# a kinder view of homophobes



## jp_fr_linguaphile

My argument is topics such as homosexuality affect people on such a visceral level that they are often unable to have a logical debate about it.  It is important to acknowledge that. The feeling of aversion many homophobes have to the idea of two members of the same sex being intimate is equal to the revulsion of most people watching someone eat a bucketful of live insects. Alas, it's not fair to expect someone with such an aversion to be able to discuss it logically. 

This is what we forget. When we intensely dislike something, we desperately latch onto any existing "argument," tenable or not, to rationalize our belief. for instance, the Bible was quoted to justify the second-class citizenship of African-Americans in the US.  


All we can do is pray that such people will embrace the more loving side of Christianity and learn to live and let live, instead of, I suspect, voting to write discrimination into the constitution. 

I thought my message was important enough to start a new thread.  Is there anyone who agrees with me?  

I would like to suggest that this thread does not become another opportunity to spit vitriolic.  Let's have a humane discussion.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi jp,

Your thoughts are needlessly limited to those who use, or might benefit from, Christianity in addressing the issue.  Why be so narrow in your discussion?  Christians, whether nominal or devout, are a minority of the population of this earth.

"All we can do is pray...." reflects yet another constricted view.  Why not say "hope" rather than "pray"?

I'm sure that there are many open and closed-minded individuals who do not benefit (or suffer, depending on one's viewpoint) from any religious affiliation, and who hold strong views about homosexuality and homosexual rights.

I don't share the notion that we should take "a kinder view of homophobes".  Why?  Because in recent years many of them have adopted the politically kerrect trappings of dishonest language, an updated form of the older "Some of my best friends are...." line, while pushing their bigoted agenda no less hard than when they came right out and called homosexuals ugly names.  

Homophobes are apt to hate more than one minority group--that's their nature.  They will give plausible sounding
preambles prior to attempting to smear and harass, saying things like, "I have nothing against XXXXX, but I don't like their agenda."  The "agenda" is usually just to be allowed to life a normal life, with the same rights of citizenship enjoyed by those in the majority.

I hope (pray, if you prefer) for enlightenment for the narrow-minded bigots.  I don't expect it.  Bigotry usually comes from fear, and the fear often manifests itself in anger.
That is dangerous in civil society, as the many victims of prejudice have come to know.

Humane discussion must also be direct and honest.  Homophobia is a problem.  Homophobes claim that homosexuality is a problem.  There is serious, heated discord about the topic.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

I agree wholeheartedly with you.  Nonetheless, I may tend to be constricted by the Christian view of things because I live in the Bible Belt where most homophobes mask their prejudice in Christian moral superiority.  

That is one reason for using the word "pray," although I must admit I used it in somewhat of an ironical way.  I've been prayed for by harmless people more times than I know so that I might be converted to the heterosexual "lifestyle."  

I also used the word pray in the same way I might have used the word chant as someone who has dabbled in Buddhism.  I just feel that the two words have a stronger connotation than the word hope and that a more concerted effort is achieved through chanting and prayer than through passive hoping.  

Regarding my choice of topic title "kinder view of homophobes," it might be a little misleading.  I just extracted myself from a forum where the pros and cons sides were extremely polarized, to say the least.  I  feel that attacking someone for their beliefs, no matter how untenable, is counterproductive.  

Perhaps I am naive to believe that being "kinder" to the enemy is going to bring him closer to my point of view. 

Thanks for your comments.


----------



## Nunty

You've taken an interesting approach, jp, though I admit right off the bat that my initial reaction is pretty much the same as cuchu's. I have been on the hated side of things for most of my life, for various reasons, and today I risk getting spit at in the street in many parts of my city. I have little patience for bigots. (OK, mea culpa - I am, after all, a nun - but I'm far from perfect.)

At the same time, I find the idea of being "kind" to homophobes and other bigots intriguing. Will it change them? Of course not. But it just might "heap burning coals on their heads." <smiley of evilly smiling nun>


----------



## LouisaB

jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> My argument is topics such as homosexuality affect people on such a visceral level that they are often unable to have a logical debate about it. It is important to acknowledge that. The feeling of aversion many homophobes have to the idea of two members of the same sex being intimate is equal to the revulsion of most people watching someone eat a bucketful of live insects. Alas, it's not fair to expect someone with such an aversion to be able to discuss it logically.
> 
> This is what we forget. When we intensely dislike something, we desperately latch onto any existing "argument," tenable or not, to rationalize our belief. for instance, the Bible was quoted to justify the second-class citizenship of African-Americans in the US.
> 
> 
> All we can do is pray that such people will embrace the more loving side of Christianity and learn to live and let live, instead of, I suspect, voting to write discrimination into the constitution.
> 
> I thought my message was important enough to start a new thread. Is there anyone who agrees with me?
> 
> I would like to suggest that this thread does not become another opportunity to spit vitriolic. Let's have a humane discussion.


 
This is a very refreshing approach, and I wholeheartedly support it.

