Homophobia is so gay

[Arcade22]

no, in fact you cherry picked sentences to support your point and ignored the fact that everything you didn't pick doesn't support your position,

Cherry picking? It says right there that adult men who wanted to be penetrated by other men were seen as feminine, and that undesirable if not outright immoral. How can that not show that types of homosexual sex was considered immoral and wrong? That's pretty much the modern definition of "gay" in common speech. I.E two adult men in a sexual relationship.

In Greece and Rome it was considered unmasculine to be the bottom, you have somehow misread that as "all homosexuality was perceived as wrong"

That's a strawman. I've already said that it depended on time, place and circumstances! Sometimes it was, sometimes it wasn't.

so its clear that you have an obvious bias, tell me why are you so determined to believe that homosexuality has always been wrong ?

Straw-man.

http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/history-of-prisons-51759106

Very well. I can concede that prisons were possibly more common than I've been taught.

perhaps as you're trying to claim that people were likely to be punished for being homosexual in the ancient world you'll be able to show me an example of ancient world law that states its a crime

The first part is a strawman. I wont say or speculate how often homosexual sex or relationships was seen as something good and acceptable or immoral and undesirable in the "ancient world". I will however say that using blanket statements like you did is wrong.

Second, I've already mentioned that Germanic tribes (at least some of them) had the death penalty for at least some people who had same-sex intercourse. Again, considering that the Germanic peoples had a varied culture (just like all peoples) it most likely did not apply to all of them.

 

[Marduk]

Cherry picking? It says right there that adult men who wanted to be penetrated by other men were seen as feminine, and that undesirable if not outright immoral. How can that not show that types of homosexual sex was considered immoral and wrong? That's pretty much the modern definition of "gay" in common speech. I.E two adult men in a sexual relationship.

yes, because the bottom was seen as lower rank in a masculine patriarchal society, if the bottom was actually of a lower rank, then it as perfectly acceptable, this point you have deliberately misrepresented twice now, and it shows

That's a strawman. I've already said that it depended on time, place and circumstances! Sometimes it was, sometimes it wasn't.

and I've already shown you are wrong, when are you going to be presenting your evidence ?

Very well. I can concede that prisons were possibly more common than I've been taught..

Well, there we go, admitting you know very little about ancient history is no stigma really

The first part is a strawman. I wont say or speculate how often homosexual sex or relationships was seen as something good and acceptable or immoral and undesirable in the "ancient world". I will however say that using blanket statements like you did is wrong...

I didn't make any unsupported blanket statements, thats just what you want to believe because you are unable or uncapable of accepting the truth

Second, I've already mentioned that Germanic tribes (at least some of them) had the death penalty for at least some people who had same-sex intercourse. Again, considering that the Germanic peoples had a varied culture (just like all peoples) it most likely did not apply to all of them.

the claims you are making about germanic tribes are from the Early Middle Ages and reflect Catholic law (the punishment was death by drowning by being thrown into a bog). So off topic as they aren't germanic in origin and they arent ancient world, in fact ancient germanic tribes practiced a warrior-based male homosexuality very similar to that of Sparta

are you at any point going to be supporting your opinion with anything but your preconceived beliefs ?
also, you seem to have missed the direct questions I asked you, are you going to be answering them anytime soon or are you just here to rant about your own homophobia ?
you already made it quite clear that you consider homosexuality abhorrent in the "is homosexuality genetic" thread, you may remember you and bad leutenant revealed your bigotry for all to see, as such you don't have any point to make in another gay thread do you, yet here you are strangely attracted to them. Maybe you should go back and read the OP again, you'll find it helps to explain your behaviour

 

[blobru]

This has got to be Poe.

Yep.

Gay people's orgasms aren't as good as straight people's orgasms, so straight people are afraid they'll catch the gay and have less enjoyable orgasms.

Poe. Definitely.

Now it is. (Unofficially).

Edgar Allan Poe's
"The Gay Men" (being a slight variation & abridgment of an earlier poem)

Once upon a midnight queerly, while I laundered, weak and weary,
After many a bout of furious shtupping a forgotten whore--
While I folded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of someone gaily rapping, rapping at my pantry door.
"Tis some hetero," I muttered, "tapping at my pantry door--
Hetero and nothing more."

