Is it wrong to be disgusted by homosexuals?

im not afraid of being raped in prison...because i dont anticipate going to prison anytime soon.

i know several ex-cons, and they have told me the rape thing is quite exaggerated.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do they mean they enjoyed it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*puts on his republican hat*

probably. they are criminals, you know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First, I don't think you're stupid, Sam. I also respect you. But that's some of the stupidest stuff I've ever heard from anybody.

No, that's not what it means. Nobody has the right to have sex with anyone without consent. Otherwise it's rape.

First, it's not homophobic. Could you somehow explain how it is homophobic?

Second... racism? How the hell does race have anything to do with this thread?

Yeah. That was probably the dumbest post you've ever made. No offense.

 

But yeah, I think the word cornhole isn't used enough. Shoot me.

 

Tbh im not sure you're really disgusted by homosexuals themselves, just the act, and the fact you associate it with any chatting up in a bar the same way straight guys want to get it on with any girl.
If they spoke to you anywhere else I'm pretty sure you wouldn't mind, you must have had gay friends?
I don't think its wrong to be disgusted by the act if you're straight, but if you're disgusted by the people just because of what they are then kinda, its like being disgusted because someones Jewish or something. Although I guess as you're not imposing beliefs and stopping them being gay it can be ok.

 

I would agree. Straights come up with the nastiest stuff! Flogging? Cornhole? Never seen straight porn have you? LOTS of 'cornholing.' Doesn't appeal to any gays I know, the rear door tappin thang, but breeeders seem Obsessed with mansex. fear it! Secretly want it? But, Fran is insecure and reacting in self righteous anger. He needs to point at someone to justify his fear. Someone else can play that monkey.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ahh, yes, a perfect example of diplomacy at work, huh, James?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I wonder if you'll keep that in mind the next time you suggest "diplomacy" for solving some of the world's problems and conflicts??? Ya' think??

Baron Max

 

Peace to all regardless.

 

James R.:

Certainly. A fear of homosexuals cannot be empathized in the same way that disgust can (which surely you meant, so please do not use misleading words).

The answer is clear: The act of sexual congress with another man. Are you not aware that this can be disgusting?

Okay.

A Mytho-Poetic Romanticist Atheist Pantheist

I.E. I find stories and tales of Indo-European divinities to be an invigorating and culturally appealing framework on aesthetic grounds, but philosophically affirm existence as a whole to fulfill the attributes of God, sans consciousness, and sans religiousity. That is to say, I like myths and epic poetry, but do not believe in deities as object of true worship, and philosophically affirm that existence satisfies the criteria of God (omnipresence, eternity, et cetera).

I am also culturally Catholic, in as much as my family is Catholic and I briefly attended Catholic school as a child.

WOOPS!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Also, I actually read that only after I revealed my religion. Which makes this funnier.

 

Oh come on. That's the sort of stuff I expect to hear from idiot conservatives. "If we allow them to marry, then EVRY1 WULL WANA GIT MARRIED 2 UH DEWD!!!"

Your comment is a non sequitur. It does not provide any evidence for some evolutionary trait against homosexuality. It does not follow that if this evolutionary trait didn't exist, every example of the species would be consequently homosexual.

Is this just conjecture on your part? If it is, then I'll lay it to rest and forget about this. Just, sometimes it's hard to tell when people are conjecturing and when they're stating something as fact.

Allow me to explain.

You said Eskimo culture recognizes eight genders.

This reminded me of a claim that the Eskimo language has about 40 words for "snow". This is one of those bits of trivia that people hear and go "Really? I didn't know that." and accept uncritically. But this claim, as it turns out, is outrageous.

Thus, I concluded that their culture recognizing eight genders sounded outrageous as well. But I may be wrong on this. I just need proof.

I don't care, actually. I was just wondering why you were calling it onanism when almost no one does nowadays. Mainly because the term connotes a negative opinion towards masturbation due to the old thought that the Biblical character Onan "spilled his seed" through masturbation. It's now commonly accepted that he actually ejaculated through coitus interruptus.

 

Exactly!

It's not hard to do, people.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But it IS for some people .....and in your judgemental comment, you disregard the feelings of all of those people. I.e., for all of your supposed tolerance, you ain't very tolerant, are you?

Baron Max

 

James R.:

Are all "double standards" truly instance sof the same thing?

Consider, for instance, that it is held to be scandalous for a subordinate to speak disrespectfully to a superior in the military, but such would not be the case in reverse.

Note that I have made no comment personally about homosexuality in this thread. Moreover, are you not aware that Catholics are tremendously good at "queering it up"? Priests, Oscar Wilde...

 

I have made anthropological studies of the Eskimo and Inuit cultures so I consider there is validity to my comments (although as always I'm open to the dialectic). What I suggest is read this and then make your criticism again (if indeed you can):
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004003.html
The biological construction of sex must include over 70 known types of chromosomal ‘abnormality’ e.g. Klinefelter’s syndrome (47XXY) or Turner’s syndrome (45X or 46XO) or XXY pattern. Gender is a social construction as opposed to a biological one; the fact that 3 genders are socially constructed in the ‘West’ does not mean that other cultures do not use other systems to socially-construct gender.

