homophobic fundie says: love the sinner hate the sin

[eyeswideopen]

There's a difference between hating homosexuals and hating homosexuality.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:10 PM
There's a difference between hating homosexuals and hating homosexuality.
What is the difference?

And how it is meaningful?

That's like saying, 'i hate black skin, but i dont have anything against Black people' :wacko:

You can't isolate human sexuality from human beings, sexual behaviour exists because of the actions of people, 'homosexuals' are what give 'homosexuality' context.

Do you hate homosexuality or 'homosexuals'?

[eyeswideopen]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 23 2006, 09:25 AM--> (Black Dagger @ Aug 23 2006, 09:25 AM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 03:10 PM
There's a difference between hating homosexuals and hating homosexuality.
What is the difference?

And how it is meaningful?

That's like saying, 'i hate black skin, but i dont have anything against Black people' :wacko:

You can't isolate human sexuality from human beings, sexual behaviour exists because of the actions of people, 'homosexuals' are what give 'homosexuality' context.

Do you hate homosexuality or 'homosexuals'? [/b]
There is a difference. Your "sexuality" if you will, does not define your humanity, it is simply a part of your behavior. I don't go around saying hey my name is John the heterosexual, you can't like me because of it. No, that's not how it is. I hate homosexuality, the act of it. I think it's exponentially self destructive and goes against nature. I also believe no one is born homosexual, it is simply a disorder. I know a lot of former homosexuals who have surpassed it and now live married lives, and are VERY much heterosexuals. I won't hate someone because they say they are a homosexual. Capiche?

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by eyeswideopen+Aug 24 2006, 02:59 AM--> (eyeswideopen @ Aug 24 2006, 02:59 AM)
Originally posted by Black [email protected] 23 2006, 09:25 AM

[email protected] 23 2006, 03:10 PM
There's a difference between hating homosexuals and hating homosexuality.
What is the difference?

And how it is meaningful?

That's like saying, 'i hate black skin, but i dont have anything against Black people' :wacko:

You can't isolate human sexuality from human beings, sexual behaviour exists because of the actions of people, 'homosexuals' are what give 'homosexuality' context.

Do you hate homosexuality or 'homosexuals'?
There is a difference. Your "sexuality" if you will, does not define your humanity, it is simply a part of your behavior. I don't go around saying hey my name is John the heterosexual, you can't like me because of it. No, that's not how it is. I hate homosexuality, the act of it. I think it's exponentially self destructive and goes against nature. I also believe no one is born homosexual, it is simply a disorder. I know a lot of former homosexuals who have surpassed it and now live married lives, and are VERY much heterosexuals. I won't hate someone because they say they are a homosexual. Capiche? [/b]
How is homosexuality self-destructive? :rolleyes:

And I think you mean those people you know are leading repressed lived. Or maybe they were bi all along?

This has got to be one of the worst posts I've seen outside of OI.

[Sentinel]

Wow, it was awhile ago I saw puke like this on this board.. Which is positive I guess, but still chocking when it occurs.


and goes against nature.

Oh, really? Time for this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior) rather impressive list to get posted once again, I guess:


This list includes animals for which there is documented evidence of homosexual or transgender behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting.

There are currently 478 different species on this list.

Mammals

* African Amorous Great-Ape of Homosexual Hump-Love and Affection
* African Buffalo
* African Elephant
* Agile Wallaby
* Amazon River Dolphin (Boto)
* American Bison
* Aperea
* Asian Elephant
* Asiatic Mouflon
* Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
* Australian Sea Lion
* Barasingha
* Barbary Sheep
* Beluga
* Bharal
* Bighorn Sheep
* Black Bear
* Blackbuck
* Black-footed Rock Wallaby
* Black-tailed Deer
* Bonnet Macaque
* Bonobo
* Bottlenose Dolphin
* Bowhead Whale
* Bridled Dolphin
* Brown Bear
* Brown Capuchin
* Brown Long-eared Bat
* Brown Rat
* Caribou
* Cat (domestic)
* Cattle (domestic)
* Cheetah
* Collared Peccary
* Commerson's Dolphin
* Common Brushtail Possum
* Common Chimpanzee
* Common Dolphin
* Common Marmoset
* Common Pipistrelle
* Common Raccoon
* Common Tree Shrew
* Cotton-top Tamarin
* Crab-eating Macaque
* Crested Black Macaque
* Cui
* Cow
* Dall's Sheep
* Daubenton's Bat
* Dog (domestic)
* Doria's Tree Kangaroo
* Dugong
* Dwarf Cavy
* Dwarf Mongoose
* Eastern Cottontail Rabbit
* Eastern Gray Kangaroo
* Elk
* Euro (a subspecies of wallaroo)
* European Bison
* Fallow Deer
* False Killer Whale
* Fat-tailed Dunnart
* Ferret (Domestic)
* Fin Whale
* Fox
* Gelada Baboon
* Giraffe
* Goat (Domestic)
* Golden Monkey
* Gorilla
* Grant's Gazelle
* Gray-headed Flying Fox
* Gray Seal
* Gray Squirrel
* Gray Whale
* Gray Wolf
* Grizzly Bear
* Guinea Pig (Domestic)
* Hamadryas Baboon
* Hamster (Domestic)
* Hanuman Langur
* Harbor Porpoise
* Harbor Seal
* Himalayan Tahr
* Hoary Marmot
* Horse (domestic)
* Human
* Indian Fruit Bat
* Indian Muntjac
* Indian Rhinoceros
* Japanese Macaque
* Javelina
* Kangaroo Rat
* Killer Whale
* Koala
* Kob
* Larga Seal
* Least Chipmunk
* Lechwe
* Lesser Bushbaby
* Lion
* Lion-tailed Macaque
* Lion Tamarin
* Little Brown Bat
* Livingstone's Fruit Bat
* Long-eared Hedgehog
* Long-footed Tree Shrew
* Markhor
* Marten
* Matschie's Tree Kangaroo
* Mohol Galago
* Moor Macaque
* Moose
* Mountain Goat
* Mountain Tree Shrew
* Mountain Zebra
* Mouse (domestic)
* Moustached Tamarin
* Mule Deer
* Musk-ox
* Natterer's Bat
* New Zealand Sea Lion
* Nilgiri Langur
* Noctule
* North American Porcupine
* Northern Elephant Seal
* Northern Fur Seal
* Northern Quoll
* Olympic Marmot
* Orangutan
* Orca
* Pacific Striped Dolphin
* Patas Monkey
* Pere David's Deer
* Pig (Domestic)
* Pig-tailed Macaque
* Plains Zebra
* Polar Bear
* Pretty-faced Wallaby
* Proboscis Monkey
* Pronghorn
* Przewalski's Horse
* Puku
* Quokka
* Rabbit
* Raccoon Dog
* Red Deer
* Red Fox
* Red Kangaroo
* Red-necked Wallaby
* Red Squirrel
* Reeves's Muntjac
* Reindeer
* Rhesus Macaque
* Right Whale
* Rock Cavy
* Rodrigues Fruit Bat
* Roe Deer
* Rufous Bettong
* Rufous-naped Tamarin
* Rufous Rat Kangaroo
* Saddle-back Tamarin
* Sasquatch
* Savanna Baboon
* Sea Otter
* Serotine Bat
* Sheep (Domestic)
* Siamang
* Sika Deer
* Slender Tree Shrew
* Sooty Mangabey
* Sperm Whale
* Spinifex Hopping Mouse
* Spinner Dolphin
* Spotted Hyena
* Spotted Seal
* Squirrel Monkey
* Striped Dolphin
* Stuart's Marsupial Mouse
* Stumptail Macaque
* Swamp Deer
* Swamp Wallaby
* Takhi
* Talapoin
* Tammar Wallaby
* Tasmanian Devil
* Tasmanian Rat Kangaroo
* Thinhorn Sheep
* Thomson's Gazelle
* Tiger
* Tonkean Macaque
* Tucuxi
* Urial
* Vampire Bat
* Verreaux's Sifaka
* Vervet
* Vicuna
* Walrus (oir-oir)
* Wapiti
* Warthog
* Waterbuck
* Water Buffalo
* Weeper Capuchin
* Western Gray Kangaroo
* West Indian Manatee
* Whiptail Wallaby
* White-faced Capuchin
* White-fronted Capuchin
* White-handed Gibbon
* White-lipped Peccary
* White-tailed Deer
* Wild Cavy
* Wild Goat
* Wisent
* Wolf (All known breeds)
* Yello-footed Rock Wallaby
* Yellow-toothed Cavy
* Zebra

[edit]