Open here I flung the shut door, when, with many a flirt and flutter,
In there stepped two stately gay men of the saintly days of yore.
Not the least obeisance made they; nor a minute stopped or stayed they,
But, with mien of lord and lady, got at it on my kitchen floor--
Got at it on the linoleum tiles checkering my kitchen floor--
Got at it, and nothing more.

Then their bona fides beguiling my straight fancy into smiling,
By the faith and the begorrah of sweet buggery they swore,
"Though thy chests be greased and shaven, thou," I said, "art sure no flamin',
Dastardly and unclean gay men wandering from the nightly score--
Tell me what thy lulzy game is played out on my kitchen floor!"
Quoth the gay men, "Room for one more."

Then, methought, the air grew fruitier, music from an unseen luthier
Swing for Seraphim whose foot-falls tinkled on the tiled floor.
"Why," I retched, "hath my God sent thee--nude and greased to sorely tempt me
To spite--despite your gay orgasms here upon my kitchen floor
I shall forgo your flavory spasms to refavor - whatsername? - Lenore!"
Quoth the gay men, "Nevermore!"

"Prophets!" said I, "things of evil!--half-dressed still, or nude bedevil!
By Heaven's end that bends above us--by His rod we both adore--
Toll this bell with clapper in it til it tells its brave lieutenant,
It shall straightly clasp the maiden macho angels name Lenore--
Clasp and do this pliant plaything here upon the kitchen floor."
Quoth the gay men, "Nevermore."

"I think it's time you should be going, birds in hand!" I shrieked, unbowing--
"Get thee back onto the stools of the gay bars where you did score!
Leave no leather as a token of that lie thy coupling's spoken!
Leave my closet yet unopened!--quit the dust upon my floor!
Take thy pects from out my sight, and thy cute butts from off my floor!"
Quoth the gay men, "Room for one more?"

And the gay men, ever flitting, still are mincing, still are sitting
Upon the waxing dust here lusting gaily on my kitchen floor;
And their eyes have all the seeming of two demons that are dreaming
And the lamp-light o'er us streaming throws three shadows on the floor;
And my loins from out the tumult that vies wrestling on our floor
Shall be hetero--nevermore!

 

[Skepticemea]

Now it is. (Unofficially).

Edgar Allan Poe's
"The Gay Men" (being a slight variation & abridgment of an earlier poem)

Once upon a midnight queerly, while I laundered, weak and weary,
After many a bout of furious shtupping a forgotten whore--
While I folded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of someone gaily rapping, rapping at my pantry door.
"Tis some hetero," I muttered, "tapping at my pantry door--
Hetero and nothing more."

Open here I flung the shut door, when, with many a flirt and flutter,
In there stepped two stately gay men of the saintly days of yore.
Not the least obeisance made they; nor a minute stopped or stayed they,
But, with mien of lord and lady, got at it on my kitchen floor--
Got at it on the linoleum tiles checkering my kitchen floor--
Got at it, and nothing more.

Then their bona fides beguiling my straight fancy into smiling,
By the faith and the begorrah of sweet buggery they swore,
"Though thy chests be greased and shaven, thou," I said, "art sure no flamin',
Dastardly and unclean gay men wandering from the nightly score--
Tell me what thy lulzy game is played out on my kitchen floor!"
Quoth the gay men, "Room for one more."

Then, methought, the air grew fruitier, music from an unseen luthier
Swing for Seraphim whose foot-falls tinkled on the tiled floor.
"Why," I retched, "hath my God sent thee--nude and greased to sorely tempt me
To spite--despite your gay orgasms here upon my kitchen floor
I shall forgo your flavory spasms to refavor - whatsername? - Lenore!"
Quoth the gay men, "Nevermore!"

"Prophets!" said I, "things of evil!--half-dressed still, or nude bedevil!
By Heaven's end that bends above us--by His rod we both adore--
Toll this bell with clapper in it til it tells its brave lieutenant,
It shall straightly clasp the maiden macho angels name Lenore--
Clasp and do this pliant plaything here upon the kitchen floor."
Quoth the gay men, "Nevermore."

"I think it's time you should be going, birds in hand!" I shrieked, unbowing--
"Get thee back onto the stools of the gay bars where you did score!
Leave no leather as a token of that lie thy coupling's spoken!
Leave my closet yet unopened!--quit the dust upon my floor!
Take thy pects from out my sight, and thy cute butts from off my floor!"
Quoth the gay men, "Room for one more?"