I suspect there is a great deal in what you say about the so-called 'arguments' of homophobes being no more than an attempt to justify a much more primitive reaction. Some of the supposedly 'Christian' arguments against it seem to me no more than a desperate flailing around to scrape together the necessary evidence, and I would have to say that to me this seems actually the opposite of Christian! (I am one myself, by the way, just to be up-front and declare an interest!)

But your approach is not simply to judge or condemn this attitude, but to seek to understand it, and I can't see anyone here having a problem with that. In the UK, we already live in a society liberal enough to recognise that many violent prejudices are the result of either mental illness, or a disorder possibly created by unfortunate childhood experiences. Nobody would attack someone for having an uncontrollable phobia about spiders, however irrational it may be. Maybe one day we will be this enlightened about homophobes too. Personally, I would always prefer to try to 'cure' rather than 'attack'.

What makes it difficult is that in some cultures (and I understand from a previous thread that the USA is one of them) the opposition to homosexuality is actually dangerous enough to be threatening highly restrictive laws. It is easy to be understanding to someone who can't do you any harm. It is a lot harder when he is organised, powerful and genuinely out to get you!

My own stand on it would simply be this. I cannot 'blame' someone who tells me frankly 'I have a problem with homosexuality'. I do know someone like this, who actually goes physically sick at the sight of men kissing. I feel very, very sorry for him. Where I find it harder is when 'I have a problem' turns into 'You _are _a problem'. Yes, I understand this could well be a defense mechanism, exactly as you describe, and I will try to bear this in mind when I am next drawn into argument with such people. But I have to be honest, and say I do struggle with it all the same.

Your humanity is encouraging. It offers a glimpse of a future where we might be able to reach the goal of living in real accord with one another -without imagining the only way to do this is by destroying and beating down everyone who disagrees with us!

Louisa


----------



## Selena1967

I'm from Spain, and and I'm living in Canada, two countries where same sex marriage have been approved . You should consider the possibility that a homophobic point of view does not has to be with religion but with a bunch of precious 'votes' praying 'a very reactionary political agenda' with a Bible on their hands. Most of Spaniards and Canadians declared themselves to be Roman Catholics or simply Christians but many of them did not support anti-same-sex-marriage demostrations held in both countries. In fact, although some of them don't agree, I don't know why a same sex couple should not have the same benefits as me because they are homosexual or how same sex marriage can affect my Values as a human being, whether I'm Christian or not, just simply because I've got a perfect subterfuge (religion) to be intolerance.


----------



## Fernando

I disagree on the view of people who oppose same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption and homosexual teaching as "homophobes".

Socialists are not "economicfreedomphobes" nor conservatives are "poorphobes".

Let us hope and/or pray that we will not begin insulting just from the first name we give to people.


----------



## LouisaB

Selena1967 said:


> You should consider the possibility that a homophobic point of view does not has to be with religion but with a bunch of precious 'votes' praying 'a very reactionary political agenda' with a Bible on their hands. Most of Spaniards and Canadians declared themselves to be Roman Catholics or simply Christians but many of them did not support the anti-same-sex-marriage demostrations held in both countries. In fact, although some of them don't agree, I don't know why a same sex couple should not have the same benefits as me because they are homosexual or how same sex marriage can affect my Values as a human being, whether I'm Christian or not, just simply because I've got a perfect subterfuge (religion) to be intolerance.


 
I think we _have_ considered it, Selena. It is certainly what I was saying (ie people can use religion as an excuse) and I think it was what jp_fr was saying too. I am a Christian myself, and do not oppose homosexuality in any way. I don't think it's true of everyone, however. There are some people who hold genuine beliefs based on their interpretation of their own Holy Books, but we have had discussions on those elsewhere, and I think the question this thread is posing is a different one - ie that the illogical arguments used by some people may be a cover for a more visceral (and therefore pitiable) response.



Fernando said:


> I disagree on the view of people who oppose same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption and homosexual teaching as "homophobes".
> 
> Socialists are not "economicfreedomphobes" nor conservatives are "poorphobes".
> 
> Let us hope and/or pray that we will not begin insulting just from the first name we give to people.


 
That is a very fair point, Fernando - the word itself is inflammatory. Not all opposers of homosexuality in teaching, marriage etc are necessarily 'homophobes' and to say otherwise would be to denigrate people for their beliefs, which is totally contrary to both the rules and spirit of this forum.

However, my understanding was that this specific thread was devoted to the question of those who do in fact have an irrational hatred of all things homosexual (as my poor friend does). In this context, I would use the word 'homophobe' in much the same way I would use 'arachnophobe', and would agree with the original question that perhaps somebody suffering from this condition needs a more humane response from us than mere vilification.

But perhaps I've misunderstood the question?

Louisa


----------



## cyanista

Fernando said:


> I disagree on the view of people who oppose same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption and homosexual teaching as "homophobes".
> 
> Socialists are not "economicfreedomphobes" nor conservatives are "poorphobes".
> 
> Let us hope and/or pray that we will not begin insulting just from the first name we give to people.



What do you suggest calling them, then? (My question is purely linguistic.) Do they possess a major trait that is common to all of them apart from rejecting or opposing homosexual love/marriage? Every term I can think of is based on this "negative" characteristic of rejection.