Birds

* Acorn Woodpecker
* Adelie Penguin
* Anna's Hummingbird
* Australian Shelduck
* Aztec Parakeet
* Bangalese Finch (Domestic)
* Bank Swallow
* Barn Owl
* Bicolored Antbird
* Black-billed Magpie
* Black-crowned Night Heron
* Black-headed Gull
* Black-rumped Flameback
* Black Stilt
* Black Swan
* Black-winged Stilt
* Blue-backed Manakin
* Blue-bellied Roller
* Blue Tit
* Blue-winged Teal
* Brown-headed Cowbird
* Budgerigar (Domestic)
* Buff-breasted Sandpiper
* Calfbird
* California Gull
* Canada Goose
* Canary-winged Parakeet
* Caspian Tern
* Cattle Egret
* Chaffinch
* Chicken (Domestic)
* Chiloe Wigeon
* Cliff Swallow
* Cockatiel
* Common Gull
* Common Murre
* Common Shelduck
* Crane spp.
* Dusky Moorhen
* Eastern Bluebird
* Egyptian Goose
* Elegant Parrot
* Emu
* European Jay
* European Shag
* Flamingo
* Galah
* Gentoo Penguin
* Golden Bishop Bird
* Golden Plover
* Gray-breasted Jay
* Gray-capped Social Weaver
* Gray Heron
* Grayling
* Great Cormorant
* Greater Bird of Paradise
* Greater Rhea
* Green Sandpiper
* Greenshank
* Greylag Goose
* Griffon Vulture
* Guianan Cock-of-the-Rock
* Guillemot
* Herring Gull
* Hoary-headed Grebe
* Hooded Warbler
* House Sparrow
* Humboldt Penguin
* Ivory Gull
* Jackdaw
* Kestrel
* King Penguin
* Kittiwake
* Laughing Gull
* Laysan Albatross
* Least Darter
* Lesser Flamingo
* Lesser Scaup Duck
* Little Blue Heron
* Little Egret
* Long-tailed Hermit Hummingbird
* Mallard
* Masked Lovebird
* Mealy Amazon Parrot
* Mew Gull
* Mexican Jay
* Musk Duck
* Mute Swan
* Ocellated Antbird
* Ocher-bellied Flycatcher
* Orange Bishop Bird
* Orange-footed Parakeet
* Ornate Lorikeet
* Ostrich
* Oystercatcher
* Peach-faced Lovebird
* Pied Flycatcher
* Pied Kingfisher
* Pigeon (Domestic)
* Powerful Owl
* Purple Swamphen
* Raggiana's Bird of Paradise
* Raven
* Razorbill
* Red-backed Shrike
* Red Bishop Bird
* Red-faced Lovebird
* Redshank
* Red-shouldered Widowbird
* Regent Bowerbird
* Ring-billed Gull
* Ring Dove
* Rock Dove
* Roseate Cockatoo
* Roseate Tern
* Rose-ringed Parakeet
* Ruff
* Ruffed Grouse
* Sage Grouse
* San Blas Jay
* Sand Martin
* Satin Bowerbird
* Scarlet Ibis
* Scottish Crossbill
* Senegal Parrot
* Sharp-tailed Sparrow
* Silver Gull
* Silvery Grebe
* Snow Goose
* Steller's Sea Eagle
* Superb Lyrebird
* Swallow-tailed Manakin
* Tasmanian Native Hen
* Tree Swallow
* Trumpeter Swan
* Turkey (Domestic)
* Victoria's Riflebird
* Wattled Starling
* Western Gull
* White-fronted Amazon Parrot
* White Stork
* Wood Duck
* Yellow-backed (Chattering) Lorikeet
* Yellow-rumped Cacique
* Zebra Finch (Domestic)

[edit]

Fish

* Amazon molly
* Blackstripe Topminnow
* Bluegill Sunfish
* Char
* Bitterling
* Green swordtail
* Guiana leaffish
* Hammerhead
* Houting Whitefish
* Jewel Fish
* Mouthbreeding Fish sp.
* Salmon spp.
* Southern platyfish
* Ten-spined stickleback
* Three-spined stickleback

[edit]

Other vertebrates

* Anole sp.
* Appalachian Woodland Salamander
* Australian Parasitic Wasp sp.
* Black-spotted Frog
* Broad-headed Skink
* Checkered Whiptail Lizard
* Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail Lizard
* Common Ameiva
* Common Garter Snake
* Cuban Green Anole
* Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard
* Desert Tortoise
* Fence Lizard
* Five-lined Skink
* Gopher (Pine) Snake
* Green Anole
* Inagua Curlytail Lizard
* Jamaican Giant Anole
* Laredo Striped Whiptail Lizard
* Largehead Anole
* Mountain Dusky Salamander
* Mourning Gecko
* Plateau Striped Whiptail Lizard
* Red Diamond Rattlesnake
* Red-tailed Skink
* Side-blotched Lizard
* Speckled Rattlesnake
* Tengger Desert Toad
* Water Moccasin
* Western Rattlesnake
* Western Banded Gecko
* Whiptail Lizard spp.
* Wood Turtle

[edit]

Insects and other invertebrates

* Acanthocephalan Worms
* Alfalfa Weevil
* Bean Weevil sp.
* Bedbug and other Bug spp.
* Blister Beetle spp.
* Blowfly
* Box Crab
* Broadwinged Damselfly sp.
* Cabbage (Small) White
* Checkerspot Butterfly
* Clubtail Dragonfly spp.
* Cockroach spp.
* Common Skimmer Dragonfly spp.
* Creeping Water Bug sp.
* Digger Bee
* Dragonfly spp.
* Eastern Giant Ichneumon
* Eucalyptus Longhorned Borer
* Field Cricket sp.
* Fruit Fly spp.
* Glasswing Butterfly
* Grape Berry Moth
* Grape Borer
* Green Lacewing
* Harvest Spider sp.
* Hawaiian Orb-Weaver
* Hen Flea
* House Fly
* Ichneumon Wasp sp.
* Incirrate Octopus spp.
* Japanese Scarab Beetle
* Jumping Spider sp.
* Larch Bud Moth
* Large Milkweed Bug
* Large White
* Long-legged Fly spp.
* Mazarine Blue
* Mediterranean Fruit Fly
* Mexican White
* Midge sp.
* Migratory Locust
* Mite sp.
* Monarch Butterfly
* Narrow-winged Damselfly spp.
* Parsnip Leaf Miner
* Pomace Fly
* Prea
* Queen Butterfly
* Red Ant sp.
* Red Flour Beetle
* Reindeer Warble Fly
* Rosechafer
* Rove Beetle spp.
* Scarab Beetle, Melolonthine
* Screwworm Fly
* Silkworm Moth
* Sociable Weaver
* Southeastern Blueberry Bee
* Southern Green Stink Bug
* Southern Masked Chafer
* Southern One-Year Canegrub
* Spreadwinged Damselfly spp.
* Spruce Budworm Moth
* Stable Fly sp.
* Stag Beetle spp.
* Tsetse Fly
* Water Boatman Bug
* Water Strider spp.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify to us how homosexuality, something that occurs in nearly all species found on this planet, 'goes against nature'? :huh:


I also believe no one is born homosexual, it is simply a disorder.

We have this excellent tradition here to post facts in our debates. Nobody gives a shit about what you 'believe', believe it or not. So proof please.


I know a lot of former homosexuals who have surpassed it and now live married lives, and are VERY much heterosexuals.

Unfortunately, the pressure from homophobic elements in society is too much for some, like Mujer Libre pointed out, and they choose to submit to the rules and norms enforced by those out of fear or confusion.

Countless lifes are ruined, which is simply unacceptable. :angry:

[Zero]

I suggest the resedent admin change his name to EyesCompletelyShut.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 06:21 AM
I suggest the resedent admin change his name to EyesCompletelyShut.
n1

[inquisitive_socialist]

i second. anyone who claims to hate the act of homosexuality, but not homosexuals is trying to ride a fence. and you know what, when you ride the fence, you jsut take it in the ass. isn't that what your opposed to?

[Rhyknow]

First of all, homosexuality is not a disorder. There is nothing wrong with the person. It is a result of their freedom of choice, and it is nature... People seem to forget that EVERYONE has a different personality. There is nothing "unnatural" about homosexuality as sentinel so rightly pointed out... It's a typical christian way of thinking

[CrazyModerate]

Even if it isn't decided at birth, it is still a personal life style choice that causes harm to nobody else.