And the gay men, ever flitting, still are mincing, still are sitting
Upon the waxing dust here lusting gaily on my kitchen floor;
And their eyes have all the seeming of two demons that are dreaming
And the lamp-light o'er us streaming throws three shadows on the floor;
And my loins from out the tumult that vies wrestling on our floor
Shall be hetero--nevermore!

Quothed for lulz.

 

[luchog]

the claims you are making about germanic tribes are from the Early Middle Ages and reflect Catholic law (the punishment was death by drowning by being thrown into a bog). So off topic as they aren't germanic in origin and they arent ancient world, in fact ancient germanic tribes practiced a warrior-based male homosexuality very similar to that of Sparta

Not quite; and I suggest you brush up on your history. Like other periods, ancient Nordic/Germanic and Celtic peoples had widely disparate treatment of homosexual activity. Treatment ranged from a hierarchical view similar to that of the Romans and Greeks, to outright taboo. Reactions also varied, from public humiliation of the "receptive" party, to shunning, to outright execution of both parties. Homosexual relationships in the modern, equal-partner sense are unheard of; but seem to be exclusively an expression of dominance and subjugation.

Modern equal-partner homosexual relationships are not unheard of in other regions; and appear to have existed among some Native American and South Pacific peoples.

 

[Marduk]

Not quite; and I suggest you brush up on your history. Like other periods, ancient Nordic/Germanic and Celtic peoples had widely disparate treatment of homosexual activity. Treatment ranged from a hierarchical view similar to that of the Romans and Greeks, to outright taboo. Reactions also varied, from public humiliation of the "receptive" party, to shunning, to outright execution of both parties. Homosexual relationships in the modern, equal-partner sense are unheard of; but seem to be exclusively an expression of dominance and subjugation.

Modern equal-partner homosexual relationships are not unheard of in other regions; and appear to have existed among some Native American and South Pacific peoples.

so do you have a link ?

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

he's a homophobe, can't you tell
I guess he's being vocal about it (again) because he didn't read the OP carefully

Do you mind; i've self identified as being heterosexist, not homophobic. As I've explained already, my disdain for homosexuality (if not bisexuality) is entirely founded on sound logic and reason - there's no phobia about it.

I might say of you: "he's a virgin; can't you all tell?"

 

[luchog]

so do you have a link ?

Not everything is online, unfortunately. If I get the time, I'll try and dig up sources.

 

[Cuddles]

As I've explained already, my disdain for homosexuality (if not bisexuality) is entirely founded on sound logic and reason

No, as you've explained already, your disdain for homosexuality is entirely founded on the completely unfounded, and quite frankly utterly insane, belief that homosexuality is contagious.

there's no phobia about it.

pho·bi·a
noun
a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

You have the compelling desire to avoid being near gay people because of your irrational fear of catching The Gay. A perfect textbook example of homophobia.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

Gay = no reproductive sex possible. It has been shown that homosexuality is at least sometimes not geneticaly derived, therefore sometimes it is environmentally derived. For people who like heterosexual sex, it is rational to have disdain for homosexuality (if not bisexuality) as viewing it to be perfectly ok, like bestiality (of which most people are doubtless capable), might lead to one being "lost down the rabbit hole" and losing interest in normal sex as it has been largely replaced by the libidinal imposter.

It's so totally straightforward I can't believe posters are sufficiently disengenuous to deny the logic of the argument in order to protect the gay rights movement. No, wait, I can. I've read it 100 times before. Hopefully one day intellectual honesty will win out over fanatical American liberalism nevertheless.

 

[Dessi]

Bad Lieutenant, what you describe, about fearing that you'll be attracted to gay men if you're around them too long, is pretty much the vindication of OP.

Now, I'm not the type of person who normally buys the "homophobes have repressed homosexual desires" point of view, but seriously, what you're describing in a phenomenon that never occurs in heterosexual people who are comfortable with their sexuality, it only happens to people with latent same-gender attractions. I'm not saying you're a closeted, self-hating homosexual, but the bizarre fear that you'll find yourself becoming attracted to men has implications which will haunt you for the rest of your life if you don't get them sorted out.

Best of luck on your journey, where ever it takes you.