----------



## Fernando

a) Word to define people opposed to homosexual marriage: People-opposed-to-homosexual-marriage.

b) Word to define people opposed to homosexual adoption: People-opposed-to-homosexual-adoption.

...

m) Word to define people who think homosexuals should be shot: People-who-think-homosexuals-should-be shot.

...

z) Word to define people who feel disgust when seeing or watching a homosexual, who vomit when handing them and have the impulse to jump into the top of a chair (and who can be in favour of homosexual marriage and/or adoption): Homophobes.


----------



## Cnaeius

cuchuflete said:


> Your thoughts are needlessly limited to those who use, or might benefit from, Christianity in addressing the issue. Why be so narrow in your discussion? Christians, whether nominal or devout, are a minority of the population of this earth.


 
I wonder, since we are talking more or less of phobiae, why sometimes and needlessly the piece of word "Christ-" bothers people. 
I think that jp does not want anybody to convert to Christianity. It is absolutely natural to explain our beliefs and behaviors according to our personal experience. It is done as example, not as the only way.
Anyway I don't know anyone that knows the "larger" view in the discussion. Everyone conveys his own view, based on its experience. Then we can agree or disagree


----------



## Victoria32

cuchuflete said:


> Hi jp,
> 
> 
> 
> Homophobes are apt to hate more than one minority group--that's their nature.  They will give plausible sounding
> preambles prior to attempting to smear and harass, saying things like, "I have nothing against XXXXX, but I don't like their agenda."  The "agenda" is usually just to be allowed to life a normal life, with the same rights of citizenship enjoyed by those in the majority.
> 
> Humane discussion must also be direct and honest.  Homophobia is a problem.  Homophobes claim that homosexuality is a problem.  There is serious, heated discord about the topic.


I will declare myself. I have been called a homophobe, on another site, and I have a visceral reaction to men kissing - best summed up as eeuuuwww! There it is, I can't help it. I am also a Christian, but the two aren't necessarily connected. I was a "homophobe" before Iwas a Christian.



LouisaB said:


> My own stand on it would simply be this. I cannot 'blame' someone who tells me frankly 'I have a problem with homosexuality'. I do know someone like this, who actually goes physically sick at the sight of men kissing. I feel very, very sorry for him. Where I find it harder is when 'I have a problem' turns into 'You _are _a problem'. Yes, I understand this could well be a defense mechanism, exactly as you describe, and I will try to bear this in mind when I am next drawn into argument with such people. But I have to be honest, and say I do struggle with it all the same.
> Louisa


I have a problem with homosexuality. I have also had very bad experiences with homosexuals (though not with lesbians..) The situation involved a boyfriend, a man who wanted him, and I don't think I need go on, except to say that there were some blood-curdling threats issued against me... _*But I do not hate anyone! *_


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Victoria,
Thanks for the direct statements.  We know now that you have a problem with male homosexuality.  Do you also oppose the ability ("rights" is far too loaded to get into at the same time.) of homosexual males to be governed by the same laws that apply to male heterosexuals?

I think there is an important distinction between personal distaste, for whatever reasons, and negative actions--including legislative actions--directed against a group.

Example: I don't like the idea of hunting and killing animals for sport.  Hunting and killing animals for sport is an ingrained part of the culture of the place where I live.  I have a strong, even visceral, distaste for shooting bear and moose.  (There's plenty of cultural history involved...people once needed to do such hunting here for food.)  However, I do not campaign to limit the actions or rights of those whose culture includes such things.  I simply do not join them.

I find much merit in Fernando's questions.  I think we need to distinguish between those who are troubled, even revolted, by homosexual activity, and consider it wrong, and those who use that disagreement and/or disgust as a starting point in attacking other people.


----------



## Victoria32

cuchuflete said:


> Hi Victoria,
> Thanks for the direct statements.  We know now that you have a problem with male homosexuality.  Do you also oppose the ability ("rights" is far too loaded to get into at the same time.) of homosexual males to be governed by the same laws that apply to male heterosexuals?
> 
> I think there is an important distinction between personal distaste, for whatever reasons, and negative actions--including legislative actions--directed against a group.
> 
> Example: I don't like the idea of hunting and killing animals for sport.  Hunting and killing animals for sport is an ingrained part of the culture of the place where I live.  I have a strong, even visceral, distaste for shooting bear and moose.  (There's plenty of cultural history involved...people once needed to do such hunting here for food.)  However, I do not campaign to limit the actions or rights of those whose culture includes such things.  I simply do not join them.
> 
> I find much merit in Fernando's questions.  I think we need to distinguish between those who are troubled, even revolted, by homosexual activity, and consider it wrong, and those who use that disagreement and/or disgust as a starting point in attacking other people.


No, I have no problem with equal treatment under the law. But I _do_ believe that homosexuality is actually wrong (though no more so than say, adultery... it is not a special class of 'worst sin'.. ) As I say, I believed this long before I was a Christian and in fact, my father was when I was growing up, an adamant atheist.. and pretty much held the same views as I do! 