Western liberal democracies which are currently debating homosexual issues do not oppress heterosexuals who make the personal choice to engage in acts of sodomy such as oral and anal sex. Premarital sex for the most part is very common as well. As well as the use of contraceptives. All of these things are widely accepted both by society and the political system, yet according to religous text they are just as sinful as homosexuality. In fact sodomy, the first supposedly sinful act I mentioned, is the only real reason homosexuality is viewed negatively. Yet oral heterosexual sex generally is seen in the same light as genital intercourse.

[Phugebrins]

Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals. But I would say it's possible to hate the sin but not the sinner.

Consider the question of criminality. We will quite often say that while we thoroughly disagree with crimes, we recognise that a good deal of crime is encouraged by capitalist society. We may therefore have no hatred of the individual who, I don't know, was caught stealing fruit from a market, even though we consider his actions wrong.

[RaiseYourVoice]

that works on crimes, but homosexuality is nothing that comes from capitalism, its just the sexual favor of a person. you CANNOT see people as equal if you dispise something that deciding in their live. maybe you dont hate them, maybe you feel bad for their souls or whatever, but its still discrimination

[Black Dagger]

but I would say it's possible to hate the sin but not the sinner.

Then i would say, 'hello to my fist!' :angry:

As i've already said in this thread:

What is the difference?

And how it is meaningful?

That's like saying, 'i hate black skin, but i dont have anything against Black people'.

You can't isolate human sexuality from human beings, sexual behaviour exists because of the actions of people, lesbians and gay people are what give the concept of 'homosexuality' context.



Consider the question of criminality. We will quite often say that while we thoroughly disagree with crimes, we recognise that a good deal of crime is encouraged by capitalist society. We may therefore have no hatred of the individual who, I don't know, was caught stealing fruit from a market, even though we consider his actions wrong.

That analogy is not only offensive - you are comparing lesbians and gay people to criminals and suggesting that 'we disagree' with an think that 'their' actions are 'wrong', but also as RaiseYaVoice pointed out, logically flawed.

Lesbians and gay peoples are not an unavoidable, negative, or regretful byproduct of an exploitative system, not criminals - but a product of nature.



Originally posted by RaiseYaVoice
you CANNOT see people as equal if you dispise something that deciding in their live.

Exactly.

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 26 2006, 01:18 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Aug 26 2006, 01:18 PM)
but I would say it's possible to hate the sin but not the sinner.

Then i would say, 'hello to my fist!' :angry:

As i've already said in this thread:

What is the difference?

And how it is meaningful?

That's like saying, 'i hate black skin, but i dont have anything against Black people'.

You can't isolate human sexuality from human beings, sexual behaviour exists because of the actions of people, lesbians and gay people are what give the concept of 'homosexuality' context.



Consider the question of criminality. We will quite often say that while we thoroughly disagree with crimes, we recognise that a good deal of crime is encouraged by capitalist society. We may therefore have no hatred of the individual who, I don't know, was caught stealing fruit from a market, even though we consider his actions wrong.

That analogy is not only offensive (you are comparing lesbians and gay people to criminals), but as RaiseYaVoice pointed out, logically flawed.

Lesbians and gay peoples are not an unavoidable, negative, or regretful byproduct of an exploitative system, not criminals - but a product of nature.



RaiseYaVoice
you CANNOT see people as equal if you dispise something that deciding in their live.

Exactly. [/b]
Black Dagger, I have noticed 2-3 times till now that u have the bad habit to answer to another person's post without having read it carefully first. Read
Phugebrins' post again and you will see that he did not mean any kind of disrespect against homosexuals or homosexuality.

[Black Dagger]

Uh, just because you dont think he meant any 'disrespect', doesn't mean shit to me. And please, drop the patronising tone, "I have noticed 2-3 times till now that u have the bad habit to answer to another person's post without having read it carefully first" - you have shit politics, i get it, but i dont have to agree with them.

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 26 2006, 01:56 PM
Uh, just because you dont think he meant any 'disrespect', doesn't mean shit to me. And please, drop the patronising tone, "I have noticed 2-3 times till now that u have the bad habit to answer to another person's post without having read it carefully first" - you have shit politics, i get it, but i dont have to agree with them.
His exact words were these

Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals

He clearly stated that the "hate the sin- love the sinner" rule can be applied only for criminals and criminal acts and NOT for homosexuals or homosexual acts.

[The Rover]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:40 PM
But I would say it's possible to hate the sin but not the sinner.
I can somewhat understand what you're saying, although homosexuality is far from being a sin. But it is possible to hate an idea but not someone who practices it. I don't think that's relevant here, though, because homosexuality is usually not something one chooses.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by adenoid hynkel+Aug 27 2006, 12:03 AM--> (adenoid hynkel @ Aug 27 2006, 12:03 AM)
Originally posted by Black [email protected] 26 2006, 01:56 PM
Uh, just because you dont think he meant any 'disrespect', doesn't mean shit to me. And please, drop the patronising tone, "I have noticed 2-3 times till now that u have the bad habit to answer to another person's post without having read it carefully first" - you have shit politics, i get it, but i dont have to agree with them.
His exact words were these

Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals

He clearly stated that the "hate the sin- love the sinner" rule can be applied only for criminals and criminal acts and NOT for homosexuals or homosexual acts. [/b]
Um, perhaps you should take your own advice?


But I would say it's possible to hate the sin but not the sinner.

That he prefaced this sentence with, 'Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals' does not negate what followed.

He said that it's possible to 'hate the sin and not the sinner', and then followed this statement with an analogy which 'proved' this premise.

The problem here is that the premise is false, and his analogy seems to be suggesting that 'homosexuality' is 'wrong', but we 'understand' this in some way.

My emphasis:


him
we may therefore have no hatred of the individual who, I don't know, was caught stealing fruit from a market, even though we consider his actions wrong.

[The Rover]

Originally posted by adenoid hynkel+Aug 26 2006, 02:03 PM--> (adenoid hynkel @ Aug 26 2006, 02:03 PM)
Black [email protected] 26 2006, 01:56 PM
Uh, just because you dont think he meant any 'disrespect', doesn't mean shit to me. And please, drop the patronising tone, "I have noticed 2-3 times till now that u have the bad habit to answer to another person's post without having read it carefully first" - you have shit politics, i get it, but i dont have to agree with them.
His exact words were these

Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals

He clearly stated that the "hate the sin- love the sinner" rule can be applied only for criminals and criminal acts and NOT for homosexuals or homosexual acts. [/b]
That statement is so open to interpretation, you could both easily be right and wrong.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by The Rover+Aug 27 2006, 12:09 AM--> (The Rover @ Aug 27 2006, 12:09 AM)
Originally posted by adenoid hynkel+Aug 26 2006, 02:03 PM--> (adenoid hynkel @ Aug 26 2006, 02:03 PM)
Black [email protected] 26 2006, 01:56 PM
Uh, just because you dont think he meant any 'disrespect', doesn't mean shit to me. And please, drop the patronising tone, "I have noticed 2-3 times till now that u have the bad habit to answer to another person's post without having read it carefully first" - you have shit politics, i get it, but i dont have to agree with them.
His exact words were these

Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals

He clearly stated that the "hate the sin- love the sinner" rule can be applied only for criminals and criminal acts and NOT for homosexuals or homosexual acts. [/b]
That statement is so open to interpretation, you could both easily be right and wrong. [/b]
Not really,

He states (as per the original topic poster) that:


him
I would say it's possible to hate the sin but not the sinner.

There is no need for 'interpretation', he means what he said, it's possible to hate the sin but not the sinner - there's no way around that.

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 26 2006, 02:12 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Aug 26 2006, 02:12 PM)
Originally posted by The Rover+Aug 27 2006, 12:09 AM--> (The Rover @ Aug 27 2006, 12:09 AM)
Originally posted by adenoid [email protected] 26 2006, 02:03 PM

Black [email protected]Aug 26 2006, 01:56 PM
Uh, just because you dont think he meant any 'disrespect', doesn't mean shit to me. And please, drop the patronising tone, "I have noticed 2-3 times till now that u have the bad habit to answer to another person's post without having read it carefully first" - you have shit politics, i get it, but i dont have to agree with them.
His exact words were these

Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals

He clearly stated that the "hate the sin- love the sinner" rule can be applied only for criminals and criminal acts and NOT for homosexuals or homosexual acts.
That statement is so open to interpretation, you could both easily be right and wrong. [/b]
Not really,

He states (as per the original topic poster) that:


him
I would say it's possible to hate the sin but not the sinner.

There is no need for 'interpretation', he means what he said, it's possible to hate the sin but not the sinner - there's no way around that. [/b]
His statement was more than just clear.

Yes, indeed he said that it is possible to hate the sin and love the sinner.

But he also clearly stated that he does not hate neither homosexuals nor homosexuality.

