Lets discuss: Homophobia

[holy king]

where do the hell do you live? do you spend all of your time amongst well educated liberals? (in the real, european sense)?

 

[Mango Elephant]

130 years... since what?

I think he's refering to the Civil War.

Also, I think gays started to become more mainstream after the 60s, I think, so if it does take 50 years for something to be accepted then they should be accepted in about 10 or 20 years. Most schools in America (I think) have a Gay-Straight Alliance club (which I think is a really dumb name, Gay Club sounds so much cooler) and I don't think many people get too upset about that, but if anyone created an anti-Gay school club you can imagine how many problems will arise from that, so I think that shows how gay is becoming more mainstream, I guess.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I think he's refering to the Civil War.

145 years is more accurate...

 

[timtofly]

145 years is more accurate...

145 = over 130; But hey I can add 15 more years to the "wait", since I am not a homophobe.

 

[innonimatu]

You see, your argument is this...anal sex/oral sex is just as safe as vaginal sex if you wear a condom. No, its not. Why? Condoms fail. And the acts of a/o sex, by their very nature, are going to be much harder on a condom than vaginal sex.

That's the voice of experience speaking, is it? Or why should we take you seriously?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm confused.

Why do people rail against homosexuality if heterosexuality outside of marriage is also a sin, and folks who rail against homosexuality are often very guilty of this sort of sin, and it is basically the same exact sin; a non-God-approved sexual act.

Further, if the main beef with this behavior is that it is risky, so is eating in a restaurant, flying on an airplane, sharing a diet coke with a friend, and having sex outside of marriage.

But you know what, I never see people marching with signs that say that sex outside of marriage is an evil, immoral act which will damn you to hell, or even that it is a risky behavior that we shouldn't encourage. Their outrage seems quite tame or nonexistent.

I find the targeted discrimination against gay people to be wholly without merit and completely hypocritical. Further, I find it appalling that making these people feel miserable and unwanted is somehow seen as a morally righteous cause.

I am further perplexed by arguments regarding how condemning the sexual acts that gay people might participate in is in no way homophobic. Although "phobia" means fear, that's not the only definition or meaning of the word. It also can mean dislike or aversion to, and several other forms. Obviously condemning homosexual behavior and suggesting it is dangerous for society to allow is a homophobic thing.

Further, many of these same sexual acts are done by straight people, married people, and none of those so-called, dangerous, high-risk acts get protested in the sorts of ways gay people performing the same behavior gets protested.

Do you mean to tell me that oral/genital contact is somehow less risky or more Godly if it's a woman instead of a man on the other end of the male genitalia, or a man instead of a woman involved with the female genitalia? Or that anal contact is less risky when it involves a woman?

I'm fairly certain that certain body parts are virtually identical between the sexes, and the risks involved are identical, and what "God says" about such sexual contact is also identical, especially outside of a marriage. Yet there is a severe double standard.

Furthermore, even if there were no hypocrisy involved, I don't want to live in, and I'm fairly sure, most of us don't want to live in, any nation which allowed its government to tell us that common, normal sexual acts between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home should be illegal.

As unpopular as legalizing gay marriage is, I am almost certain that if you allowed voters to vote on making oral sex illegal, you'd receive far, far more support in defeating such a measure. Apparently, risky sexual behavior among unmarried heterosexuals is okay because that's us. Gay people can't have the same privileges as us normies.


Do me a favor and at least admit, you want more rights and privileges for straight people than gay people. At least tell me, right to my face, that you find gay people unworthy of equality.

 

[dosed150]

where do the hell do you live? do you spend all of your time amongst well educated liberals? (in the real, european sense)?

well at my uni at least, other than the islamic society which basically have a feud with the lgbt society, the least gay friendly people are the sort that just make jokes about gay people but dont have any real issue with gay people, theres none of the crazy its unnatural and wrong kind of opinions, I think I would be quite uncomfortable around people who expressed those kind of views

 

[classical_hero]

I'm confused.

