# What exactly do people have against gays?



## Fenrari (May 8, 2012)

Yet another random question point brought to you by the Maple Wolf. 

So yes I understand that the majority of the world hates the Gays because one or more forms of religion have said it's a no. 

But besides that... Why do a lot of people hate Gays?

Yes this was spurned by the family and no I'm not going to tap too much into that. 

Basically parents rant about how I'm failure, that gays are horrid people, that me associating with any of them is destroying everything about me, blah blah blah.

And then I thought about it. Why would they hate them? Well my mom has a reason because she's a Southern Baptist nut case. (no offense to the non nut-case SB's out there)

But my dad doesn't have a good reason at all. He's quite atheistic last time I checked. 

So that brings me to questioning about the whole matter. Originally the only reasons why I could think people would hate the GLBT culture is that they were badly stereotyped and thought to be the bringers of the AIDS epidemic.

As I considered it though. That's a load of BS and educated people should be able to sift through the media lies. While AIDS does have a higher incidence of cases in the gay community; it can in theory affect anyone :/ Then I pondered some more and as I thought about it; the only thing I could come up with was that non-religious educated people hate the Gays because they were different. 

I'm missing something here aren't I?


----------



## Smelge (May 8, 2012)

It's because they want to stick their willies in my bum.


----------



## Fenrari (May 8, 2012)

Smelge said:


> It's because they want to stick their willies in my bum.



I considered that argument actually. But any educated person should realize that they have enough willpower not to be swayed by the wiles of the random gay.


----------



## I Am That Is (May 8, 2012)

People are scared of the unknown. People with weak and closed minds would much rather despise and fear something than learn the truth. Im not gay myself, but I respect those who are. At the end of the day , it's none of my business anyway, and even if it was, it still makes no difference in my life. You can't change who you are, and chances are, if someone meets you and doesn't know your gay, they probably would really like you. But when you introduce a factor that people are ignorant about/don't want to understand, it changes the whole scenario.


----------



## Sevipervert (May 8, 2012)

There a few reasons, but I'll just pull some out that are more prevalent.

*They are considered degenerates*: Some elitist people consider homosexuals as lesser humans with a problem, such as related to brain damage. 

*They are unnatural*: Some others consider it against all what humanity is; a classic example is "If animals aren't gay, why are we? That's not how it works".

*They are annoying*: Some people take the annoyance of a person and identify it with a whole sexuality.

There are more but these are more prevalent reasons with the people I've talked to.

_Edit: I should probably state that I do not think any of these._


----------



## Smelge (May 8, 2012)

Problem here is tolerance. Which always comes as a problem to people who cry about needing more tolerance. What they really mean is that they want more tolerance as long as it's for their cause.

People should be tolerant of straights or gays, but if you want all-round tolerance then you have to accept that people may feel uncomfortable around either one. By demanding they are more tolerant, you are showing your own intolerance. Just because someone gets nervous or worried around gays doesn't make them homophobic, it just means they're not entirely comfortable.  If thats how someone feels, then deal with it and let them get on with it.


----------



## Fenrari (May 8, 2012)

Sevipervert said:


> There a few reasons, but I'll just pull some out that are more prevalent.
> 
> *They are considered degenerates*: Some elitist people consider homosexuals as lesser humans with a problem, such as related to brain damage.
> 
> ...



*They are considered degenerates*: While I consider this possible; consider the sheer number of amazing intellectuals and well spoken figures (not to mention all the rich ones) who are gay or bisexual. Stephen Fry immediately jumps to mind... Such a witty individual and more charm that even I could handle. 


*They are unnatural*: Homosexuality has been well documented in over 300 different species of animals... Humans are the only ones that have issues with it 


*They are annoying*: This is the only one I don't have a counter argument for. In large part because it's completely opinion based.


----------



## Ariosto (May 8, 2012)

Ugh, I had a slightly more detailed post on this...
Anyway, I think it's a matter of certain cultures having reasons that seemed completely logical at the time during the conformation of their societies. Through the expansion of certain lifestyles, religious cults and the baggage of tradition and dogma that came with them, a series of stereotypes were created, and the original intent was forgotten, leaving the discrimination rooted in the population's minds and principles without the possibility to question it. For the record, not all ancient cultures hated homosexuality; the Greeks even prefered it over heterosexuality, and that's explained through one of their myths.


----------



## Kaamos (May 8, 2012)

because they think gays are deviated preverts trying to start some kind mutiny of preverts


----------



## Smelge (May 8, 2012)

The only main reason it's wrong is because technically, being gay is completely fucking stupid and goes against nature.

Now, before people start flipping the fuck out, finish reading.

From a biological point of view, an organisms purpose is to replicate. That is it. Male and female get all jiggy, babies appear, biological imperative is met. Homosexuality removes the reproduction angle, essentially making the whole thing unnatural. Mentally and morally, your mileage may vary. If you're attracted to the same sex, then more power to you and so on, but yes it is against natures purpose.

However, where humans are concerned, it doesn't matter how many gay people there are kicking around. We've hit the stage where we're having larger families and stretching resources. The increasing number of people declining to reproduce isn't even enough to maintain an equilibrium, so for humanity to survive in the long term, we need more gays. Gays are the only effective population control. Lesbians are not, because they get all broody and go to sperm banks and stuff like that.

God damn it, lesbians.


----------



## Fenrari (May 8, 2012)

Ariosto said:


> Ugh, I had a slightly more detailed post on this...
> Anyway, I think it's a matter of certain cultures having reasons that seemed completely logical at the time during the conformation of their societies. Through the expansion of certain lifestyles, religious cults and the baggage of tradition and dogma that came with them, a series of stereotypes were created, and the original intent was forgotten, leaving the discrimination rooted in the population's minds and principles without the possibility to question it. For the record, not all ancient cultures hated homosexuality; the Greeks even prefered it over heterosexuality, and that's explained through one of their myths.