 

[The Dark Lord]

I think that subconsciously BL realizes if he were to acknowledge that it is OK to be gay, it would be OK that he is gay and he would have to acknowledge it. And he can't have that for whatever reason. Hence his ridiculous “logic" for why homosexuality is wrong.

 

[Ocelot]

Bad Lieutenant

1) Being Gay does not equal "no reproductive sex possible." Just one counter example is enough: Oscar Wilde, married and had two children.

I expect someone might counter this with a no true scotsman^WP style argument that this implies dear Oscar was not homosexual at all but bisexual. Yet even were we to accept that, then many of us should have no fear of catching teh gay. Worst case scenario would be that we caught a mild case of Bi having already been inoculated by exposure to the opposite sex.

2) Maybe you're not amongst that group but that's OK. There's no shame in being a virgin. There's also no shame in being gay. There wouldn't be even if being gay did mean that no reproductive sex was possible. For one thing 'no reproductive sex' is not the same as no reproduction. My brother is marrying his boyfriend next year and both of them are very paternal. They're looking at surrogates and from the way they look after our kids, as we're glad they do from time to time, I'm sure they'll make great parents both in nature and nurture.

3) Yet even if that weren't an option, not having kids still isn't a problem for individuals. The species isn't going to die out just because a proportion of them don't play an active part in reproduction. You'll be aware of social species like ants and bees where the vast majority of the population never breed. Many other animals are sexually dimorphic^WP with a common configuration being that successful males command large harems whilst the majority of other males never or rarely get to breed. Yet don't think that these additional males are just deadweight in the social group. Even if they don't get to raise their own kids they share a genetic heritage with many of the new generation whose safety and well-being they contribute to. Much like we find it much easier to raise our kids having a (currently) childless uncle to call upon for babysitting duties. So a proportion of a population not breeding does not need to spell disaster for that population.

4) Of course if every man could become gay through purely environmental exposure to other gays then perhaps the condition could reach epidemic proportions and if it wasn't for the three points I raise above that could be a problem. However as far as I'm aware that the existence of an environmental factor is not as well established as you seem to claim.

5) Even if you can prove that there is an environmental factor, it does not follow that such an environmental factor would necessarily be a contagion. For example it has been noted that gay men disproportionately have elder brothers. One suggestion is that a mother may be genetically predisposed to produces androgens during the first trimester that have developmental effects increasing the chance of gay male offspring. However the circumstance under which the mother produces such offspring are more likely than not when they've already produced a number of breeding offspring. Such potentially non breeiding offspring can then act as a support network for the existing generations. It's just a theory with a little bit of lab evidence to support it in rats so too early to state is as fact or fable. Certainly it has more than I've seen you offer for your contagion theory. If true it means I have no need to be afraid of catching teh gay from my little brother. If anything my prior existence could be a factor is the development of his sexuality.

6) As an empiricist the strongest evidence in my view, that the scenario you outline is a fantasy, are the direct observations of natural homosexuality. In the entire history of species that exhibit homosexuality no-one has ever found evidence of a population going extinct through the contagious spread of homosexuality.

7) Given that even if your ideas of gay contagion are fantasy, we still know that the genetic component can spread down the generations through the mechanisms described above, the fact that homosexuality still hasn't been observed to wipe out a population through reaching genetic predominance suggests it very unlikely to be harmful to a species survival.

8) On the contrary: Homosexuality has been found in pretty much every sexual species where it's been seriously looked for. This is strongly consistent with the hypothesis that any genetic influence allowing for a proportion of a population to exhibit homosexuality has been positively selected for since the evolution of sex itself. That means it's very possible that homophobia is more likley to be harmful to our population than homosexuality.

9) Finally. So what. Even if the future of our species were under threat from a contagious choice, the rights of real human beings living in the here and now trump those of potential future people who don't even exist yet and may never do so. If every woman in the world made the choice to become celibate, and otherwise withhold their genetic material from us men, then the threatened potential of future generations would still not justify us impregnating women against their will. Likewise even if the choices made by gay men or women did actually make any difference to the existence of future generations we still wouldn't have the right to discriminate.


In summary. That's 9 distinct points. Each one alone is sufficient to invalidate your argument on rational grounds. As a good skeptic I'm willing to accept counter argument. I'm happy to consider the possibility that I am mistaken on any one of these 9 points. Yet it would take the demolition of all 9 of them before your attitude to homosexuality could even possibly be considered rational.