Why do people rail against homosexuality if heterosexuality outside of marriage is also a sin, and folks who rail against homosexuality are often very guilty of this sort of sin, and it is basically the same exact sin; a non-God-approved sexual act.

We do rail against all forms of sexual immorality, but the one that seems to be the focal point of society is the issue of homosexuality, because we have already lapsed so far from the previous norm of only having sex inside of marriage that sex is pretty much expected of anyone in any sort of relationship, no matter how unimportant the relationship is. Homosexuality is just part of the issue and it seems to be a very big issue right now.

Further, if the main beef with this behavior is that it is risky, so is eating in a restaurant, flying on an airplane, sharing a diet coke with a friend, and having sex outside of marriage.

But you know what, I never see people marching with signs that say that sex outside of marriage is an evil, immoral act which will damn you to hell, or even that it is a risky behavior that we shouldn't encourage. Their outrage seems quite tame or nonexistent.

See above for part of the answer for this, but we do know that there is risk in anything that we do, but what is acceptable risk is what is part of the issue here, and that homosexual behaviour is risky. There is a good reason why sexual diseases are relatively low in western worlds is due to the influence of Christianity of the morals of the people. But as the effect of Christianity is being diluted I will predict that we will see more sexual problems arise. The bible is very clear that "the soul that sinneth it shall die." There are consequences to actions that have to be had and the most extreme of them is death caused by their activities or if they cannot live with their actions. Now these diseases can affect anyone who is involved in risky sexual behaviour, but in the west it is predominately the gay community that bares the brunt of such action, but we are seeing a record increase in young women getting such diseases at a higher rate, due to their risky behaviour.

I find the targeted discrimination against gay people to be wholly without merit and completely hypocritical. Further, I find it appalling that making these people feel miserable and unwanted is somehow seen as a morally righteous cause.

I am further perplexed by arguments regarding how condemning the sexual acts that gay people might participate in is in no way homophobic. Although "phobia" means fear, that's not the only definition or meaning of the word. It also can mean dislike or aversion to, and several other forms. Obviously condemning homosexual behavior and suggesting it is dangerous for society to allow is a homophobic thing.

Further, many of these same sexual acts are done by straight people, married people, and none of those so-called, dangerous, high-risk acts get protested in the sorts of ways gay people performing the same behavior gets protested.

Do you mean to tell me that oral/genital contact is somehow less risky or more Godly if it's a woman instead of a man on the other end of the male genitalia, or a man instead of a woman involved with the female genitalia? Or that anal contact is less risky when it involves a woman?

I'm fairly certain that certain body parts are virtually identical between the sexes, and the risks involved are identical, and what "God says" about such sexual contact is also identical, especially outside of a marriage. Yet there is a severe double standard.

Furthermore, even if there were no hypocrisy involved, I don't want to live in, and I'm fairly sure, most of us don't want to live in, any nation which allowed its government to tell us that common, normal sexual acts between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home should be illegal.

As unpopular as legalizing gay marriage is, I am almost certain that if you allowed voters to vote on making oral sex illegal, you'd receive far, far more support in defeating such a measure. Apparently, risky sexual behavior among unmarried heterosexuals is okay because that's us. Gay people can't have the same privileges as us normies.


Do me a favor and at least admit, you want more rights and privileges for straight people than gay people. At least tell me, right to my face, that you find gay people unworthy of equality.

I will deal with the rest of the post when I get some time.

 

[LucyDuke]

We do rail against all forms of sexual immorality, but the one that seems to be the focal point of society is the issue of homosexuality, because we have already lapsed so far from the previous norm of only having sex inside of marriage that sex is pretty much expected of anyone in any sort of relationship, no matter how unimportant the relationship is.

You can't possibly be serious.

See above for part of the answer for this, but we do know that there is risk in anything that we do, but what is acceptable risk is what is part of the issue here, and that homosexual behaviour is risky.

Homosexual behavior is not inherently riskier than heterosexual behavior.

There is a good reason why sexual diseases are relatively low in western worlds is due to the influence of Christianity of the morals of the people.