Are you by chance referring to the myth of the soul mates? Of how in the beginning all people were mashed into awkward 2 bodied lumps with some being both male, both female and one of each; and then Oranos got sick of looking at them and smote them in half; leading to the present where we're forever trying to search for our other half?

Interestingly enough; Samurai Champloo covered this topic from a cultural point of view in one of their episodes (the one with the Dutch emissary to the shogunate); and of the concept associated with the the will of bushido and other cultures in which male interactions were seen as more positive than than those with women.


----------



## Bc4life (May 8, 2012)

Smelge said:


> Problem here is tolerance. Which always comes as a problem to people who cry about needing more tolerance. What they really mean is that they want more tolerance as long as it's for their cause.
> 
> People should be tolerant of straights or gays, but if you want all-round tolerance then you have to accept that people may feel uncomfortable around either one. By demanding they are more tolerant, you are showing your own intolerance. Just because someone gets nervous or worried around gays doesn't make them homophobic, it just means they're not entirely comfortable.  If thats how someone feels, then deal with it and let them get on with it.



Well being uncomfortable isn't really issue announced by the OP.
But more the fact that a lot of people just abuse of their ignorance to degrade people of a certain sexual orientation.
People are taught at a young how they should act or behave.
Boys should like manly sport,beer,fight,ect ect.
Girls should loves flowers,pink stuff,ect ect.
So parent that end up having gay children may feel like they went wrong somewhere.
When they never did something wrong.

And as for the aids being more numerous case of aid on the gay community,I would it is an unfair judgement.
10% of people are known to be gay.
So comparing 10% to 90% seem a bit unfair.

@OP
maybe is the fact that he can't become a grandfather, having someone to continue his lineage.


----------



## Sevipervert (May 8, 2012)

Smelge said:


> so for humanity to survive in the long term, we need more gays. Gays are the only effective population control.



I don't know where the article is at the moment, but I do believe science has trolled you with this. Somewhere I read that scientists are now able to take sperm and create babies with it, without any use of the egg.

Or it may have been just the egg/egg, but either way, still goes.


----------



## Ariosto (May 8, 2012)

Fenrari said:


> Are you by chance referring to the myth of the soul mates? Of how in the beginning all people were mashed into awkward 2 bodied lumps with some being both male, both female and one of each; and then Oranos got sick of looking at them and smote them in half; leading to the present where we're forever trying to search for our other half?
> 
> Interestingly enough; Samurai Champloo covered this topic from a cultural point of view in one of their episodes (the one with the Dutch emissary to the shogunate); and of the concept associated with the the will of bushido and other cultures in which male interactions were seen as more positive than than those with women.



Precisely that myth. Also remember the concept of "pederastery", skillfully represented in Marguerite Yourcenar's _Memoirs of Hadrian_, where there's explicit attraction for the male physique on the narrator's behalf.

And that's another reminder I should watch that series anytime soon.


----------



## Smelge (May 8, 2012)

Sevipervert said:


> I don't know where the article is at the moment, but I do believe science has trolled you with this. Somewhere I read that scientists are now able to take sperm and create babies with it, without any use of the egg.
> 
> Or it may have been just the egg/egg, but either way, still goes.



You can tell if they are unnatural by the way they'll all come out ginger. Which means by default, no souls.


----------



## Rasly (May 8, 2012)

I think beside all the religious nuts, there is something biological about it, i for once have no idea why it is so disgusting to watch two guys kiss, or like those scat stuff, i just cant watch it and i am very openminded person.


----------



## Fenrari (May 8, 2012)

Smelge said:


> The only main reason it's wrong is because technically, being gay is completely fucking stupid and goes against nature.
> 
> Now, before people start flipping the fuck out, finish reading.
> 
> ...



*slowclap*

You've more or less hit one of my thoughts on the matter. If humans didn't have advanced medicine and what not else maybe we could have population stability; sadly culture and what not else would be an issue.


----------



## Ley (May 8, 2012)

Heres how I've always seen it (feared by others, myself, I'm cool)

Penis + Vagina = Baby = Human = YAY 

Penis + Penis = ??? D:< Love wtf is that EVIL, NOT BREEDING, SEX Y U NO USE IT FOR BABIES

Vagina + Vagina = (Mess) ooooh hot lol that so cool oh they're just in a phase - all they need is a good dicking to switch over


----------



## I Am That Is (May 8, 2012)

This whole thread makes me think of this song. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0I1juqtXvg&sns=em

Yeah, idk either.


----------



## Fenrari (May 8, 2012)

Sevipervert said:


> I don't know where the article is at the moment, but I do believe science has trolled you with this. Somewhere I read that scientists are now able to take sperm and create babies with it, without any use of the egg.
> 
> Or it may have been just the egg/egg, but either way, still goes.



There was an interesting article about how humans were being conceived using small intestine cells from one woman and the egg from another. The process supposedly forms a complete zygote that is life capable.


----------



## Sevipervert (May 8, 2012)

Ariosto said:


> For the record, not all ancient cultures hated homosexuality; the Greeks even prefered it over heterosexuality, and that's explained through one of their myths.



The Island of Lesbos comes to mind, but my history is horrible right now so I might be wrong. But they still did have lesbians back then, I do recall. Quite prominent too.


----------



## Smelge (May 8, 2012)

Fenrari said:


> *slowclap*
> 
> You've more or less hit one of my thoughts on the matter. If humans didn't have advanced medicine and what not else maybe we could have population stability; sadly culture and what not else would be an issue.



Yes. Basically one of the main reasons we've flourished so well is medicine, science and all that. Serious diseases, birth defects, mental illnesses and other stuff we can fix would result in the death of the individuals affected, keeping a purer genepool. However the faulty genes that caused these issues in the first place are now entering the genepool and becoming more of a problem down the family-line. Technically, we've horribly polluted our genes forever by allowing certain people to survive.