His exact words were these

Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals


It is more than obvious that( according to him) the "love the sinner-hate the sin" rule is valid, but it can be applied only to criminals and criminal acts and NOT to homosexuals or homosexual acts

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Ok, can we stop fucking around?

He said:

Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals. But I would say it's possible to hate the sin but not the sinner.

Which obviously (unless you have problems understanding metaphores) means:


Originally posted by emphasis on replaced words
Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals. But I would say it's possible to hate homosexuality but not the homosexual.

Which is fucked up logic.

Agreed?

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by s3rna+Aug 26 2006, 02:27 PM--> (s3rna @ Aug 26 2006, 02:27 PM) Ok, can we stop fucking around?

He said:

Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals. But I would say it's possible to hate the sin but not the sinner.

Which obviously (unless you have problems understanding metaphores) means:


emphasis on replaced words
Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals. But I would say it's possible to hate homosexuality but not the homosexual.

Which is fucked up logic.

Agreed? [/b]
It's obvious that he did not mean this


Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals. But I would say it's possible to hate homosexuality but not the homosexual.[/QUOTE]

He meant this


Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals. But I would say it's possible to hate crime but not the criminal.[/QUOTE]

[Quills]

I think the poster had just gone a bit OT and was replying to the question of it's possible to seperate the person from the action in general, not homosexuality specifically, which he stated he had no problem with. It was just unfortunate choice of thread to bring it up in.

[liberationjunky]

BD, your whole skin color analogy doesnt proove your case that you cannot hate a act without hating the one who commited the act. This is very errored logic.


Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:40 PM
Consider the question of criminality. We will quite often say that while we thoroughly disagree with crimes, we recognise that a good deal of crime is encouraged by capitalist society. We may therefore have no hatred of the individual who, I don't know, was caught stealing fruit from a market, even though we consider his actions wrong.

This is a perfect way to disprove your logic if you just listened to what he was trying to say and werent overanalyzing his comment.

Another example is lets say someone is abused as a child and when he gets older he gets into abusive relationships. Then he realizes he needs help and goes to theorpy and fixes hes inbedded issues...

There was a reason out of his control that caused him to do this screwed up things so you cant hate him because he is really just a victom himself. Also, no he has overcome these issues so how can you hate this person he is obviously trying to better himself? Most people including myself stongly hate the act of men abusing women, but like in this case I would have no hate for this indivdual who did so.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by adenoid [email protected] 26 2006, 03:35 PM

It's obvious that he did not mean this



Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals. But I would say it's possible to hate homosexuality but not the homosexual.

He meant this



Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals. But I would say it's possible to hate crime but not the criminal.
:blink: Are you trying to pull a joke on me?
So he makes a statement about homosexuality, and then continues on an entirely different, completely unrelated subject, without warning or any indication of changing subjects?

:blink:

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by s3rna+Aug 26 2006, 03:34 PM--> (s3rna @ Aug 26 2006, 03:34 PM)
adenoid [email protected] 26 2006, 03:35 PM

It's obvious that he did not mean this



Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals. But I would say it's possible to hate homosexuality but not the homosexual.

He meant this



Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuality or homosexuals. But I would say it's possible to hate crime but not the criminal.
:blink: Are you trying to pull a joke on me?
So he makes a statement about homosexuality, and then continues on an entirely different, completely unrelated subject, without warning or any indication of changing subjects?

:blink: [/b]
Are you making a joke on me?

This thread has two topics;

1) Homophobia

2) Whether generally it is logical to hate some actions without hating the person who commits these actions.

The guy wanted to talk about the second topic and he said that yes, it is logical to hate some actions without hating the person who commits them; and because he wanted to avoid any misunderstandings, he made clear that homosexuality is NOT included in the above actions

He said
Me, I can find nothing hateful in HOMOSEXUALITY or homosexuals

If he said "Me, I can find nothing hateful in homosexuals", without mentioning HOMOSEXUALITY, then your argument would possibly be reasonable.

[Black Dagger]

BD, your whole skin color analogy doesnt proove your case that you cannot hate a act without hating the one who commited the act. This is very errored logic.

You don't understand my logic.

The reason why i used the analogy of skin colour, is because, like sexuality, it is something inherent to human beings.

People are born with a skin colour, in the same way that people are born gay or bi, skin colour is a natural human characteristic that cannot be separated from humans. It makes no sense to hate black skin, a natural human characteristic, in the same way that it makes no sense to hate someone because of their sexuality, a natural characteristic. You cannot separate black skin from people who are Black, in the same way that you cannot seperate human sexuality from humans. Black skin as a concept only has meaning because Black people exist, human sexuality is the same.

[liberationjunky]

BD, I believe that your logic very accurate to conclude that hating homosexuality (and homosexuals) is a very ridiculous belief.

On the other hand your logic DOES NOT work to prove that you cannot hate an act without hating the person that does the act.

To disprove this belief im going to restate my last post's example:

Lets say someone is abused as a child and when he gets older he gets into abusive relationships. Then he realizes he needs help and goes to theorpy and fixes hes inbedded issues...

There was a reason out of his control that caused him to do this screwed up things so you cant hate him because he is really just a victom himself. Also, know he has overcome these issues so how can you hate this person he is obviously trying to better himself? Most people including myself stongly hate the act of men abusing women, but like in this case I would have no hate for this indivdual who did so.

[Black Dagger]

So, are you arguing that is logically possible to hate homosexuality but not lesbians or gay peoples?

If so, please outline this argument, i dont want an analogy for this argument (child abusers), i want the argument itself to be outlined logically.

The 'abused/abuser' cycle is not analgous with human sexuality.

People are not 'born' child abusers or as abused children, neither of those are inherent human characteristics. This cycle is a arguably the result of a process of social, emotional and psychological conditoning, trauma, treatment, not something that is natural or inherent to the person's being.

The reason why we can empathise with child abusers who were themselves abused as children, is because they were not born as child abusers, it is not an inherent characteristic, rather that their treatment as children arguably, contributed to the development of their behaviour (child abuse) as adults. But not all child abusers were abused as children, and vice versa.

However, 'homosexuality' is not the product of social conditioning, lesbians do not exist because of events in childhood.

You need to either, outline logically how one can hate 'homosexuality' but not lesbians or gay peoples (literally, and this is what i would prefer), or come up with a different analogy that does not concern a form of human behaviour that is arguably (what 'causes' child abuse is certainly debateable) the result of enviromental factors, and not as with 'homosexuality', a natural phenomenon.

[liberationjunky]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 03:58 PM
On the other hand your logic DOES NOT work to prove that you cannot hate an act without hating the person that does the act.

To disprove this belief im going to restate my last post's example:

Lets say someone is abused as a child and when he gets older he gets into abusive relationships. Then he realizes he needs help and goes to theorpy and fixes hes inbedded issues...

There was a reason out of his control that caused him to do this screwed up things so you cant hate him because he is really just a victom himself. Also, know he has overcome these issues so how can you hate this person he is obviously trying to better himself? Most people including myself stongly hate the act of men abusing women, but like in this case I would have no hate for this indivdual who did so.
As I clearly mention I am not arguing or trying to make any point about homosexuality or homosexuals. I am replying to the other debate on "love the sinner, hate the sin". I am just mentioning that in general you CAN hate an act, without hating the person who does this act. This is all I am pointing out.

[Black Dagger]

I am replying to the other debate on "love the sinner, hate the sin". I am just mentioning that in general you CAN hate an act, without hating the person who does this act. This is all I am pointing out.

Okay, but i still find your analogy unconvincing.

I mean yes, people do 'hate' child abuse, but no one 'loves' child abusers by any stretch of the term.

Most people actively dislike child abusers, regardless of whether they were abused as children or not, because abusing a child is objectively undesireable behaviour.

A minority of people may empathise with a child abuser, but empathy and 'love' are not the same thing.

The cliche we are examining is whether it is possible to HATE a persons actions but still LOVE the person, the example you provide, child abuse and child abusers does not prove this to be true.

[Invader Zim]

So, are you arguing that is logically possible to hate homosexuality but not lesbians or gay peoples?

How is it not possible?

I hate hunting, I don't hate hunters.

I hate Manchester United, i don't hate its supporters.

I hate conservative policy I don't hate conservative.

Why do you find such simple concepts so hard to fathom?

[liberationjunky]

Like enigma said i dont know how this is so hard to understand. I dont understand how you can really say that one cannot be ok with a person and not like the things he does.

Even if you arnt somebody who would agree that my example's person should be considered a good person that is your opinion. It still doesn't change the fact that many people including me are ok with a person and are not ok with the act in my example.