Sexual diseases are relatively low in western worlds because we have prophylactics and antibiotics.

 

[Arakhor]

Is this another "only Christians have morals" screed? If so, it's wildly out of place here.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

We do rail against all forms of sexual immorality, but the one that seems to be the focal point of society is the issue of homosexuality, because we have already lapsed so far from the previous norm of only having sex inside of marriage that sex is pretty much expected of anyone in any sort of relationship, no matter how unimportant the relationship is. Homosexuality is just part of the issue and it seems to be a very big issue right now.

You know I respect your intelligence and think you're awesome, especially in mafia games. But I have to take you to task here; the above is a dodge.

The point was: Why is the sexual "immorality" of gays worse than the sexual immorality of straight people?

Why? Why is it the gays that get focused on by all these hate groups? Why are they so blatantly hypocritical about sexual immorality when they themselves engage in such?

The Bible says let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Well, I'm seeing a lot of stones, being cast at a lot of gay people, by a lot of straight people. Judge not lest ye be judged?

Well, I'm no God, but I've been told by Christians that sin is sin in the eyes of God. Lying and stealing and adultery and homosexuality are all sins. But it seems our society deems some sins more acceptable than others, and while some folks are busy sinning, they're condemning other people for sinning.

It may not be the exact same sin, but it's basically the same sin. Sexual behavior outside of God's prescribed rules. I don't want to hear straight people complain about gay people giving each other oral sex when they do the same thing with their straight girlfriend, outside of marriage, when that is considered sodomy according to the Bible. Sodomy isn't just gay anal sex, it's any kind of non-vaginal intercourse.

The "sodomites" here are casting stones at other sodomites. They are the SAME KIND OF SINNER, casting stones at gays.

That's how I know it's not even religious belief that is the core of this, or it would make some kind of sense even within the religious structure itself. What's behind this is simply the following:

"Ooooh, icky gay people, I don't like them, I think they're disgusting, and less than me."

That's what this is. That's all it has ever been. Or else gay people would be right up there with lying and eating shellfish. It wouldn't be a thing. It certainly wouldn't provoke "God hates fags" protests, and the rabidly anti-gay political groups in this country bent on "protecting FAMILY VALUES" by bashing gay people and blaming gays for the moral decay of society.

Last time I checked, the people wrecking straight marriages were straight people committing adultery. You want to save the family? Crack down on straight people. Leave.... the.... gays.... alone.

I promise you, if you leave the gays alone, they will leave you alone. Because after all the abuse they've been through over the millennia, all they want is to be left the heck alone! And if they want to get married, it doesn't affect you, or your church, or your beliefs. Just like polygamy in other countries doesn't affect you, or your church, or your beliefs.

Live, and let live. You be Christian, and let the gays be gay and let them do what they want to do if it doesn't affect you.

Why, why, why, can't that be so?

See above for part of the answer for this, but we do know that there is risk in anything that we do, but what is acceptable risk is what is part of the issue here, and that homosexual behaviour is risky. There is a good reason why sexual diseases are relatively low in western worlds is due to the influence of Christianity of the morals of the people. But as the effect of Christianity is being diluted I will predict that we will see more sexual problems arise. The bible is very clear that "the soul that sinneth it shall die." There are consequences to actions that have to be had and the most extreme of them is death caused by their activities or if they cannot live with their actions. Now these diseases can affect anyone who is involved in risky sexual behaviour, but in the west it is predominately the gay community that bares the brunt of such action, but we are seeing a record increase in young women getting such diseases at a higher rate, due to their risky behaviour.

I'm afraid this is not the case. Straight people account for more sex, more instances of disease, and more people with AIDS are straight than gay, and you know what? There's societal pressures not to be gay, as if they could switch it off. But there's no pressure not to be straight. In fact, our society encourages straight pairing to the point where if you're not doing it, you're not cool.

Blatant hypocrisy is all this is. If I can't go to a club and take a woman home with me, I'm a cold fish. But if a gay person does it, he or she is evil, wicked, and deviant. If a straight person does it, hopefully it will lead to marriage, and that's fine. But if a gay person does it, it's evil.