And to stop some of the flak I'm liable to get for this post, if we were letting people with illnesses or problems just die, I'd be one of them, so I'm not Godwinning the fuck out of my post.


----------



## CannonFodder (May 8, 2012)

By any chance is this thread brought about north carolina banning civil unions today?


----------



## Ibuuyk (May 8, 2012)

Majority of the world?  Homophobia doesn't even exist around here.  Heck, I'm not even sure people care about the gays in Quebec (Montreal excluded).

I don't even know why it's such a big deal in the US (aside from the population being retarded).  Because it says so in the Bible?  If it really did, homophobia'd exist in Quebec too since religion is still present.

America is weird.


----------



## Sevipervert (May 8, 2012)

You might wanna try hearing how they handle homosexuals in China and the Middle East.


----------



## Fenrari (May 8, 2012)

Sevipervert said:


> You might wanna try hearing how they handle homosexuals in China and the Middle East.



Africa is far worse


----------



## Ibuuyk (May 8, 2012)

Fenrari said:


> Africa is far worse



There are gays in Africa o.o?  I didn't even know people there had minds.


----------



## Ariosto (May 8, 2012)

Ibuuyk: well, here in South America, Catholicism is still strong, so it's no wonder ("Secular state" my ass). Aside from the Republican party, does the US have a simmilar situation?

Sevipervert: I must confess I haven't read in detail about it, but that's what the general consensus agrees on.


----------



## Ikrit (May 8, 2012)

i'm surounded by so much gay hate i'm a closet gay

because i feel like if i come out i will be shot right where I'm standing

maybe i can come out and sue everyone for hate crime


----------



## Bc4life (May 8, 2012)

Ibuuyk said:


> Majority of the world?  Homophobia doesn't even exist around here.  Heck, I'm not even sure people care about the gays in Quebec (Montreal excluded).
> 
> I don't even know why it's such a big deal in the US (aside from the population being retarded).  Because it says so in the Bible?  If it really did, homophobia'd exist in Quebec too since religion is still present.
> 
> America is weird.



Well homosexuality became a subject a while ago since Harper remove gay right marriage.


----------



## Ibuuyk (May 8, 2012)

Bc4life said:


> Well homosexuality became a subject a while ago since Harper remove gay right marriage.



Well, that's Harper for ya, can't expect much.  That's Canadian stuff, not Quebecois.


----------



## Bc4life (May 8, 2012)

Ibuuyk said:


> Well, that's Harper for ya, can't expect much.  That's Canadian stuff, not Quebecois.



True,but quebec is part of canada.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 8, 2012)

Ibuuyk said:


> There are gays in Africa o.o?  I didn't even know people there had minds.


What the fuck is this


----------



## Ibuuyk (May 8, 2012)

Bc4life said:


> True,but quebec is part of canada.



Only politically.  We have different culture, language, mentality, everything.  Comparing Quebec to Canada is literally like comparing France to England.


----------



## Fenrari (May 8, 2012)

I think it's supposed to be racism... Or implied stereotyping... I'm not sure exactly.


----------



## Bc4life (May 8, 2012)

Ibuuyk said:


> Only politically.  We have different culture, language, mentality, everything.  Comparing Quebec to Canada is literally like comparing France to England.



True,but even then,I live in montreal and I see homophobia time to time.
people complaining about gays and all


----------



## Ibuuyk (May 8, 2012)

Bc4life said:


> True,but even then,I live in montreal and I see homophobia time to time.
> people complaining about gays and all



Which is why I said Montreal is excluded.  It's the American City of Quebec and a shame to the country.


----------



## Bc4life (May 8, 2012)

Ibuuyk said:


> Which is why I said Montreal is excluded.  It's the American City of Quebec and a shame to the country.



May you explain to me how quebec is better,because for me,a portuguese, that seen both,both are the same.


----------



## Ibuuyk (May 8, 2012)

Bc4life said:


> May you explain to me how quebec is better,because for me,a portuguese, that seen both,both are the same.



Literally everything that's wrong with the country is in Montreal.  Quebec City is only half as bad because it's the center of politics.


----------



## Mxpklx (May 8, 2012)

I just got bored and read every verse in the Bible about how homosexuality is wrong. Every single one is from the Old Testament. That explains a lot.
I also got bored and decided to search the entire bible for every use of the word ass. Here are some more notable verses with the word ass: 
Genesis 42:27 "...opened his sack to give his ass..."
Genesis 44:13 "They rent their clothes, and laded every man his ass..."
Genesis 42:26 "And they laded their asses with their grain..."
Genesis 44:13 "The men were sent away, they and their asses..."
2 Peter 2:16 "...a *dumb ass*..."
And the list goes on... Oh God I'm going to Hell...


----------



## Aetius (May 8, 2012)

Its because they are different.

Almost always the reason why everyone hates each other.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (May 8, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> What the fuck is this





Fenrari said:


> I think it's supposed to be racism... Or implied stereotyping... I'm not sure exactly.


Christ, what is it with you people and your inability to understand sarcasm without a ':V'?


----------



## Seian Verian (May 8, 2012)

RedFoxTwo said:


> Christ, what is it with you people and your inability to understand sarcasm without a ':V'?



It didn't exactly sound serious

It also seemed incredibly out of place rather than at all witty. Which I think is the problem.


----------



## Fenrari (May 8, 2012)

Let me make some correlations that may not be correct.

1. The old testament of the bible is anti-gay.

2. The old testament of the bible is the Jewish Torah.

3. Jewish people follow the Torah.

4. Why does it seem Jewish people are all gay friendly though? No seriously I can't think of a single Jew I've ever known who wasn't gay or gay friendly...


----------



## Bc4life (May 8, 2012)

Mxpklx said:


> I just got bored and read every verse in the Bible about how homosexuality is wrong. Every single one is from the Old Testament. That explains a lot.
> I also got bored and decided to search the entire bible for every use of the word ass. Here are some more notable verses with the word ass:
> Genesis 42:27 "...opened his sack to give his ass..."
> Genesis 44:13 "They rent their clothes, and laded every man his ass..."
> ...