Enigma also gave many other examples of these instances where it works the same way too.

[Phugebrins]

You know, I thought when posting that "People on this board aren't going to take the 'criminal' thing as some sort of homophobic comment, they can clearly see what I'm saying". Perhaps I should have used a different analogy, though - it's just that the socialist analysis of crime as part a product of non-conscious decisions (circumstances rather than genetics) seemed like it might prove an interesting, if not concrete, comparison.

Let me make this clear, though: I'm trying to explain an argument I don't defend. I just want to make sure the correct rebuttal is used.

First, we have the question of nature vs choice with respect to homosexuality. I'm firmly on the nature side, but if you're on the choice side, as the OP may be (I don't know), then there's no internal inconsistency to the suggestion that you can hate homosexual acts but not the people who have performed them.

As to whether it's meaningful: yes, it is. It's the difference between remorselessly condemning and persecuting homosexuals for the rest of their lives and attempting to 'rehabilitate' them. Of course, the latter option is still pretty horrific, but it's different.

"child abuse and child abusers does not prove this to be true."
But even if we accept every assumption you make (not that I'm disputing them), your example shows only that it is possible not to love the sinner and hate the sin for certain sins, not that it is impossible to hate only one.

I hope that's a little bit clearer.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Engima+--> (Engima)Why do you find such simple concepts so hard to fathom?[/b]

Next time you plan on mocking my apparent stupidity, READ the discussion first.

None of the analogies you list are valid in the context of human sexuality.

As i've already explained several times, 'hating the sin but loving the sinner' is not logical in a context that deals with a 'sin' that is inherent to the 'sinner'. It is not comparable to hunting or a football club, a person's sexuality is something inherent to their being, like skin colour, people are not born hunters or Man U supporters.


Originally posted by me+--> (me)
You can't isolate human sexuality from human beings, sexual behaviour exists because of the actions of people, lesbians and gay people are what give the concept of 'homosexuality' context.
[/b]


Originally posted by me
People are born with a skin colour, in the same way that people are born gay or bi, skin colour is a natural human characteristic that cannot be separated from humans. It makes no sense to hate black skin, a natural human characteristic, in the same way that it makes no sense to hate someone because of their sexuality, a natural characteristic. You cannot separate black skin from people who are Black, in the same way that you cannot seperate human sexuality from humans. Black skin as a concept only has meaning because Black people exist, human sexuality is the same.



[email protected]
i dont understand how you can really say that one cannot be ok with a person and not like the things he does.

I think that it is possible in some contexts (human sexuality and other contexts that deal with inherent characteristics are exceptions), but that your analogy does not prove this.


liberationjunky

Enigma also gave many other examples of these instances where it works the same way too.

That's great, but those examples do not prove the case that it is possible to hate 'homosexuality' and love lesbians or gay people - as ive stated numerous times, the structure of those analogies is completely different, your analogy and the ones listed by enigma do not deal with cases where the 'sin' is an inherent characteristic of the 'sinner', or one where the 'sin' itself is only contextualised by the sinner themselves. They are all voluntary 'sins', not inherent aspects of those 'sinners' as individuals.

[The Grey Blur]

BD you've dug a very deep hole for yourself, you should read Phugebrins' first post again

Slowly

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+Aug 27 2006, 05:03 AM--> (Permanent Revolution @ Aug 27 2006, 05:03 AM) BD you've dug a very deep hole for yourself, you should read Phugebrins' first post again

Slowly [/b]
Why?

As i said in my last post:


me
I think that it is possible in some contexts (human sexuality and other contexts that deal with inherent characteristics are exceptions),


Like Phugebrin, I think that it is possible to 'love the sinner hate the sin', but only in some contexts. And unlike Enigma, i think that human sexuality and other similar contexts that deal with inherent characteristics are exceptional contexts.

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 26 2006, 06:46 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Aug 26 2006, 06:46 PM)
Originally posted by Engima+--> (Engima)Why do you find such simple concepts so hard to fathom?[/b]

Next time you plan on mocking my apparent stupidity, READ the discussion first.

None of the analogies you list are valid in the context of human sexuality.

As i've already explained several times, 'hating the sin but loving the sinner' is not logical in a context that deals with a 'sin' that inherent to the 'sinner'. It is not comparable to hunting or a football club, a person's sexuality is something inherent to their being, like skin colour, people are not born hunters or Man U supporters.


Originally posted by me

You can't isolate human sexuality from human beings, sexual behaviour exists because of the actions of people, lesbians and gay people are what give the concept of 'homosexuality' context.



Originally posted by me
People are born with a skin colour, in the same way that people are born gay or bi, skin colour is a natural human characteristic that cannot be separated from humans. It makes no sense to hate black skin, a natural human characteristic, in the same way that it makes no sense to hate someone because of their sexuality, a natural characteristic. You cannot separate black skin from people who are Black, in the same way that you cannot seperate human sexuality from humans. Black skin as a concept only has meaning because Black people exist, human sexuality is the same.



[email protected]
i dont understand how you can really say that one cannot be ok with a person and not like the things he does.

I think that it is possible in some contexts (human sexuality and other contexts that deal with inherent characteristics are exceptions), but that your analogy does not prove this.


liberationjunky

Enigma also gave many other examples of these instances where it works the same way too.

That's great, but those examples do not prove the case that it is possible to hate 'homosexuality' and love lesbians or gay people - as ive stated numerous times, the structure of those analogies is completely different, your analogy and the ones listed by enigma do not deal with cases where the 'sin' is an inherent characteristic of the 'sinner', or one where the 'sin' itself is only contextualised by the sinner themselves. They are all voluntary 'sins', not inherent aspects of those 'sinners' as individuals. [/b]
First of all I want to make clear that I do not consider homosexuality a sin and I do not consider homosexual people sinners.

But the truth is that, in opposition to what you say, if a particular "sin" is inherent, then not only it is possible to adopt the " don't hate the sinner, hate only the sin" attitude, but it is even easier to adopt this attitude.

For example I hate both pederasty and pederasts; I hate them for what they do to little children.

But what would happen if tomorrow someone proved that pederasty is inherent? That there is a "pederasty gene"? That these people cannot stop being pederasts? I would still hate the sin(pederasty), but I would not longer hate the sinners( pederasts). How would I be able to hate them for what they do, if I knew that they cannot choose to stop doing it?

[Phugebrins]

Hm, thinking it through again, and assuming we're talking about mainstream christianity, it is postulated that humans are born sinful (original sin), therefore to love someone is to love them despite their inherently flawed nature.

*If you're homophobic* (or whatever you want to call the hating homosexuality type), you may consider homosexuality to be one such flaw on par with, say, cleptomania, and still love everyone equally.

In fact, forget the christianity business, you can hate the fact that your best mate is naturally scatty, but you can love them as a person.

[Black Dagger]

But the truth is that, in opposition to what you say, if a particular "sin" is inherent, then not only it is possible to adopt the " don't hate the sinner, hate only the sin" attitude, but it is even easier to adopt this attitude.

Of course it is possible, but you have not provided any examples where this is the case. Instead you proceed to invent a scenario to establish your premise rather than rely on real-world evidence.




But what would happen if tomorrow someone proved that pederasty is inherent? That there is a "pederasty gene"? That these people cannot stop being pederasts? I would still hate the sin(pederasty), but I would not longer hate the sinners( pederasts). How would I be able to hate them for what they do, if I knew that they cannot choose to stop doing it?

This is a very silly analogy.

When i said:

i think that human sexuality and other similar contexts that deal with inherent characteristics are exceptional contexts.

By 'similar contexts' i do not mean ANY context that deals with an inherent characteristic, but rather contexts that are similar to homosexuality, like skin colour, characteristics that are inherent to humans and neutral.
Obviously if you are talking about an inherent characteristic that is negative, you are dealing with a different context entirely.

So, yes it is possible to 'hate' an inherent negative characteristic, and not the person with that characteristic, but homosexuality and skin colour are not inherent negative characteristics.


Your analogy in its current form is useful only if you view homosexuality as negative/sin, such as you do pederasty.

You have to establish that it is possible to hate an inherent human characteristic that is neutral, whilst not hating the person to which this characteristic is inherent.

[Phugebrins]

"You have to establish that it is possible to hate an inherent human characteristic that is neutral, whilst not hating the person to which this characteristic is inherent. "
Aha, I think we're getting somewhere.

The OP does not view homosexuality as a neutral characteristic, but as a negative one. Your criticism of the OP's view that homosexuality can be hates without hating homosexuals is based entirely on the (entirely correct) premise that there's absolutely nothing wrong with being gay. Your only contention with the OP, therefore, is that the OP considers homosexuality wrong, and that you do not - which we knew already.