It's double standards. I'm afraid we are all sinners in the eyes of (your) god, and Jesus waged no specific campaign against gayness. In fact he seemed to talk a lot more about charity and loving your neighbor, and he talked a LOT about hypocrisy.

In my view, if it's Christianity that focuses on homosexuality as if it were something new, something that concerns us straight people, or something threatening, then it is a warped kind of Christianity.

It's up to your God to judge the gay people. Why doesn't the Christian community stop pretending to be god, stop judging them, and FINALLY leave them the heck alone?

 

[Johan511]

The Old Testament demanded the death of Homosexuals, it screwed up their version family system. (whom ever wrote those books) It wasn't working for them so they ousted it. It's recently made a comeback, and IMO with a overpopulated Earth can survive and even thrive in a modern system of liberty. Everything else is just a continuation of the ban. This is the explanation of things in the west, I'm not sure if the roots carry over to the east or not. I am sure about one thing though, 2 males, or 2 females, cannot reproduce. This makes it very hard for civilizations to accept as a way of life. And that is why there are homophobes.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

The Old Testament demanded the death of Homosexuals

Same book that said homosexuality was bad, and so was touching a woman who was menstruating. You know, a lot of those old customs and laws got tossed out the window.

So I find it particularly laughable when people point to that same book as an authority, when they ignore 90% of that book.

We can pick and choose everything else to believe, but we can't disagree about the gays, those are obviously evil and intolerable?

Frankly, persons who think homosexuals should be executed, should themselves be executed. Why? "You should not kill" is also a rule, but more than that, it be a Commandment.

Gosh, what to do, should we kill the gays, and then be executed for killing the gays, or should we maybe I dunno think for ourselves and ignore a very old book more consistently than we presently ignore it, which is a whole lot?


As for the rest of your post, "meh" is the most polite response it warrants.

 

[El_Machinae]

To be clear on vernacular, in the Bible, the "sins of Sodom" (i.e., 'sodomy') was being well-fed and proud while ignoring the poor.

If we're going to be changing the meaning of homophobia in this thread (and I get it), I think we should work on changing the word 'sodomy'. And if bronze-age Sodom was considered to be 'Too full of bread and idleness", I can only imagine what a society known for fossil fuels, obesity, food wastage, pampered pets, and 5 hours (average) of TV a day is called.

So, to me, being a 'sodomite' is being idle and fed while there're people literally dying of starvation and simple diseases.

 

[Flying Pig]

To be clear on vernacular, in the Bible, the "sins of Sodom" (i.e., 'sodomy') was being well-fed and proud while ignoring the poor.

If we're going to be changing the meaning of homophobia in this thread (and I get it), I think we should work on changing the word 'sodomy'. And if bronze-age Sodom was considered to be 'Too full of bread and idleness", I can only imagine what a society known for fossil fuels, obesity, food wastage, pampered pets, and 5 hours (average) of TV a day is called.

So, to me, being a 'sodomite' is being idle and fed while there're people literally dying of starvation and simple diseases.

I always thought the problem with the Sodomites was that they raped (or tried to; can't remember offhand if they managed) Abraham's people, not that they chose men as their victims. Says something about our former attitudes as a society, I think.

There is a good reason why sexual diseases are relatively low in western worlds is due to the influence of Christianity of the morals of the people.

Out of interest, do you know which continent has the greatest number of Christians on it? Clue; it isn't one with a low STD rate.

 

[Johan511]

Well the Old Testament, is - well Old, and your right those customs got tossed out the window with tons of other stuff in there as social policy. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. Some people have the urge to have sex with the same sex.

I was looking at a site the other day and ran across this cartoon that said Religion is a Cult and under it these words.

Exodus 35:2 - God demands that we kill everyone who works on the Sabbath day.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - God demands that we kill all disobedient teenagers.

Leviticus 20:13 - God demands the death of homosexuals.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - God demands that we kill girls who are not virgins when they marry.