I do not attack homosexuals... providing they don't attack me! (Now I don't have a pretty boyfriend, they don't bother me!  ) 

VL


----------



## vlazlo

I have no time for homophobic people on any level and as for taking a kinder view of them, nope...  Ever heard of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church?  Anything kind about them?  Try googling "Gay man killed", you'll get several million hits. By the way, something that blows my mind is when straight people flip out when a gay person hits on them or their significant other.  What? straight people don't hit on each other, say and do innappropriate things or, God forbid, hit on each other's spouses or partners?  What irritates me most is the absolute and utter hypocrisy.  As for having gut feelings of aversion, yes, I have those too, especially when I see people use some false concept of morality to hide behind when they treat their fellow man/woman as less than themselves.


----------



## Maja

Cnaeius said:


> I wonder, since we are talking more or less of phobiae, why sometimes and needlessly the piece of word "Christ-" bothers people.


 I was just going to say that!


Fernando said:


> a) Word to define people opposed to homosexual marriage: People-opposed-to-homosexual-marriage.
> 
> b) Word to define people opposed to homosexual adoption: People-opposed-to-homosexual-adoption.
> ...
> m) Word to define people who think homosexuals should be shot: People-who-think-homosexuals-should-be shot.
> ...
> z) Word to define people who feel disgust when seeing or watching a homosexual, who vomit when handing them and have the impulse to jump into the top of a chair (and who can be in favour of homosexual marriage and/or adoption): Homophobes.


I agree. It seems nowadays that it is "either-or", "black or white", no shades of gray. Either you embrace it or you are dead set against it. I disagree with such an approach... 
If I am against drugs, am I immediately  "drugophobic" (and refuse to take even aspirin for a headache)??? And if I am  not "drugophobic", do I have to say "say yes to drugs,  lets all get high"??? 
Now, that is bigotry to me...

As to the thread subject, any phobia is irrational fear, and it should be treated as such.


----------



## emma42

If I were a Christian or member of any other group or religion which prescribed  forgiveness and turning the other cheek, I would try to think like jp.

I am not, however.  This ridiculous playing about with semantics and redefining of "homophobe" does nothing to disguise the fact that some people wish to discriminate against homosexuals because of their sexuality.  Whether this discrimination takes the form of opposition to gays adopting children, or physical gay-bashing, it has no place in a civilised society.


----------



## vlazlo

Oh, as to the word homophobe, here it is, live and direct from M.W. Dicitonary:

homophobia

One entry found for homophobia.
Main Entry:	ho·mo·pho·bia 
Pronunciation:	"hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function:	noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals 
- ho·mo·pho·bic  /-'fO-bik/ adjective

so, if the shoe fits...


----------



## maxiogee

And there was I thinking that homophobes were bigots who sound alike! 

I think that with any misinformed people we can do but one thing - attempt to set their thinking straight. If they don't, won't or can't listen then leave them.


----------



## Fernando

vlazlo said:


> Ever heard of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church?



No.



vlazlo said:


> Try googling "Gay man killed", you'll get several million hits.



7,420 hits.

Man killed 1.5 million.
Woman killed 1.1 million.



vlazlo said:


> By the way, something that blows my mind is when straight people flip out when a gay person hits on them or their significant other.



Sorry. I think "hit" means something my English teacher did not tell me.


----------



## Fernando

emma42 said:


> Whether this discrimination takes the form of opposition to gays adopting children, (...), it has no place in a civilised society.



Certainly, there are many few civilised societies.


----------



## Namakemono

"Hit on someone" significa "ligar" en este contexto.


----------



## Fernando

Thank you, Namakemono. The phrase now makes SOME sense.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hola Fernando,
Perhaps to help it make more sense, we could look at a post in this thread.  A woman stated that a homosexual man competed with her for the affection of another man.  She implied that this increased her aversion to homosexuals.
Suppose it had been a woman competing for her boyfriend's attention.  Logically, shouldn't that lead her to dislike heterosexual women?

Even more logically, shouldn't she keep her dislike to just the single individual involved, and not project it to any group of people?

Conclusion: emotional responses are not logical.


----------



## maxiogee

vlazlo said:


> Try googling "Gay man killed", you'll get several million hits.





Fernando said:


> 7,420 hits.


I got the same - and I went a bit further - I picked a victim's name and ran the search again …
"gay man killed" +gaither
… and got 11 hits, so one can validly ask how many others of those 7,420 relate to the same events


----------



## emma42

Fernando, I don't understand your post #21.


----------



## Fernando

cuchuflete said:


> Perhaps to help it make more sense, we could look at a post in this thread.  A woman stated that a homosexual man competed with her for the affection of another man.  She implied that this increased her aversion to homosexuals.
> Suppose it had been a woman competing for her boyfriend's attention.  Logically, shouldn't that lead her to dislike heterosexual women?



Now, it makes sense. Well, I think the comment in the post was anecdotical.

Anyway, if someone bald tried to "hit" with my (quite hipothetical) girlfriend, I would like to shot every bald man. Emotional but true.

If a lesbian would try to flirt with my (sadly hipothetical) girlfriend, I suppose I would feel an "extra" pain, since I would not expect competence from such direction and specially from an activity I dislike. Count this in the same situation as a 70-year old man would like to hit with my (did I say it is hipothetical) girlfriend.