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 26 2006, 07:27 PM


But the truth is that, in opposition to what you say, if a particular "sin" is inherent, then not only it is possible to adopt the " don't hate the sinner, hate only the sin" attitude, but it is even easier to adopt this attitude.

Of course it is possible, but you have not provided any examples where this is the case. Instead you proceed to invent a scenario to establish your premise rather than rely on real-world evidence.




But what would happen if tomorrow someone proved that pederasty is inherent? That there is a "pederasty gene"? That these people cannot stop being pederasts? I would still hate the sin(pederasty), but I would not longer hate the sinners( pederasts). How would I be able to hate them for what they do, if I knew that they cannot choose to stop doing it?

This is a very silly analogy.

When i said:

i think that human sexuality and other similar contexts that deal with inherent characteristics are exceptional contexts.

By 'similar contexts' i do not mean ANY context that deals with an inherent characteristic, but rather contexts that are similar to homosexuality, like skin colour, characteristics that are inherent to humans and neutral.
Obviously if you are talking about an inherent characteristic that is negative, you are dealing with a different context entirely.

So, yes it is possible to 'hate' an inherent negative characteristic, and not the person with that characteristic, but homosexuality and skin colour are not inherent negative characteristics.


Your analogy in its current form is useful only if you view homosexuality as negative/sin, such as you do pederasty.

You have to establish that it is possible to hate an inherent human characteristic that is neutral, whilst not hating the person to which this characteristic is inherent.
Pal, if I am not mistaken we are not talking whether hating homosexuality is reasonable or not.

Until now we were talking about whether a person who, for whatever reasons, hates homosexuality, can hate homosexuality without hating gay people.

Until now we were not talking about whether homosexuality is positive, neutral or negative, we were talking about whether a person who, for whatever reasons, considers homosexuality negative, can hate homosexuality without hating gay people.

We were not talking about whether hating homosexuality is justified or not.
We were talking about whether " hating homosexuality without hating gay people is possible".

I say that it is possible. A person, who for whatever reasons, hates homosexuality, can hate homosexuality without hating gay people. The fact that homosexuality is inherent makes the " hate only the sin, not the sinner" concept more possible.

A homophobe who believes that homosexuality is inherent is more likely to " hate only homosexuality, not gay people"
A homophobe who believes that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle is more likely to" hate both the homosexuality and the gay people"

[eyeswideshut]

Wow, it's been a while since i've been on and people have posted like crazy.

First of all, back when i said that it goes against nature i meant not that animals don't do it. I meant more in the sense that it is unnatural, and anyone who says otherwise is pretty much screwed because sex was made for us to reproduce, that's why that stuff that comes out of our bodies...you know...semen, is meant to hit that part where you penis goes....a vagina. to give way for a new life. It's self destructive EXPONENTIALLY because if everyone was a homosexual there would be no new life. PERIOD. I don't care what you say about technology and artificial insemination, that's something else. BIOLOGICALLY it's not the way to go.

[Sentinel]

I meant more in the sense that it is unnatural, and anyone who says otherwise is pretty much screwed because sex was made for us to reproduce, that's why that stuff that comes out of our bodies...you know...semen, is meant to hit that part where you penis goes....a vagina.

Was made by who? 'God'? If so, proof? Besides, sex is as much a part of social behavior as it is for reproducing purposes, so what you said is total bullshit. Humans are flock animals and not everyone in the flock is apparently 'meant' to reproduce. Otherwise homosexuality wouldn't exist.


It's self destructive EXPONENTIALLY because if everyone was a homosexual there would be no new life. PERIOD.

But everyone isn't homosexual, have never been, and never will be. Homosexuality isn't a religion, a cult or a conspiracy to take over the world. PERIOD.

However way you twist it, homosexuality is a natural human (as well as animal) attribute, deal with it. And don't make new sockpuppet accounts here. We do fine without bigots like you.

[JJenkins]

What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Really, it's hard to get over how incredibly dumbfounding your 'argument' - if it can in fact be called anything more than abusive drivel - is.


sex was made for us to reproduce, that's why that stuff that comes out of our bodies...you know...semen, is meant to hit that part where you penis goes....a vagina.

Ok. I'm assuming then that you of course have never and will never partake in a sexual relationship of any kind that does not have the sole intended outcome of creating new life. Nor will you masturbate because goodness forbid that any of that precious life-creating semen go to waste on an orgasm which will not result in procreation.

On top of your celibacy until you are ready to create life - of course, even then, only the one sexual act will do because, let's be honest, do you need to have sex any more than that one time of baby-making-splendour - you must also be opposed to contraception. Surely, if the sole aim of the sexual act is to procreate, then a condom would be an abhorration to that process, something that gets in the way of nature. Since this must be your belief then I would have to say that you are a completely immoral person as the actualisation of such an opinion would condemn millions of people to sexually transmitted diseases and eventual death.

Your argument really just isn't cogent or at all justifiable.


if everyone was a homosexual there would be no new life

What do you think we homosexuals are subversively converting the world population into drones of the gay lifestyle? Please. Conspiracy theorist is a term that springs to mind. Whack-job is another.

I can't remember if it was eyeswideopen who said it earlier in the thread or someone else, but the notion that 'no one is born homosexual, it is simply a disorder' is an absolute fallacy. First of all, recent scientific research has discovered correlations between homosexuality and a difference in the physiology of one's inner ear. I know it sounds silly, but the fact that there is a slight physiological difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is a big step in proving that it is a trait developed at birth.

It is also widely known and accepted that fluxuations in testosterone levels in the womb relating to the number of pregnancies a woman has undergone is a contributing factor to homosexuality from birth. This is a scientific fact and is reinforced in argument by the fact that surveys of gay men reveal that the youngest child - the last in a line of pregnancies - is more likely to develop homosexual tendencies.

Being gay myself I find the 'hate the sinner, not the sin' nonsense - when applied to homosexuality - something that is extremely offensive and damaging to general acceptance of gay men and women. In light of this, if I see you or one of your red-eyed-brood with a sandwhichboard with any such twoddle written on it from now on, I will make it my cause to remove said sandwhichboard and beat you to death with it.

I jest, of course. But it's a nice thought.

[Avtomatov]

I dont think people are born homosexual, i think its just like heterosexuality: an inability to recognize beauty. And homosexuality is something people will resort to when they dont fit the gender roles society has created. And sometimes it is a result of a distrust or dislike of the opposite sex, because of past experiences. Listen, i dont like girls with short jaws, like paris hilton, and this is because of past experience, i associate it with sluttiness and betrayal. And we dont always associate bad things with the sex we are not attracted too, sometimes we just associate platonic friendship with them. Ignoring the fact that the gay man is not attracted to the woman, he would still have a hard time dating a woman, as he just doesnt fit what the woman wants in a man, and this is one of the reasons men resort to homosexuality. And the same gay man, assuming the woman is open minded, might have an easy time forming a friendship with the same woman, thus he associates woman with platonic friendship, and thus he suppresses any physical attraction because that is what we do when we are not supposed to be attracted to someone.

Remember these studies you see are very limited. They dont ask the gay men who have had many older brothers anything about their lives growing up.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

You can hate something without hating the person who commits the deed. In that case, you assume the person commiting the deed is misguided rather than acting from malice or out of evil or the like. There is no logical case for hating homosexuality, though.

[JJenkins]

When I started reading that post [Avtomatov's] I thought I would get really incensed by the end of it, but I actually kind of agree. Kind of.

First of all I must say that the studies/research I mentioned are only evidence (however limited) of one aspect of what it is to be gay. I wholly agree that societal influences also play a role in the shaping of sexuality, but your argument falls down a little.

The whole example of past experience is useful only to a limited degree because we are human beings, not narrow minded animals. It may be completely true that you don't like girls with short jaws, but that does not lead to the conclusion that you will never in your life have a relationship with such a person. You may have an aversion to the trait, but you don't know whether or not you will one day be attracted to a woman with a short jaw: you cannot say without a shadow of a doubt that it will never happen. Conditioning of the human mind is an easily changeable, even eraseable, thing, that does not function in the same way as it does with animal species who are driven by a much less complex range of desires.

I know you might disagree with this, but your assertion that you 'associate it [short jaws] with sluttiness and betrayal' is a little unbelievable. I can not imagine that whenever you see a short jawed girl you immediately and unintentionally categorise her as slutty and dishonest, because you are a rational human being. You are aware, I'm sure, that there is no correlation in reality whatsoever between said trait and negative personality characteristics, and because you are aware of this, because of your ability as a human to analyse and rationalise a situation, the process of conditioning falls down as an argument.