ETA One final point. My wife and I have three children. Two is enough to sustain the population. I had no desire to contribute to overpopulation but we were blessed with twins. What with coming from a family of three siblings myself and even my gay little brother looking for ways to breed I'm a little concerned that my family tree is running riotously out of control. If you do find yourself in a position where you might risk exposure to potentially contagious homosexuality then consider the risk compensated. I'm allocating responsibility for my excess over to you so feel free to take a chance with not reproducing. The species is safe with us.

 

[Ian]

How's this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html?ref=opinion

 

[Marduk]

I might say of you: "he's a virgin; can't you all tell?"

I can provide you written testimony thats not the case, but, I like your idea, if I get women into thinking I'm just waiting for the right woman to lose my cherry to, with my looks I'll be inundated
thanks for the advice

Bad Lieutenant, what you describe, about fearing that you'll be attracted to gay men if you're around them too long, is pretty much the vindication of OP.

Yeah, according to the OP you're a repressed homosexual dude, we all know it, be honest with yourself
now you helped me out earlier, would you like me to find you a nice man ?
or alternatively, as you're in England I can pop over personally and give you a sampler ?

 

[Cuddles]

Gay = no reproductive sex possible.

No it doesn't.

It has been shown that homosexuality is at least sometimes not geneticaly derived, therefore sometimes it is environmentally derived.

No it hasn't*.

For people who like heterosexual sex, it is rational to have disdain for homosexuality

No it isn't.

might lead to one being "lost down the rabbit hole" and losing interest in normal sex

No it won't.

It's so totally straightforward

Yes, it is.

I can't believe posters are sufficiently disengenuous to deny the logic of the argument

I can't believe it either, yet here you are.

Hopefully one day intellectual honesty will win out over fanatical American liberalism nevertheless.

Many of us here are not American. Most of us here are significantly more intellectually honest and less fanatical than you.

*More importantly here, despite having it explained to you several times, you still do not appear to understand what "environmental" means. It does not mean "contagious". Examples of environmental influences are temperature in the womb during gestation, diet and education, especially early education. None of these things can be transferred to another person simply by being near them.

This is the point that makes your entire argument utterly nonsensical. Even if it is firmly established that sexuality is entirely environmental with no genetic influence whatsoever, that in no way implies that you can catch gay by being near gay people. As long as you continue to refuse to accept this, your "argument" will continue to be nothing more than nonsensical bigotry.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

It feels like I'm going to repeat myself a fair bit and I'm reluctant to commit the time in a way, but I esteem the forum and the members so will labourously reiterate the crystal clear arguments I've already detailed in this thread at least once, tackling the various critical points raised by other members, perhaps even in sufficiently comprehensive and simple prose so as to engender some agreement at least. I'm working long shifts till the end of the week but will put in the time over the bank holiday weekend as long as I remember. You lucky, lucky people ; )

 

[Ocelot]

Repeating yourself won't help. The difficulty we have in accepting the truth in your argument is not that we don't comprehend it. Rather that we also comprehend that there are gaping flaws in what we clearly understand that you are saying.

 

[Skepticemea]

I want to like pink. Should I have sex with another man to increase my tolerance for pink?

I can't stand the idea of hunting for sport. Would having more sex with multiple women increase my desire to kill furry creatures?

I want to curb my abhorrance of right-wing woo-flinging homophobe nutjobs. Would starting a thread about rape make me more tolerant towards them?

The "nuture" argument is a crock, imo.

 

[Cuddles]

It feels like I'm going to repeat myself a fair bit and I'm reluctant to commit the time in a way, but I esteem the forum and the members so will labourously reiterate the crystal clear arguments I've already detailed in this thread at least once

Repeating the same nonsense yet again will not make it any less nonsense.

tackling the various critical points raised by other members, perhaps even in sufficiently comprehensive and simple prose so as to engender some agreement at least.

The problem is not your language. We understand what you are saying perfectly. The problem is that what you are saying is nonsensical bigotry. The only way to get people to agree with you is to stop posting it, and instead post things that actually make sense. Actually reading the numerous posts explaining exactly why your claims are nonsense would help with that enormously.