Angry video game nerd? XD


----------



## Onnes (May 8, 2012)

RedFoxTwo said:


> Christ, what is it with you people and your inability to understand sarcasm without a ':V'?



I think we all understand that that statement was Ibuuyk trying to be funny. The problem is that not only was it not funny, it also managed to evoke a horde of old racist tropes that are better left dead. I'm not sure whether this is better or worse than the last time when Ibuuyk went off about nuking the USA into oblivion.


----------



## Spatel (May 8, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> i'm surounded by so much gay hate i'm a closet gay
> 
> because i feel like if i come out i will be shot right where I'm standing
> 
> maybe i can come out and sue everyone for hate crime



Unfortunately homosexuals are not a protected minority, so 'hate crimes' committed against them cannot be prosecuted as hate crimes.


----------



## Onnes (May 8, 2012)

Spatel said:


> Unfortunately homosexuals are not a protected minority, so 'hate crimes' committed against them cannot be prosecuted as hate crimes.



There's been some improvement in this regard.


----------



## Spatel (May 9, 2012)

Fenrari said:


> Africa is far worse



Except for South Africa, which is actually better than the US in that regard.


----------



## drpickelle (May 9, 2012)

Smelge said:


> Technically, we've horribly polluted our genes forever by allowing certain people to survive.



Charles Darwins' Chainsaw of natural selection!

On a more related note to OP-- I have nothing against gays-- I'm one of the biggest hags you'll ever meet. It makes me angry when people can act so disrespectful to their fellow human beings, and rally against people just wanting the same rights as everyone else. I can't wrap my head around what causes homophobia and hate-- though I'm sure the church is big influence-- especially for the older generation.

 Geeze-- speaking of which, I had an old woman clutch her cross, as she sat on the bus, across from me and my room mate, last week. She was fixing us with the worst glare you can imagine, all because (I'm guessing), we were wearing rainbow items and sitting next to each other with linked arms.


----------



## Bipolar Bear (May 9, 2012)

Eh. Couldn't give less of a crap of what someone thinks of me.


----------



## LizardKing (May 9, 2012)

I try not to have anything against gays.

Especially not my penis.


----------



## BRN (May 9, 2012)

I don't really need to effortpost because I'm fairly sure it's all been covered, if not in this thread, then in previous discussions everywhere in the world, but the reason people hate gays is the same reason that people hate in general. 


i.e not enough exposure to the internet


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (May 9, 2012)

They've only met and seen those creepy-ass gay people. Normal gays go unnoticed so people base their opinions on those they can recognise.
This forum really changed my opinions on gays when I joined here over a year ago.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 9, 2012)

I Am That Is said:


> *People are scared of the unknown. *People with weak and closed minds would much rather despise and fear something than learn the truth. Im not gay myself, but I respect those who are. At the end of the day , it's none of my business anyway, and even if it was, it still makes no difference in my life. You can't change who you are, and chances are, if someone meets you and doesn't know your gay, they probably would really like you. But when you introduce a factor that people are ignorant about/don't want to understand, it changes the whole scenario.



There is nothing unknown about being gay though so I don;t see what that has to do with it.



Sevipervert said:


> There a few reasons, but I'll just pull some out that are more prevalent.
> 
> *They are considered degenerates*: Some elitist people consider homosexuals as lesser humans with a problem, such as related to brain damage.
> 
> ...



Why are these never applied to gay women? I have never, not once, not in my 8 years of being online, seen anyone speak poorly of gay women the same way people speak poorly of gay men. Religion, as far as I am aware has never frowned upon gay women either. What makes it okay for women to be gay and not men?

People seem more freaked out about two men fucking each other than two women fucking each other.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 9, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Why are these never applied to gay women? I have never, not once, not in my 8 years of being online, seen anyone speak poorly of gay women the same way people speak poorly of gay men. Religion, as far as I am aware has never frowned upon gay women either. What makes it okay for women to be gay and not men?
> 
> People seem more freaked out about two men fucking each other than two women fucking each other.


Lesbians are hot, bro. If they aren't hot, they're masculine and tough instead of sissy girly fags. :V

I think also that some straight fellas perceive gay fellas as potential sexual predators, and that's rather frightening for them.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (May 9, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> I think also that some straight fellas perceive gay fellas as potential sexual predators, and that's rather frightening for them.


Besides religious reasons, this is what I always assumed the reason for homophobia was.


----------



## sunshyne (May 9, 2012)

A lot of them are afraid of homosexuality becoming mainstream because they are afraid they might then cave to their natural desires... Psychological research shows that you are SUBSTANTIALLY more likely to be turned on by homosexual imagery if you frequent express homophobic thoughts, than if you do not. A lot of these people are afraid that if it were "normal" to marry within the same sex, then they or their children might end up in a gay relationship. And they can't handle that idea mentally.

Also there are a few million who are so legitimately brainwashed by religion that they'll do whatever their pastors say.


----------



## Aleu (May 9, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> There is nothing unknown about being gay though so I don;t see what that has to do with it.



They don't understand how someone can think differently than them. "You don't like the opposite gender? EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW"


----------



## Ikrit (May 9, 2012)

because people keep being told it's a "phase" or a "choice"


----------



## Ibuuyk (May 9, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> because people keep being told it's a "phase" or a "choice"



Except that can be the case sometimes.


----------



## Ariosto (May 9, 2012)

Ibuuyk said:


> Except that can be the case sometimes.


While I'm not sure on the "choice" part, the point is that people use those arguments as an excuse to supress it altogether. Since there's the possibility of "reverting", everybody must take it and adjust to society considers normal.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 9, 2012)

Ibuuyk said:


> Except that can be the case sometimes.



No, no, I don't think it is. You go out there and try to get a fully gay man to "choose" to have straight sex and try to get a straight man to "choose" to have gay sex. 100 bucks says you can't do it. 