For example, if I dated a man wearing a red shirt and it ended badly, even terribly, I would not, like some duck in a Freudian experiment, associate red shirts for the rest of my life with negativity. I might recall the experience and dislike it the next time I see a man in a red shirt, but I am rational enough, as almost all humans are, to identify that there is in reality no connection between the red garment and a bad relationship.

The next point which doesn't hold up is the notion that 'men resort to homosexuality' because they do not adhere to 'what the woman wants in a man.' I'm sorry, but if this was the case then every undesirable guy, a vast majority of them right-wing religious evangelists, would have resorted to homosexuality. Although I do think that societal influences can shape sexuality to a certain degree, I certainly do not agree that rejection, even constant rejection, is adequate, or even a contributing factor, in 'making' someone gay. It was also the one point in your argument that I was a teeeeeeeeny bit offended. I'm gay because women don't want me? Yeah. Ok. That insinuates that the homosexual lifestyle is secondary, subordinate, to the heterosexual lifestyle, and that homosexuality is a last resort of the undesirable. I don't think you meant it that way, but that is how I read it and how it is easily read.

One thing I did agree with to a certain extent is that platonic relationships with women can deter men from pursuing them romantically. For example, I do believe that I was born gay (with a funky inner ear and weird testosterone levels and all.) But I also believe that society could have dissuaded me from my predisposed nature as a gay man through popular idealogy, e.g. religous fundamentalism, evolutionism. If, for instance, I had grown up with a father who constantly reiterated that homosexuality was wrong on religious grounds, I might have suppresssed my natural disposition, my sexuality, and lived as a heterosexual male, perhaps even unaware of doing so myself. This was not the case, however, I grew up with a very loving mother and a weak father whose actions led me to distrust men, and therefore I sought friendship in women. My platonic relationship with women therefore allowed me to embrace my innate sexuality - homosexuality - and to live as I was meant to.

The same logic, I suppose, could be applied to a person who is predisposed as heterosexual but, due to societal influence, lives as a gay man.

This is not, however, what was communicated in your argument, which used ideas of conditioning that do not apply to the human mind, or very rarely succeed in their application.

I think that's everything.

[Avtomatov]

The whole example of past experience is useful only to a limited degree because we are human beings, not narrow minded animals. It may be completely true that you don't like girls with short jaws, but that does not lead to the conclusion that you will never in your life have a relationship with such a person. You may have an aversion to the trait, but you don't know whether or not you will one day be attracted to a woman with a short jaw: you cannot say without a shadow of a doubt that it will never happen. Conditioning of the human mind is an easily changeable, even eraseable, thing, that does not function in the same way as it does with animal species who are driven by a much less complex range of desires.

I know you might disagree with this, but your assertion that you 'associate it [short jaws] with sluttiness and betrayal' is a little unbelievable. I can not imagine that whenever you see a short jawed girl you immediately and unintentionally categorise her as slutty and dishonest, because you are a rational human being. You are aware, I'm sure, that there is no correlation in reality whatsoever between said trait and negative personality characteristics, and because you are aware of this, because of your ability as a human to analyse and rationalise a situation, the process of conditioning falls down as an argument.

Yes, it may have either been a miscommunication or misinterpretation. But when i said i associate girls who look like the girl i knew with promiscuity and betrayal, i meant this is an unconcious thing. I know that girls who look like that will not necessarily be the same, and i will still get to know them. But the simple fact is, I am not as attracted to girls who look like her anymore. And it may change if i have a good experience with a girl with those types of looks.


The next point which doesn't hold up is the notion that 'men resort to homosexuality' because they do not adhere to 'what the woman wants in a man.' I'm sorry, but if this was the case then every undesirable guy, a vast majority of them right-wing religious evangelists, would have resorted to homosexuality. Although I do think that societal influences can shape sexuality to a certain degree, I certainly do not agree that rejection, even constant rejection, is adequate, or even a contributing factor, in 'making' someone gay. It was also the one point in your argument that I was a teeeeeeeeny bit offended. I'm gay because women don't want me? Yeah. Ok. That insinuates that the homosexual lifestyle is secondary, subordinate, to the heterosexual lifestyle, and that homosexuality is a last resort of the undesirable. I don't think you meant it that way, but that is how I read it and how it is easily read.
I think that well heterosexual society is the primary, most dominant society today. We need to belong to a society and fit the gender roles that society dictates. I think that once you identify yourself as gay, your attraction to the opposite sex disappears. Just like a former "lesbian", will meet a guy she loves and is attracted too and then will perhaps start identifying as straight, once she identifies as straight her attraction to the same sex will disappear, whereas the former "lesbian" would have been undeniably attracted to women for a while, she is no longer. I think, from observation, that identifying with a particular sexual orientation plays a big part. How do you explain that former Bi-Curious people are no longer attracted to the same sex, when they used to be. I think its when alot of them grow up, when we grow up we want to be accepted by the mainstream society, whereas when we were young we were okay with being accepted by rebel groups. Now we ecounter rejection from the society we wish to be accepted in, then we must identify as straight, even though youre adult friends may not say they dislike your bisexual tendencies, you will be able to see crypto-biphobia if you have a good eye. Not everyone grows up to want to be accepted by mainstream society, so not everyone gives up bisexuality, just like not everyone gives up radical politics when they grow up.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lastly, i know Freud may be outdated on many points today. But i agree with the notion that humans, at birth, are capable of forming attractions to ANYTHING. I beleive this because if this would true it would make evolution easier, then if we had a template in our mind of what we should be attracted too. Because with changing appearances, we would need the template to be mutated correspondingly. That would make evolution many times more difficult. The thing with bourgeoise social concepts on sexuality is that it ignores evolution, it ignores the fact that appearances change as we evolve.

And i think now we have advanced to the point that we dont need a culture to teach us what to be attracted to. We have science, and gay man or an asexual or an zoosexual can still raise a child. In the past culture was useful in teaching us what to be attracted too. I beleive there is more to evolution then just genetics, i think memetics also plays a part. By that, i meen our genes only determine physical things. And that the mind is tabula rasa, or a "blank slate". And our genes only create this blank slate and lets memetics take over from there.

I hope i made sense.

[JJenkins]

Okay, that was a little more offensive than the last post.


I think that well heterosexual society is the primary, most dominant society today. We need to belong to a society and fit the gender roles that society dictates.

On this point, the primary, most dominant society is by no means the 'correct' or desirable society in which to live. For example, capitalist society is the dominant society also, but a communist argues that capitalism is undesirable and should be denounced, destroyed and forgotten.

I do not need to belong to a society and fit the gender roles that society dictates. I am my own person with my own will and my own sexuality. If we all had such a need, as you say, to fit to the roles that society dictates then we might all lie flat on our backs as the bourgoisie exploit us and utter not a word of resistance. Just because society dictates something doesn't make it so. In some cases, law and order for example, this might be the case, but it can not be applied to sexuality, lest every person give up their right to choose, in favour of merely placating mainstream society and remaining subservient to bourgois ideology.


Just like a former "lesbian", will meet a guy she loves and is attracted too and then will perhaps start identifying as straight, once she identifies as straight her attraction to the same sex will disappear, whereas the former "lesbian" would have been undeniably attracted to women for a while, she is no longer. I think, from observation, that identifying with a particular sexual orientation plays a big part. How do you explain that former Bi-Curious people are no longer attracted to the same sex, when they used to be.

Yes, one must remember that sexuality is a constantly changing thing, but things are not as simple as you try to infer. A lesbian, or former lesbian as you call her, does not immediately desist in her attraction to women simply because she finds a man, just as a heterosexual woman is inevitably still attracted on some level to other men when she is in a relationship. A change in terminology, even in self identification, does not automatically herald an immediate and absolute shift in sexual or romantic attraction. Gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, these are all words which exist simply to aid our understanding of human sexuality, they have no power on their own and have no influence on the actual sexuality of anyone.

To answer your question of 'How do you explain that former Bi-Curious people are no longer attracted to the same sex, when they used to be?': I do not explain it in any substantial sense of the word. That is the way that person feels, that is the way their sexuality has taken them. It can be explained in no other way than they are simply not attracted to the same sex at the current time. Sexuality is ever-changing, it is a fluid thing and not something so easily understandable that it can be comprehended in such a limited vocabulary as straight, gay, bisexual. The terminology is not adequate for the explanation.