I was like no way the Holy Word of God would be so awful, so like a good researcher I went and looked it up myself, and sure enough its all there in black and white.

So I did a little more searching and I found this letter written by some poor guy just trying to follow the Good Word that presented some real problems in our modern day society, and I have to tell you I was ROFL, so without further adu, here it is.

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I sent it to my mother who is a devout christian and she wrote back to me saying...

Yep, it is all there, in the "OLD TESTAMENT"...thank the Lord, we don't live under the law after Jesus died...so none of those rules apply anymore. Unless you are Jewish I guess and don't believe in the New Testament..lol
Everyone is so convinced that God is only a loving God and he is a loving God just like a father who really loves his child would snatch him up by the arm and break it if he was trying to get him out of the way of an oncoming truck. Even the commandments were not given to punish people, but to protect them. They were wondering around out there in desesert gettin all crazy having sex with this one and that one and getting diseases and suffering, losing their ever loving minds like a bunch of crazy kids, so God said ...ok everybody out of the pool, until you can prove you can act like a responsible adults, I am going to give you some rules to follow..if you follow them you want be in trouble all the time and you will be happier. Funny isn't it...even today we still don't get it. Thank goodness His mercies endureth forever.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Not to derail, but I seem to recall that story also had another tasty morsel in it:

19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
19:6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
19:7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Lot offered up his own daughters to be raped. I am.... pretty sure.... that's not a good example of morality. Can we PLEASE not use this book as a teaching tool for morality? Please? Or at least stop pretending we're consistent on these points, because I KNOW none of you ordinary Christians are suggesting that raping women is an okay alternative to gay sex.

Not only do the laws contradict each other, but the moral lessons do as well, and are incompatible with modern society. Bronze age mysticism has steered us wrong on so many issues, from slavery to treating women like cattle. What was considered acceptable in the past is no longer so.

Treating gay people like second-class citizens, or some kind of demons, also needs to go the way of the menstruation laws. It needs to be wrapped up in some kind of cotton, and tossed in the garbage.

 

[Flying Pig]

Lot offered up his own daughters to be raped. I am.... pretty sure.... that's not a good example of morality. Can we PLEASE not use this book as a teaching tool for morality? Please? Or at least stop pretending we're consistent on these points, because I KNOW none of you ordinary Christians are suggesting that raping women is an okay alternative to gay sex.

I always read that story as Lot realising that he couldn't get out of the situation, so he chose to give his daughters - regarded at the time as almost his property - to be violated rather than his guests in an age where hospitality was very important. The point of it is to show Lot's desperation, not to condone raping women as better than raping men.

 

[holy king]

well at my uni at least, other than the islamic society which basically have a feud with the lgbt society, the least gay friendly people are the sort that just make jokes about gay people but dont have any real issue with gay people, theres none of the crazy its unnatural and wrong kind of opinions, I think I would be quite uncomfortable around people who expressed those kind of views

fair enough if you want to spend your whole life on a university campus.

but then, that's not western society, but a detached microcosm.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I always read that story as Lot realising that he couldn't get out of the situation, so he chose to give his daughters - regarded at the time as almost his property - to be violated rather than his guests in an age where hospitality was very important. The point of it is to show Lot's desperation, not to condone raping women as better than raping men.

So, two further things:

1) You "read that story as" means there's openings for different interpretations. Why is my interpretation invalid?

2) If back then, hospitality was more important than not betraying your daughter's innocence to a mob of rapists, and these are the people we're turning to as role models, surely we can do better.

Problems with using this book as a basis for the moral code of our society is when we allow ourselves to ignore most of it as outdated and ludicrous, but other parts cannot be questioned. You can't call it God's perfect law, believe that it is so, and cross out most of it and just read the parts you like. And if it's not God's perfect law, people must stop using it to beat gay people over the head when we're all just as guilty of violating God's perfect law.

Either be consistent and true to The Word, or we should not act like we represent The Word. In other words, these "family values" people need to stop thinking that they are God, and stop casting stones at gays.