I cannot find the specific paper at present (and I appreciate that you will want to see this)...does anyone have access to an ATHENS or JSTOR account please?

As you wish to correct my terminology please provide a scientifically-recognisable term to replace ‘onanism.’…masturbation refers to an act not a sexual status…I agree that there may be a better word to describe the sexual status of a masturbator and if, as you maintain, you are able to provide one then please do so. Note: Coitus interruptus refers to withdrawal during intercourse.

 

I don't have a problem with homosexuals going to gay bars to pick up homosexuals. That's fine. That's what gay bars are for. Heterosexuals picking up heterosexuals at a non-gay bar is what non-gay bars are for.

You can safely assume that.

I can comprehend that, completely. However, it's different, because heterosexuals are a majority. Not only is heterosexuality more common, but heterosexuality is generally deemed less disgusting. A boorish heterosexual male hitting on a poor heterosexual girl is different from a boorish homosexual male hitting on a poor heterosexual male. The difference is huge.

You can call it a double standard if it pleases you. But I really don't see it as such. In the third page of the thread I introduced an analogy with the floggers/fuckers and the tour bus driving driving his sick friends across the country.

I agree with you that some women are disgusted by some males who hit on them. But let's compare that to the tour bus analogy. Sure those few women may suffer from these stupid men hitting on them. But those women are like the three or four out of the 25 people on the bus who are sick from the bus driver who is driving fast. The boorish man who is hitting on the poor girls are the bus drivers.

The homosexuals who are hitting on the horrified heterosexuals are like the bus drivers when the bus is full of 25 sick people. And those people are sick because of the speeding. The bus driver continues speeding, ever merrily to his destination, without a care in the world about the 25 people in the bus who are doubling over in their vomit. It's very inconsiderate in my opinion.

If you were that bus driver wouldn't you slow the bus down for your sick friends if it would make them more comfortable? Even though the bus driver is a minority, he should still take his friends' into consideration. It's really simple utilitarianism. You do what makes the most people comfortable.

Well, there is a huge difference between assuming that a given person is a heterosexual and assuming he is a homosexual. Huge difference. If homosexuals were a majority, I would probably still hate being hit on them, but I would probably get used to it and eventually learn to tolerate it out of simple necessity. However, they are not the majority. They should try to make the majority comfortable by inhibiting their sexualities in our presence because it sickens us. It's simple utilitarianism.

Lol, no. That's not what I want. I already explained what I want. What I want is really quite reasonable. I want homosexuals to find out whether or not I am gay before they grope, give me the eye, or make some kind of advance on me. That's what I want. Let me know if you're still confused. I don't know if I can make it any clearer to you. I have Skype. It might be easier to explain it that way.

Luckily, I never said or implied anything of that kind.

It's called "trolling." It's a tried and true method.

Hold on now. You're being hasty and presumptuous. I'm not happy to put the moves on any woman. I'm not a prick. I only hit on women if they are receptive. I can usually tell very quickly in my interactions with women whether or not they are receptive. If they aren't, I don't waste my time or hers.

Once again, I think you think it's a double standard. But it's really not. It's because homosexuals don't find heterosexuals nearly as disgusting has heterosexuals find homosexuals. That's reason number one. Reason number two is this: there are way more heterosexuals than there are homosexuals. Simple utilitarianism. Are you familiar at all with hedonistic calculus?

You took that too literally. I was just writing colorfully. I try not to bore the shit out of my readers. I am courteous. I consider others. I wish some homosexuals were the same way.

Not really that many guys do that. And yes, those kinds of guys are obnoxious, especially if the attention is unwanted. However, it's not on par with that of homosexuals hitting on heterosexuals. It's really not. I think I've already explained my reasoning to you. I think you can anticipate what I would say to that. If you need it again, let me know.

It's not hard at all. My real problem is homosexuals that give me the look or grope me. Or homosexuals that make out in public places. Homosexuals making out in a public place is not the same as heterosexuals making out in a public place. Once again, I don't give a shit about what people do in private. However, in public, I think homosexuals should still be courteous and yielding to the horrified majority.

From what I've heard and read, it's more like 1 out of 20, or 5%. They are a minority.

Get real man. A homosexual man hitting on a heterosexual man is not the same thing as a heterosexual man hitting on a heterosexual woman. If you think it's the same thing, you need to get outside. Take a walk.

Once again, I don't want them to avoid me. I've had gay friends. I'm not a homophobe. I've made it clear what I want many times, but you keep ignoring it, because you know that what I want is actually quite reasonable. Let me reiterate: I want homosexuals to find out whether or not I am gay before they grope, give me the eye, or make some kind of advance on me. They should be yielding to the horrified majority.

Still confused?

 

Strange, that is exactly my problem with some men.

It offends me. A lot.

What should I do, do you think?

 

Taser?