----------



## Fernando

emma42 said:


> Fernando, I don't understand your post #21.



It is becoming an habit.

I mean: How many "civilised" countries do you know?


----------



## vlazlo

Fernando,

I like "hit with", but it is "hit on".  

ex:  I was so angry when that Spanish guy kept hitting on my boyfriend.


----------



## Macunaíma

Eu sou um heterossexual assumido e me oponho ao casamento gay _ao meu próprio casamento gay! Me parece uma abordagem simples e brilhante: se você é contra o casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo, case-se com alguém do sexo oposto. Para que se preocupar com a vida dos outros? Eu não consigo entender pessoas que têm a capacidade de ser radicais. Talvez seja a minha indolência tropical, mas eu simplesmente não consigo me dar ao trabalho de tornar complexo um tema que me parece tão simples...Se você não gosta de carne, coma seus vegetais; se não gosta de sexo e bebedeiras, fique em casa rezando, ou fazendo o que quiser. Exerça a sua liberdade, e deixe que os outros façam o mesmo. Busque a sua felicidade, e não seja uma barreira à felicidade dos outros _a vida já é tão difícil, tão inexplicável, tão frágil...não compliquem as coisas. As suas "opiniões" acabam indo para o túmulo com você...

( Eu sei que quase ninguém aqui fala português, mas eu estava com uma baita preguiça de pensar em inglês...RSRSRS )

Cheers!


----------



## Fernando

vlazlo said:


> Fernando,
> 
> I like "hit with", but it is "hit on".
> 
> ex:  I was so angry when that Spanish guy kept hitting on my boyfriend.



Thank you for the correction, vlazlo.


----------



## emma42

Fernando, thanks for reply.  If you like, I will substitute "civilised" for "trying to be civilised".


----------



## Fernando

Macunaíma said:


> As suas "opiniões" acabam indo para o túmulo com você...



Entao, para qué estas a dar a túa? E mais importante que a nossa? 

Perdona la brincadeira.


----------



## Cnaeius

Maja said:


> I agree. It seems nowadays that it is "either-or", "black or white", no shades of gray. Either you embrace it or you are dead set against it. I disagree with such an approach...
> If I am against drugs, am I immediately "drugophobic" (and refuse to take even aspirin for a headache)??? And if I am not "drugophobic", do I have to say "say yes to drugs, lets all get high"???
> Now, that is bigotry to me...
> 
> As to the thread subject, any phobia is irrational fear, and it should be treated as such.


 
I agree and I would add that the "black or white" point of view is another kind of phobia: It is always simpler to put a person at the exact opposite part from yours, if you can't accept and fear his criticism.
In this I think that homophobes are equal to the ones that strongly criticize who criticize homosexuality.
As we can see, phobiae grow as mushrooms


----------



## emma42

I certainly don't _seek_ to "put a person at the exact opposite part from" mine, but if one is to be criticised for criticising bigotry, well, where does that leave one?  Am I to stand by and do/say nothing while someone is being gay-bashed, or told that they should not marry or adopt because they are gay for fear of being told I am homophobephobic?


----------



## cuchuflete

Macunaíma said:


> Eu sou um heterossexual assumido e me oponho ao casamento gay _ao meu próprio casamento gay! Me parece uma abordagem simples e brilhante: se você é contra o casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo, case-se com alguém do sexo oposto. Para que se preocupar com a vida dos outros? Eu não consigo entender pessoas que têm a capacidade de ser radicais. Talvez seja a minha indolência tropical, mas eu simplesmente não consigo me dar ao trabalho de tornar complexo um tema que me parece tão simples...Se você não gosta de carne, coma seus vegetais; se não gosta de sexo e bebedeiras, fique em casa rezando, ou fazendo o que quiser. Exerça a sua liberdade, e deixe que os outros façam o mesmo. Busque a sua felicidade, e não seja uma barreira à felicidade dos outros _a vida já é tão difícil, tão inexplicável, tão frágil...não compliquem as coisas. As suas "opiniões" acabam indo para o túmulo com você...
> 
> ( Eu sei que quase ninguém aqui fala português, mas eu estava com uma baita preguiça de pensar em inglês...RSRSRS )
> 
> Cheers!



Eu penso o mesmo que você amigo!  Tampouco sei porque a gente sempre quer fazer as coisas tão simples uma bagunça.
Assím deixo esta grande confusão para eles.  Disculpe o meu português.


----------



## ElaineG

emma42 said:


> I certainly don't _seek_ to "put a person at the exact opposite part from" mine, but if one is to be criticised for criticising bigotry, well, where does that leave one? Am I to stand by and do/say while someone is being gay-bashed, or told that they should not marry or adopt because they are gay for fear of being told I am homophobephobic?


 
I agree, Emma.  _My_ religious values tell me that this type of moral relativism stinks. It seems like a depressing evolution of PC culture that we are supposed to tolerate the intolerant.


----------



## mytwolangs

I could care less what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
The problem is the whole "out and proud" attitude that some have. No one wants their nose rubbed in it.