People don't just choose to be gay or straight or even bisexual as and when it suits them.


----------



## Catilda Lily (May 9, 2012)

I don't see anything wrong with them. Heck, some of my best friends are gay/lesbian.


----------



## LizardKing (May 9, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> No, no, I don't think it is. You go out there and try to get a fully gay man to "choose" to have straight sex and try to get a straight man to "choose" to have gay sex. 100 bucks says you can't do it.
> 
> People don't just choose to be gay or straight or even bisexual as and when it suits them.



Replace "man" with "teenager" and the odds are less certain. Puberty and hormones and experimentation and confusion and all that jazz. Calling it a phase makes a lot more sense under those circumstances. It's not always correct, of course, but a _possibility _certainly.

Edit: Why does an italic "p" look like a short "b"? o.o


----------



## Onnes (May 9, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> because people keep being told it's a "phase" or a "choice"



I'm not sure this matters so much. Historically speaking, dislike and discrimination have never been limited to purely mutable traits.

I just see it as standard discrimination often imposed against anything falling outside of one's own cultural norms and expectations.


----------



## Fenrari (May 9, 2012)

I'm tempted to consider the matter as less of a societal issue and more one of perpetuated hate.


----------



## Ibuuyk (May 9, 2012)

Ariosto said:


> While I'm not sure on the "choice" part, the point is that people use those arguments as an excuse to supress it altogether. Since there's the possibility of "reverting", everybody must take it and adjust to society considers normal.



I know one can't use the argument "Homosexuality is a choice" because only a small percentage of people can actually choose.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> No, no, I don't think it is. You go out there and try to get a fully gay man to "choose" to have straight sex and try to get a straight man to "choose" to have gay sex. 100 bucks says you can't do it.
> 
> People don't just choose to be gay or straight or even bisexual as and when it suits them.



I'd win 100 bucks if I had someone to have sex with, then :V.

But seriously, yes, some people choose to be gay and/or straight when they want to.


----------



## Spatel (May 9, 2012)

In the US, public opinion of gays is higher than it is for atheists.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 9, 2012)

Ibuuyk said:


> I'd win 100 bucks if I had someone to have sex with, then :V.
> 
> But seriously, yes, some people choose to be gay and/or straight when they want to.


Wouldn't that just make them bi with fluctuating interests?


----------



## Fenrari (May 9, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Wouldn't that just make them bi with fluctuating interests?



Everyone is a little bisexual though.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 9, 2012)

Ibuuyk said:


> I know one can't use the argument "Homosexuality is a choice" because only a small percentage of people can actually choose.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, they don't. Sexuality is not a choice. End of.


----------



## Artillery Spam (May 9, 2012)

Fenrari said:


> Everyone is a little bisexual though.



Where'd you get that from?


----------



## Fenrari (May 9, 2012)

Artillery Spam said:


> Where'd you get that from?



Personal experience. I don't accept the Kinsey scale, it has it's uses but still.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 9, 2012)

Artillery Spam said:


> Where'd you get that from?



I think many straight people will highly disagree with Fen's statement.

And I take back what I said about Ibuuyk's posts about the choice thing because I just realized something that kinda makes him right. I mean if ya bisexual then you can choose who you have sex with.



Fenrari said:


> Personal experience. I don't accept the Kinsey scale, it has it's uses but still.



So you're saying everyone is a little bisexual from own experience? Man you must have been around everyone on the planet then to know that. :v


----------



## Fenrari (May 9, 2012)

I don't have concrete evidence and it would be impossible to simply ask EVERY person to honestly say if they've ever thought of the matter. 

However I do know that as gay as I am, I've had occassional thoughts about women. That and "no homo" exists.


----------



## Mxpklx (May 9, 2012)

Fenrari said:


> Everyone is a little bisexual though.


I can completely agree. But I think it is a matter of just being horny around other people which perceives them as being bi. Mainly in the teenage years though with all those hormones. I've learned that from personal experience =/


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 9, 2012)

Fenrari said:


> I don't have concrete evidence and it would be impossible to simply ask EVERY person to honestly say if they've ever thought of the matter.
> 
> However I do know that as gay as I am, I've had occassional thoughts about women. That and "no homo" exists.



To me, your not really bisexual unless you have had sex with both genders, until then to me it's just thoughts. I have thoughts about men sometimes, I class myself as Bicurious as I have not had sex with either gender yet. I mean I have known straight men to say how good another mans body is, but just to compliment the guy not because they wanna jump into bed with him.


----------



## Fenrari (May 9, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> To me, your not really bisexual unless you have had sex with both genders, until then to me it's just thoughts. I have thoughts about men sometimes, I class myself as Bicurious as I have not had sex with either gender yet. I mean I have known straight men to say how good another mans body is, but just to compliment the guy not because they wanna jump into bed with him.



I took my ex-gf's virginity :/ But no I still consider myself mostly gay.


----------



## Spatel (May 9, 2012)

Fenrari said:


> Personal experience. I don't accept the Kinsey scale, it has it's uses but still.



What don't you accept about it? You think everyone in the entire world is either a 5 or a 1, because that's all you understand?


----------



## Fenrari (May 9, 2012)

Spatel said:


> What don't you accept about it? You think everyone in the entire world is either a 5 or a 1, because that's all you understand?



Would it make sense for me to say that I think it's too simple? That there are complexities that don't get answered by it; and/or it doesn't have the ability to factor in external factors?


----------



## Spatel (May 9, 2012)

I think in terms of looking at the average of someone's interests in both sexes over a range of time, it does a good job.


----------



## Sevipervert (May 9, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> To me, your not really bisexual unless you have had sex with both genders, until then to me it's just thoughts.



And WOOSH goes the asexual bisexual people.


----------



## Fenrari (May 9, 2012)

Sevipervert said:


> And WOOSH goes the asexual bisexual people.



Did you just type an oxymoron?


