.[6][7][8] The Royal College of Psychiatrists shares the concern of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association that positions espoused by bodies like the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in the United States are not supported by science and that so-called treatments of homosexuality as recommended by NARTH create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.[7][9]

Why is it that no major mental health profession organizations adopts NARTH's viewpoint? Are the mainstream mental health organizations completely bought by the crazy liberal media? Or is it possible that this little and secluded organization might have a bit of a bias or agenda? It seems earnest enough to me, but it also seems to me that the scientific research they're conducting isn't to find the hard truth, but rather to support the truth that they're already fond of.

[Ser10Rec1pr0]

...It can be said that both sides are just trying to maintain the rights of people to be happy and live their lives in a way that satisfies their basic Human needs. ...

The trouble I have w/ the whole rights-of-people-to-be-happy (the new same-sex marriage laws, life companion entitlements) is that they're rights provided by legislation; which I think comprises the privacy matter. The attitude seems to be, "Give us these rights by law; then let us go about our business in private." As far as I can tell, when gov. intervenes (even beneficently), then privacy is contravened.

The old satisfaction of those basic human needs---food, shelter, clothing---did not intrude on privacy; they were needs for anyone & everybody.

Karl Mannheim wrote long ago that the higher technologies make a centralized gov. inevitable: the question was whether the centralized gov. would be of a dictatorial sort (imposition of morals & values) or would allow for maximum freedom. W/ the new laws w/ regard to same-sex marriage, etc., there is the appearance of maximum freedom but a subliminal imposition of morals & values.

[Newme]

Fishing,

Another strawman. First you attempted to shift to focus by illogically claiming religion was the foundation for realizing the anatomically unnatural and harmful aspects of homosexual fetishes like anal sex and sex toys. Now, it is the author of the article.

Just respond to the problems with the research presented. It doesn't matter WHO points out why research is discredited, but WHY it is considered discredited (even some of the supposed scientists themselves have done as much, as noted).

If you do not respond to the issue presented, but attack the messenger, or other irrelevant aspects, it will be obvious you are attempting another logical fallacy, and when such is the case it is often suggests nothing more substantial to contribute to the discussion.