----------



## ElaineG

> The problem is the whole "out and proud" attitude that some have. No one wants their nose rubbed in it.


 
???  What does that mean?  

What are some examples of having your nose rubbed in it?


----------



## cuchuflete

In the spirit of fair play, I'm going to change a few words in this thread starter post, to see if  kindness can flow in more than one direction.  





			
				jp_fr_linguaphile said:
			
		

> My argument is topics such as homosexuality bigotry affect people on such a visceral level that they are often unable to have a logical debate about it.  It is important to acknowledge that. The feeling of aversion many homophobes opponents of bigotry have to the idea of two some members of the human racesame sex being intimate attacking other humans is equal to the revulsion of most people watching someone eat a bucketful of live insects. Alas, it's not fair to expect someone with such an aversion to be able to discuss it logically.



I call on all those who disparage fellow humans to be tolerant of those who are appalled by bigotry...they can't help themselves.  They have a visceral aversion to it.


----------



## emma42

Mytwolangs, what exactly do you object to?  What do you mean by "the whole 'out and proud' attitude"?


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Mytwolangs, I think you had better clarify your position, lest we misunderstand it.


----------



## Kajjo

Unfortunately, I do not know the US circumstances well enough to really contribute to this discussion. What strikes me as strange, however, is equating _homophobia_ with _opinions_ like "not being in favor of gay marriages". There are huge differences between having _political opinions_ or _emotional reactions_ based on some kind of religion or ideology.

Honestly, I am personally opposed to offering any advantages to married gays compared to single people of any kind. I am even opposed of such advantages for heterosexual couples. Why should the society grant expensive, special rights to couples? Because it is so nice when two people are in love? And particularly in view of today's high divorce rates anyway.

It is fine with me to support parents. Raising children is the future of society and to relieve some of the burdens and expenses of parents will pay back the society in the end in form of future generations. For me it makes sense to offer them tax, social, health and other benefits. Supporting _marriages_ was originally supporting _families_. It is only a new turn of our century that propagation does not anymore go hand in hand with marriage.

But why support couples nowadays? I believe that many people are opposed to gay marriage not because of homophobia, but because in the case of gay couples it is very _transparent_ that they will never pay back society. Likewise do people wonder why grant advantages to heterosexual couples that openly pronounce they "never want children".

Kajjo


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Kajjo, will you please explain what you mean about couples repaying society?


----------



## Kajjo

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Kajjo, will you please explain what you mean about couples repaying society?


I just meant, that most modern Western societies nowadays are glad about births and raising, educating children is not only a parents' obligation (and hopefully joy) but also the societies responsibility, at least to a certain degree. Obviously, since a long time our societies try to make it easier for families by reducing taxes or offering all sorts of benefits (at least in Germany): _"Repaying society by rasing children and ensuring continuity and future."_, was what I meant.

Whatever you think about that, it would be interesting to collect ideas why couples should be supported in the first place as compared to single people. Do you have any ideas why [heterosexual] married couples should have advantages over non-married couples or over single people of whatever sexuality? Nowadays we have a cash flow from single people to couples and families. Is this OK for you? Why?

Kajjo


----------



## cyanista

Fernando said:


> a) Word to define people opposed to homosexual marriage: People-opposed-to-homosexual-marriage.
> 
> b) Word to define people opposed to homosexual adoption: People-opposed-to-homosexual-adoption.
> 
> ...
> 
> m) Word to define people who think homosexuals should be shot: People-who-think-homosexuals-should-be shot.
> 
> ...
> 
> z) Word to define people who feel disgust when seeing or watching a homosexual, who vomit when handing them and have the impulse to jump into the top of a chair (and who can be in favour of homosexual marriage and/or adoption): Homophobes.



With the help of this method many fascinating classifications could be created. Example:

A word to define a white person who won't employ blacks - a-white-person-who-won't-employ-blacks
...

A word to define a white person who thinks blacks should be shot - a white-person-who-thinks-blacks-should-be-shot
...

A word to define a white person who thinks (s)he is inherently superior to any black person - a racist?


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Victoria : "I have a problem with homosexuality. I have also had very bad experiences with homosexuals (though not with lesbians..) The situation involved a boyfriend, a man who wanted him, and I don't think I need go on, except to say that there were some blood-curdling threats issued against me... _*But I do not hate anyone!* "_

Do you have a problem with male homosexuality because you had bad experiences with gay men? That must have been difficult for you to have another man treat you so horribly because he desired your boyfriend. 

That was wrong on that individual gay man's part. You see where I am going with this. For every one gay man who has nothing but disdain for a couple's relationship, I guarantee you there are at least nine who do. 

Most of my friends are gay and none of them would approve of hitting on someone who was unavailable. 

Your challenge is to forgive that one gay man of his intolerable behavior and acknowledge that he is not the norm. 

Peace be with you.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

vlazlo said:


> I have no time for homophobic people on any level and as for taking a kinder view of them, nope... Ever heard of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church? Anything kind about them? Try googling "Gay man killed", you'll get several million hits. By the way, something that blows my mind is when straight people flip out when a gay person hits on them or their significant other. What? straight people don't hit on each other, say and do innappropriate things or, God forbid, hit on each other's spouses or partners? What irritates me most is the absolute and utter hypocrisy. As for having gut feelings of aversion, yes, I have those too, especially when I see people use some false concept of morality to hide behind when they treat their fellow man/woman as less than themselves.