----------



## Sevipervert (May 9, 2012)

If you honestly believe that that's an oxymoron, then perhaps you need to look up how "love" works.

Edit: And how about how asexuality and how finding someone you love, rather than wanting to get in their pants, works too.


----------



## LizardKing (May 9, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> To me, your not really bisexual unless you have had sex with both genders, until then to me it's just thoughts.



Would that make all virgins asexual?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 9, 2012)

LizardKing said:


> Would that make all virgins asexual?



Fair point.


----------



## Xeno (May 9, 2012)

I'm actually wondering the same thing, I check Yahoo! daily to see what's going on. Apparently Obama approves of same-sex marriage and the first page or two was full of homophobes.

Honestly, what do people gain from hating gay people? Does it make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Does it make them feel superior? 
A few people have told me that I choose to be gay. Yeah, because ya know I would totally choose to be told I'm going to hell by my own family and be looked down upon.


----------



## Fenrari (May 9, 2012)

Sevipervert said:


> If you honestly believe that that's an oxymoron, then perhaps you need to look up how "love" works.
> 
> Edit: And how about how asexuality and how finding someone you love, rather than wanting to get in their pants, works too.



Our differing definitions of certain terminology are at play here. 

Would I be wrong in noting your reference to individuals from an emotional perspective as well as a sexual one?

I don't know enough on the subject of asexual individuals to truly be able to say much on the matter sadly  Having only met one in my existence, I don't know enough about them to hold an intelligble conversation on them. 

As for love. It's a chemical addiction to someone else. Yes there's science behind this statement. What we define as love is simply the chemical withdrawals we feel from distancing ourselves from certain individuals. 

Though I'm tempted to quote things from House about now... Especially since they had an episode on the matter recentlyish.


----------



## Artillery Spam (May 9, 2012)

Mike the fox said:


> I'm actually wondering the same thing, I check Yahoo! daily to see what's going on. Apparently Obama approves of same-sex marriage and the first page or two had quite a few homophobes.



Quite a few? I'd say about 90% of the comments posted on that article were homophobic.


----------



## Sevipervert (May 9, 2012)

Fenrari said:


> Our differing definitions of certain terminology are at play here.
> 
> Would I be wrong in noting your reference to individuals from an emotional perspective as well as a sexual one?



Very simply put, being an asexual means "not interested in sex". Some define it as a "sexuality" as itself but that's an argument for another day. Either way, you needn't be interested in sex to have strong desires for someone in the sense of committing your life to them, and such. Such as the way with loving either man or woman.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 9, 2012)

Sevipervert said:


> Very simply put, being an asexual means "not interested in sex". Some define it as a "sexuality" as itself but that's an argument for another day. Either way, you needn't be interested in sex to have strong desires for someone in the sense of committing your life to them, and such. Such as the way with loving either man or woman.



If Asexual means no interest in sex then how the hell can anyone class it as a sexuality?

Maybe it's better to refer to it as simply an orientation.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 9, 2012)

Fenrari said:


> Our differing definitions of certain terminology are at play here.
> 
> Would I be wrong in noting your reference to individuals from an emotional perspective as well as a sexual one?
> 
> I don't know enough on the subject of asexual individuals to truly be able to say much on the matter sadly  Having only met one in my existence, I don't know enough about them to hold an intelligble conversation on them.


I think Sevi is trying to point out something involving the distinction between asexuals and aromantics? Not 100% sure.


EDIT: Err, ninja.


----------



## Sevipervert (May 9, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> If Asexual means no interest in sex then how the hell can anyone class it as a sexuality?
> 
> Maybe it's better to refer to it as simply an orientation.



Tis why I said it's an argument for another day.


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 9, 2012)

Fact: As of today, Fenrari's mother thinks that Obama a horrible mongrel son as well.


----------



## Fenrari (May 9, 2012)

AshleyAshes said:


> Fact: As of today, Fenrari's mother thinks that Obama a horrible mongrel son as well.



My mom was quite anti-obama from before he was elected  Which doesn't make much sense to me why she voted for McCain/Palin given how shitty the Republicans were the previous 8 years. 

As for the topic that was thusly on hand...

I'd like to make note that as a gay male, I'm not exactly sure how a relationship on that level of emotional attachement could exist without sex being anywhere in the equation... I could see 2 individuals who were both assexual living out that reality, but for everyone else... I simply can't wrap my head around that idea.


----------



## Ibuuyk (May 9, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Wouldn't that just make them bi with fluctuating interests?



No.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> No, they don't. Sexuality is not a choice. End of.



Again, it can be, Mr. Thickhead.


----------



## Sevipervert (May 9, 2012)

Fenrari said:


> I'd like to make note that as a gay male, I'm not exactly sure how a relationship on that level of emotional attachement could exist without sex being anywhere in the equation...



I don't know really what to think of this, are you saying sex is necessary or what? Because just. Hm.


----------



## Fenrari (May 9, 2012)

Ibuuyk said:


> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it can be, Mr. Thickhead.



I suspect sexuality is a discussion that can never have a definitive answer or description, no matter how much it is studied. Consider the topics and opinions we have thus covered in our small forum and magnify that by the hundreds of ways individuals can argue a single point. There in lies the conundrum. 

No two people are exactly the same. Even a clone would be different from the parent. And thus I make the motion to put to rest the animosity that has thus arisen. Our definitions of things are defined by our experiences as well as that which we have learned in our environments. Without having lived the exact same life, there is no way we could ever hope to fully understand another person's point of view on any matter. And thus, no one is 100% correct and no one is 100% false.


----------



## Ibuuyk (May 9, 2012)

Sevipervert said:


> I don't know really what to think of this, are you saying sex is necessary or what? Because just. Hm.



Sadly, most people think that way.  What a sad state society is in nowadays.