I think its when alot of them grow up, when we grow up we want to be accepted by the mainstream society, whereas when we were young we were okay with being accepted by rebel groups. Now we ecounter rejection from the society we wish to be accepted in, then we must identify as straight, even though youre adult friends may not say they dislike your bisexual tendencies

THis is by far the most offensive thing you wrote. As if homosexuality is some kind of juvenile delinquency that is overcome as men and women mature. Being gay is not an act of rebellion and therefore gay people are part of no 'rebel groups' simply because they are not 'accepted by mainstream society', i.e. the majority as opposed to the minority. One might just as well insist that being part of any minority is an act of rebellion, it is not. I can safely say that I've encountered a great deal of rejection from society in my life so far on account of my sexuality, and I have absolutely no desire to renounce that sexuality in order to be more accepted by those around me. The problem is with society, not the homosexual, and if there is any shred of use in that terribly derogatory paragraph, it is in highlighting that society is at fault, not the minority.


Not everyone grows up to want to be accepted by mainstream society, so not everyone gives up bisexuality, just like not everyone gives up radical politics when they grow up.

You seem to have the strange idea in your head that sexuality is under the complete control of an individual - a notion I believe to be false. One can repress sexuality, even ignore it, but sexuality is buried beneath consciousness and remains today, as it has throughout history, as free and uninhibited in its purest form as the most basic human processes.


We have science, and gay man or an asexual or an zoosexual can still raise a child.

I can safely say that it is tiresome to once again witness homosexuality alongside such a bizzerely perverted act as zoophilia. The two are in no way related; there is no comparison; zoophiliacs need not even be brought into an argument concerning homosexuality. If you want to discuss sex with animals, I'm sure there are thousands of forums catering to such tastes.

I also am at a loss to fathom why on earth you brought the topic of parenthood into the discussion. It is completely irrelevent to the question sexuality in this thread and redundant as an argument.

[Red_Syphilis_Steve]

First of all, I've read every post in this thread, and I have to say what I believe. First of all, Black Dagger, quit stretching your pissing match (it was a pissing match, no matter how valid) further than it needs to be stretched.

I think, that everything is purely related to the chemical make-up of the brain. Evironmental and societal issues all contribute to the chemical make-up of the brain. Many people live very different life-styles. No two people are the same. After stating the complete obvious:

YOUR BRAIN WORKS HOW IT WAS SUPPOSED TO IN A CHEMICAL MANNER (no superhuman force is behind this at all). DROP ALL THE ETHIC CRAP.

Everything is chemical, especially the hormones. It's all hormones.
So, I dont think we need to argue whether our hormone levels are unethical or not.
We're all human.

Also, instead of reading up on why you're a homosexual (to anyone who is), maybe you should reflect on your own life and try to find out for yourself what makes you the way you are. Do you think it's environmental? Do you think it's chemical? The same can be asked for the "reasons" why a transexual is a transexual. What is the cause for transexuality? Would people still "identify" with the other gender if gender roles didn't even exist? Is homosexuality related to gender roles and, if so, how much?

I don't much trust the heterosexual trying to find the reason for homosexuality. They should try to find the "reason" for heterosexuality instead.


Thank you.


PS. Should we even have to question reasons behind one's sexual orientation if it does not harm anyone else?

[Avtomatov]

On this point, the primary, most dominant society is by no means the 'correct' or desirable society in which to live. For example, capitalist society is the dominant society also, but a communist argues that capitalism is undesirable and should be denounced, destroyed and forgotten.

I do not need to belong to a society and fit the gender roles that society dictates. I am my own person with my own will and my own sexuality. If we all had such a need, as you say, to fit to the roles that society dictates then we might all lie flat on our backs as the bourgoisie exploit us and utter not a word of resistance. Just because society dictates something doesn't make it so. In some cases, law and order for example, this might be the case, but it can not be applied to sexuality, lest every person give up their right to choose, in favour of merely placating mainstream society and remaining subservient to bourgois ideology.
I wasnt saying that heterosexual society is the correct form of society, you are misinterpreting me, i only said it was the most dominant. I am bisexual.


To answer your question of 'How do you explain that former Bi-Curious people are no longer attracted to the same sex, when they used to be?': I do not explain it in any substantial sense of the word. That is the way that person feels, that is the way their sexuality has taken them. It can be explained in no other way than they are simply not attracted to the same sex at the current time. Sexuality is ever-changing, it is a fluid thing and not something so easily understandable that it can be comprehended in such a limited vocabulary as straight, gay, bisexual. The terminology is not adequate for the explanation.

There is a contradiction here. In the post before this one you state that you were born gay. Now you state that sexuality is everchanging. If you agree that it can change, then you agree with me when i say it is cultural.


THis is by far the most offensive thing you wrote. As if homosexuality is some kind of juvenile delinquency that is overcome as men and women mature. Being gay is not an act of rebellion and therefore gay people are part of no 'rebel groups' simply because they are not 'accepted by mainstream society', i.e. the majority as opposed to the minority. One might just as well insist that being part of any minority is an act of rebellion, it is not. I can safely say that I've encountered a great deal of rejection from society in my life so far on account of my sexuality, and I have absolutely no desire to renounce that sexuality in order to be more accepted by those around me. The problem is with society, not the homosexual, and if there is any shred of use in that terribly derogatory paragraph, it is in highlighting that society is at fault, not the minority.
I was talking about bisexuals. I dont know if you have eyes, or if you havent gone to school for 20 years. But bisexuality is quite popular in "rebel groups", like emos, goths, etc...

You think i am talking about you, i am talking about what happens to alot of young bisexuals. This doesnt happen much with gays, because its harder for them to just ignore same-sex attraction, and start being attracted to the opposite sex.


You seem to have the strange idea in your head that sexuality is under the complete control of an individual - a notion I believe to be false. One can repress sexuality, even ignore it, but sexuality is buried beneath consciousness and remains today, as it has throughout history, as free and uninhibited in its purest form as the most basic human processes.
You say i seem to have this strange idea. Well, I do not. I beleive it is unconscious. You are disagreeing with a straw man. And you do not understand what i am saying. Someone doesnt say: "hey i want to be accepted so i will stop liking the same sex", no their sub-conscious does it for them. This happens alot with bisexuals as they grow up. I dont think it is possible to start liking the same sex because you want to be accepted by mainstream society. But i do beleive it is possible to stop liking the same sex to be accepted by mainstream society. Obviously you wont do that, because that would make you asexual and not accepted in mainstream society. Another man might have liked both, so he simply lost intirest in men as he rejoined heterosexual society.


I can safely say that it is tiresome to once again witness homosexuality alongside such a bizzerely perverted act as zoophilia. The two are in no way related; there is no comparison; zoophiliacs need not even be brought into an argument concerning homosexuality. If you want to discuss sex with animals, I'm sure there are thousands of forums catering to such tastes.

I also am at a loss to fathom why on earth you brought the topic of parenthood into the discussion. It is completely irrelevent to the question sexuality in this thread and redundant as an argument.
Ya? Well its really tiresome when someone keeps misinterpeting me and assuming that i am insulting them. We are not talking about the morality of the act when i am equating homosexuality to zoosexuality. We are speaking of the fundamental similarity, and that is that it can not result in a child.

I think the problem here is that you are intolerant with bestiality, therefore when i equate the two, even though I beleive there is nothing wrong with either of them, you are offended. You are the on who is intolerant.

And no i do not think it is irrelevant to bring up parenthood. I am stating the fact that those homosexuality is not an evolutionary disadvantage anymore. Therefore we do not need a heterosexual society, one that tells us what to be attracted too.

[Avtomatov]

Also, instead of reading up on why you're a homosexual (to anyone who is), maybe you should reflect on your own life and try to find out for yourself what makes you the way you are. Do you think it's environmental? Do you think it's chemical? The same can be asked for the "reasons" why a transexual is a transexual. What is the cause for transexuality? Would people still "identify" with the other gender if gender roles didn't even exist? Is homosexuality related to gender roles and, if so, how much?

I am transexual because I do not fit the gender roles. Woman do not like that, even bisexual women. And i very much desire a relationship with a woman. I think the best way to have that would be to be a woman. That way my personality would match my gender, and i would have a better chance with homosexual or bisexual woman. As i really have no chance with any woman, unless she is desperate enough to not care that I do not fit the gender role. Remember, woman are brought up to desire a certain type of man.

As for wether i would be transexual if gender roles didnt exist. Well, not so much. But i would still desire to be female as my body structure and my face would match the desired female body much more then the desired male body.

EDIT: Its not just that woman arent attracted to my personality because my personality and sex dont match. But it is also that women do not desire me physically, because my physical appearance and sex dont match well.

And even most gay/bi men dont desire me, it is because my physical appearance and sex dont match. If i were a woman, bi and straight men would desire me more.