Yes, I know who he is. He and his hooligans desecrated the memory of Matthew Shepherd on the day of his funeral. You have every reason to be angry at him and his followers. God knows I have ranted and raved about that man enough. He is an odious, pathetic man filled with lots of hate. So I can empathesize with you. We both need to work on getting rid of the anger and disregarding this pathetic excuse for a human being. 

I believe you have made all very good points. I have faith, though, that if we continue to have fruitful dialogues devoid of hate and blame such as this one we can win over the hearts of the "hypocrites" one at a time.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Fernando said:


> a) Word to define people opposed to homosexual marriage: People-opposed-to-homosexual-marriage.
> 
> b) Word to define people opposed to homosexual adoption: People-opposed-to-homosexual-adoption.
> 
> ...
> 
> m) Word to define people who think homosexuals should be shot: People-who-think-homosexuals-should-be shot.
> 
> ...
> 
> z) Word to define people who feel disgust when seeing or watching a homosexual, who vomit when handing them and have the impulse to jump into the top of a chair (and who can be in favour of homosexual marriage and/or adoption): Homophobes.


 
I think what all these categories of people have in common is an aversion to homosexuals, which would make them "homophobes."  

I'd be curious to hear an argument from people who don't claim to be homophobes, but object to gay marriage, adoption by gay couples, and would like to see them shot.  

Fernando, were you just being facetious?


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

LouisaB said:


> This is a very refreshing approach, and I wholeheartedly support it.
> 
> 
> Your humanity is encouraging. It offers a glimpse of a future where we might be able to reach the goal of living in real accord with one another -without imagining the only way to do this is by destroying and beating down everyone who disagrees with us!
> 
> Louisa


 
Louisa, I was so touched by your kind words and that you also know exactly where I am coming from.  We need more people like you in this world.


----------



## mytwolangs

ElaineG said:


> ??? What does that mean?
> What are some examples of having your nose rubbed in it?


Well, the biggest one is this "gay marriage" debate. And when they have to act all flamboyant. It is ob-nox-ious.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

> LouisaB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we _have_ considered it, Selena. It is certainly what I was saying (ie people can use religion as an excuse) and I think it was what jp_fr was saying too. I am a Christian myself, and do not oppose homosexuality in any way. I don't think it's true of everyone, however. There are some people who hold genuine beliefs based on their interpretation of their own Holy Books, but we have had discussions on those elsewhere, and I think the question this thread is posing is a different one - ie that the illogical arguments used by some people may be a cover for a more visceral (and therefore pitiable) response
> 
> 
> 
> You are exactly right, Louisa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, my understanding was that this specific thread was devoted to the question of those who do in fact have an irrational hatred of all things homosexual (as my poor friend does). In this context, I would use the word 'homophobe' in much the same way I would use 'arachnophobe', and would agree with the original question that perhaps somebody suffering from this condition needs a more humane response from us than mere vilification.
> 
> But perhaps I've misunderstood the question?
> 
> Louisa
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
No, you have perfectly understood my question.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Cnaeius said:


> I think that jp does not want anybody to convert to Christianity. It is absolutely natural to explain our beliefs and behaviors according to our personal experience. It is done as example, not as the only way.


 
My sentiments exactly.  In fact, I am not a Christian; I don't believe that Jesus Christ came to this world to save us by dying on the cross, but I still respect those who do have that belief because I think it is a comfort to them. The "doctrine" I subscribe to is live and let live.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Victoria32 said:


> No, I have no problem with equal treatment under the law. But I _do_ believe that homosexuality is actually wrong (though no more so than say, adultery... it is not a special class of 'worst sin'.. ) As I say, I believed this long before I was a Christian and in fact, my father was when I was growing up, an adamant atheist.. and pretty much held the same views as I do!
> 
> I do not attack homosexuals... providing they don't attack me! (Now I don't have a pretty boyfriend, they don't bother me!  )
> 
> VL


This is the kind of prejudice that needs to be fleshed out using logic.  Homosexuality is qualitatively different from adultery and other traditional sins.  I feel like you owe it to us and yourself to prove your case other than just saying that your father believed it too, although he was an adamant atheist.  

Adultery is characterized by a betrayal of trust between two people.  Homosexuality is simply having attraction to the same sex.  A homosexual relationship can be adulterous or monogamous.  An adulterous homosexual relationship I can see as a sin, but a monogamous homosexual relationship?  I just don't get it.  

"But I _do_ believe that homosexuality is actually wrong...it is not a special class of 'worst sin.'"  This is a popular opinion.  In fact, I heard it today by colleagues who were consoling a colleague whose grandmother refused to have him and his partner over for Thanksgiving dinner.  "He who is without sin cast the first stone."  

Their attempts to console him were honorable, but the belief is still based on an illogical belief system.  