----------



## BRN (May 9, 2012)

There's no binary values for "strength of attraction" and indeed there's no binary values for gender. One can't argue for "exclusive" homosexuality and heterosexuality unless they want to argue that "the only difference between people is the missing X chromosome"; more differences exist, so sexual attraction must also be as varied. 

The situation could best be modelled as a spectrum, I'd think. One can never point with infinite accuracy to where they stand, but certainly to the "sort of around here" area.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 9, 2012)

Fenrari said:


> I'd like to make note that as a gay male, I'm not exactly sure how a relationship on that level of emotional attachement could exist without sex being anywhere in the equation... I could see 2 individuals who were both assexual living out that reality, but for everyone else... I simply can't wrap my head around that idea.


It's not really that hard. I was practically asexual until recently due to some health/psych problems but was able to maintain two relationships with very sexual people. I just considered sex as relationship maintenance and did what they asked of me and there really weren't many issues with it.


----------



## Kluuvdar (May 9, 2012)

I skipped page two and three, but I think I've got the jist of everything said.

Let me start off by saying, people don't like to be wrong. People form opinions even when they have almost no information on the subject at hand, to seem knowledgeable or just out of habit. It takes an educated person to say "I don't know what that is" or "I don't know much about that". The fact is, most people don't have much information about the LGBT community (given they have quite a lot more than they used to.). So they form opinions about gays etc that are bigoted in nature because that seems the most sensible with the information they have, or they're just hateful people, looking for something to take their frustration out on, and don't even get me started on the whole religious scene. This becomes a trend among the uneducated, and the trends of the majority are described as popular. So, the opinion spreads further and further through the ranks of the stupid, collecting more followers until it is dis-proven or fought against.

So, TLDR: people that have something against gays, are stupid.


----------



## ryanleblanc (May 9, 2012)

If memory serves me right, I remember a US politician (can't remember which one though) who was quoted as saying that gays are bad because they break up families.

While it is possible he was talking about the rate of gays being disowned from their families as a form of breaking families apart, I remember many citizens interpreted him as saying that gays purposely try to tear apart existing families, which doesn't seem at all believable.


----------



## Kaamos (May 9, 2012)

ryanleblanc said:


> If memory serves me right, I remember a US politician (can't remember which one though) who was quoted as saying that gays are bad because they break up families.
> 
> While it is possible he was talking about the rate of gays being disowned from their families as a form of breaking families apart, I remember many citizens interpreted him as saying that gays purposely try to tear apart existing families, which doesn't seem at all believable.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-id4GKsaQk&feature=youtu.be&t=3m37s


----------



## ryanleblanc (May 9, 2012)

Kaamos said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-id4GKsaQk&feature=youtu.be&t=3m37s



I was hoping someone would catch the underlying reference in my post! Bravo. Although my post was actually referencing a similar piece he did on the topic, that one is quite close to the comedic routine of his that I was actually getting at. 

You have a good eye.


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 9, 2012)

Fenrari said:


> I'd like to make note that as a gay male, I'm not exactly sure how a relationship on that level of emotional attachement could exist without sex being anywhere in the equation... I could see 2 individuals who were both assexual living out that reality, but for everyone else... I simply can't wrap my head around that idea.



Lesbians do it allllllllllllll the time.  It's called 'Lesbian Bed Death'. ^_^


----------



## Ozriel (May 9, 2012)

Ibuuyk said:


> Majority of the world?  Homophobia doesn't even exist around here.  Heck, I'm not even sure people care about the gays in Quebec (Montreal excluded).



"Majority of the world" = America. :V

Also Uganda, some other parts of Africa, and the Muslim nations hate gays...or most do. Being gay is punishable by death.


----------



## Spatel (May 9, 2012)

Fenrari said:


> I suspect sexuality is a discussion that can never have a definitive answer or description, no matter how much it is studied. Consider the topics and opinions we have thus covered in our small forum and magnify that by the hundreds of ways individuals can argue a single point. There in lies the conundrum.


I disagree. Once enough research is done we'll have a good idea of what's going on. I haven't the faintest clue right now though. It is a bit of a mystery at the moment, because:

-Boys who were sexually reassigned as girls at a young age back in the 80s, either due to a traumatic injury to the genitals or intersex at birth, boys who lived their entire childhoods thinking they were female, always reported an attraction to women when they reached puberty. ALWAYS. In 100% of cases. Their brains were gendered regardless of the environment they were exposed to after birth. This suggests that sexuality could not be explained by social conditioning.

*But*

-We know from twin studies that two kids with identical DNA can still have different sexualities. Usually that is what happens. When one twin is gay, the other is not. While twins are more likely to have the same sexuality, it isn't 100% or even 50% more likely. Studies that found those high correlations initially could not be repeated. It turns out families with two gay twins were just more likely to be interested in showing up to psychological studies, and that biased the ratios they got. So it can't be explained by genetics.

*But*

-The maternal hormone hypothesis hasn't held up well either, at least not for men. Male embryos produce far more androgens than their mother's immune system can turn off. Birth order and handedness are also bunk, and haven't held up well in repeat studies. Men who have older brothers and are left handed are statistically no more likely to be gay than men who are firsties and righties. Digit ratio is also bunk. Studies have found conflicting results. *However - 2D:4D ratio does correlate nicely with gender identity, which is not surprising given that females do biologically have a lower 2D:4D ratio* 

Handedness was a dumb idea anyway. That is something artificially induced by living in an environment with complicated tasks you don't have time to learn on both hands, and it's also something you can force-ably change.

*So*

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable... must be true. It looks like the answer is epigenetics to me, but IDFK. Probably several different things.


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 9, 2012)

Spatel said:


> I disagree. Once enough research is done we'll have a good idea of what's going on. I haven't the faintest clue right now though. It is a bit of a mystery at the moment, because:
> 
> -Boys who were sexually reassigned as girls at a young age back in the 80s, either due to a traumatic injury to the genitals or intersex at birth, boys who lived their entire childhoods thinking they were female, always reported an attraction to women when they reached puberty. ALWAYS. In 100% of cases. Their brains were gendered regardless of the hormones they were exposed to after birth. This suggests that sexuality could not be explained by social conditioning.
> 
> ...



Congrats dude, you used 374 words to say little more than 'Argueing nurture vs. nature is like argueing weather the length or the width is more important to finding the area of a rectangle.'.


----------



## Spatel (May 9, 2012)

Sometimes it isn't the destination that's important, it's the journey.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 9, 2012)

AshleyAshes said:


> Congrats dude, you used 374 words to say little more than 'Argueing nurture vs. nature is like argueing weather the length or the width is more important to finding the area of a rectangle.'.


. . . Spatel's post was pretty quality, and I'm sure most FAFers who read it will have learned something from it. I can't imagine a good reason to criticize it except perhaps with a dissenting opinion, which your criticism lacks.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 10, 2012)

AshleyAshes said:


> Congrats dude, you used 374 words to say little more than 'Argueing nurture vs. nature is like argueing *weather* the length or the width is more important to finding the area of a rectangle.'.



Whether**


----------



## Furious Furry (May 10, 2012)

Because they are threatened by their own sexuality...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 10, 2012)

Someone on YT told me recently "Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay-married"  Am I the only one that fails to see this logic?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (May 10, 2012)

By that same logic I could say "Don't like gays being beaten up? Don't beat up gays then!".


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 10, 2012)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> By that same logic I could say "Don't like gays being beaten up? Don't beat up gays then!".



Exactly.


----------



## Furious Furry (May 11, 2012)

LOL.... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the message behind that phrase..... If you don't like it, don't pay any mind to it.... Simple as that.

Banning gay marriage is just retarded.... So religious people don't like it, who gives a shit.... Adultery is against Christian/Catholic beliefs too, but you don't see people being told that cheating on your spouse is illegal... I mean geez, some people just don't know how to do with gay matters the same thing they do with movies and shit they don't like... ignore it and don't pay any mind to it if you dislike it so....

It's like Louis C.K. said in one of his stand ups.... Why let it bother you? Unless two gay guys are trying to touch dicks together in front of your face, who cares what they wanna do....


----------



## sunshyne (May 11, 2012)

Furious Furry said:


> Because they are threatened by their own sexuality...



Bingo.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 11, 2012)

Furious Furry said:


> Banning gay marriage is just retarded.... So religious people don't like it, who gives a shit.... Adultery is against Christian/Catholic beliefs too, but you don't see people being told that cheating on your spouse is illegal... I mean geez, some people just don't know how to do with gay matters the same thing they do with movies and shit they don't like... ignore it and don't pay any mind to it if you dislike it so....


Moreover, divorce is only okay in the Bible in cases of sexual infidelity or abandonment. Won't see a push to make divorce laws reflect that any time soon. "Sanctity of marriage," my hind end.


----------



## Armaetus (May 11, 2012)

Religious bullshit is what I think.


----------



## davimink (May 11, 2012)

Fear and Religion. Mass-scale religion is run by fear.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 11, 2012)

Glaice said:


> Religious bullshit is what I think.


This response works for many hindrances to social progress.


----------



## Kahoku (May 11, 2012)

Religion made them blind to life.
They can't accept that people are not all going to be the same.
We are different and that scares them.

How does that scare them? Ever run into that guy that said to himself, "oh, I could of done that..." and that turns to hate? something like that, but mostly the first two I posted.
**warning, posting at 11pm after a 17hour day, I am exhausted.


----------



## Fenrari (May 12, 2012)

AshleyAshes said:


> Lesbians do it allllllllllllll the time.  It's called 'Lesbian Bed Death'. ^_^



I have never heard of this and am scared to google it :/


----------



## Rhampage (May 12, 2012)

People need something to hate. It is like a fad with groups of people, and fed by fear mongers. African Americans were treated this way, then the hate transferred over to Mexicans, and now to Middle Easterners. (Other groups included in there) Leaders/powerful individuals need this hate to fuel their motives. The hate will die out when a more hated group comes into the light.  Damn you Fox News!


----------



## Commiecomrade (May 12, 2012)

Just all Bible stuff and a phobia of people following a different lifestyle.

People completely shit their pants at the thought of others having different views than they do.


----------



## softi (May 13, 2012)

I think I can answer this on one straightforward paragraph.

If you look at black culture and music, you might not realize it but its really just that they're all gay.  They are trying to promote what they feel are manly characteristics for the purpose of drawing other many men into their lives.  Theres a hidden face to gay that is really brutal and uncaring, and gays try to cover it up with innocence even though you know that darker side is there.  And on top of that, gays also like to promote the idea that they were born a particular way, when all that gay is really about is the idea that it might be fun to have sex with another man.  So, with all the angriness that is beneath the gay culture combined with all their weirdness its not hard to see why people have a problem with gays.

The idea of having sex with another man is not the problem, it's just that people who call themselves "gay" are just generally dicks.


----------



## Artillery Spam (May 13, 2012)

softi said:


> I think I can answer this on one straightforward paragraph.
> 
> If you look at black culture and music, you might not realize it but its really just that they're all gay.  They are trying to promote what they feel are manly characteristics for the purpose of drawing other many men into their lives.  Theres a hidden face to gay that is really brutal and uncaring, and gays try to cover it up with innocence even though you know that darker side is there.  And on top of that, gays also like to promote the idea that they were born a particular way, when all that gay is really about is the idea that it might be fun to have sex with another man.  So, with all the angriness that is beneath the gay culture combined with all their weirdness its not hard to see why people have a problem with gays.
> 
> The idea of having sex with another man is not the problem, it's just that people who call themselves "gay" are just generally dicks.



Well shit, guess I learned something new today.  :v


----------



## Fenrari (May 13, 2012)

Is the issue then a question of practice versus identity then?


----------



## Aldino (May 13, 2012)

I can't stand the gays obviously so I came here to get away from them. :V


----------