If you can present to me a cogent argument for why homosexuality is a sin, I am open to it.  By the way, there is a plausible argument that Paul in the book of Romans was referring to men who behaved in a way that was contrary to their own nature.  That means to me self-recognized heterosexual men who choose to have sex with other men and vice versa (if you accept this argument).  

Since I am not Christian, however, I am not obligated to believe anything that is written in the Holy Book.  But Christians should spend some time discerning the meaning of the Word of God.  

I apologize if I sound like I am attacking.  My intent is merely to encourage you to explore the reasons why you believe the way you do.  If you still arrive at the same conclusion, then please choose to live and let live.  

Best regards,


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Maja said:


> I was just going to say that!
> 
> I agree. It seems nowadays that it is "either-or", "black or white", no shades of gray. Either you embrace it or you are dead set against it. I disagree with such an approach...
> If I am against drugs, am I immediately "drugophobic" (and refuse to take even aspirin for a headache)??? And if I am not "drugophobic", do I have to say "say yes to drugs, lets all get high"???
> Now, that is bigotry to me...
> 
> As to the thread subject, any phobia is irrational fear, and it should be treated as such.


Well put, Maja. You get the point I am driving at.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

cuchuflete said:


> Hola Fernando,
> Perhaps to help it make more sense, we could look at a post in this thread. A woman stated that a homosexual man competed with her for the affection of another man. She implied that this increased her aversion to homosexuals.
> Suppose it had been a woman competing for her boyfriend's attention. Logically, shouldn't that lead her to dislike heterosexual women?
> 
> Even more logically, shouldn't she keep her dislike to just the single individual involved, and not project it to any group of people?
> 
> Conclusion: emotional responses are not logical.


 
That's exactly right.  It seems, though, that if there is a collective sense that it is OK to blame a group people, the individual is more likely to do just that.  This is what is happening in the case of undocumented hispanic workers in this country.  

That is the challenge: to resist the claims of the majority of society, and make a decision based on facts for oneself.


----------



## papillon

Maja said:


> As to the thread subject, any phobia is irrational fear, and it should be treated as such.


Let me invite you to consider the following purely hypothetical scenarios. Imagine that people with the followoing _phobias_ come into a position of power, say ... presidency of the US. The way I see it, here is what would happen:

A claustrophobic president may:
    order a few walls knocked down in the White House so as to eliminate any tight spaces...

An acrophobic (height-fearing) president may:
 scrap the plans by the previous president to add floors 7-12 to the White House. She will also travel by train or bus, like John Madden...

An arachnophobic president may:
   have a serious heart-to-heart with a White House staffer rumored to keep a pet tarantula...

A homophobic president may:
     try to change the Constitution to deny a certain population of their equal rights...

I guess some phobias are just more dangerous than others.


----------



## cuchuflete

mytwolangs said:


> Well, the biggest one is this "gay marriage" debate. And when they have to act all flamboyant. It is ob-nox-ious.



Your views are understandable.  Please keep in mind that it was not homosexuals who started the so-called debate.  Some of them quietly sought court intervention to undue what the New Jersey courts recently agreed were unconstitutional constraints on the rights of some citizens to equal protection under the law.
The noisy debates have been created, for the most part, by people who object to any changes to the prior _status quo. _It is not abnormal for many people to find change—in anything—stressful, and so they resist it.

I don't care for flamboyant behavior, so I don't spend a lot of time looking for it.  Nor, I suspect, do the majority of homosexuals either engage in it or enjoy observing it.  Being annoyed by ostentatious behavior by a minority of a minority is ok, but it's not ok to toss out generalities that suggest, inaccurately, that most homosexuals are flamboyant.  I'm a heterosexual living in an area with a fairly open and sizeable homosexual population, and I am not accustomed to seeing any flamboyant behavior by my gay neighbors. 

Many people of my sons' generation wear cargo pants, with the wasteband so low that half their butts are on display.  Both young men and young women cover themselves with tatoos and body piercings.  Those things are flamboyant, and a change from what I grew up seeing.  I have a choice.  I may choose to be offended and annoyed, or just take note that fashions have changed since I was a kid. I remind myself that things do change over time, and recall my father's annoyance with me when I grew my hair long and had a beard when such things went against his generation's conventions.  

Back in those days, Black people (who were then known as Negroes) made major headway against prejudice and illegal
denials of their basic rights.  Some, as part of political movements, were very open and flamboyant about black power.  It offended many folks used to the _status quo_ of the time. Those who were offended, and maybe frightened of change, lost sight of the fact that injustices were being undone, and focused on hair styles and dashikis.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Cnaeius said:


> I agree and I would add that the "black or white" point of view is another kind of phobia: It is always simpler to put a person at the exact opposite part from yours, if you can't accept and fear his criticism.
> In this I think that homophobes are equal to the ones that strongly criticize who criticize homosexuality.
> As we can see, phobiae grow as mushrooms


 
That's an interesting point.  I suppose it is a fair argument, but homophobes who band together to use their power to infringe on others' happiness violates my "doctrine" of live and let live.  Many have done just that in the state where I live.  As it stands now, I will never be able to marry the love of my life or have him recognized in my state as a spouse due to not only legislation but a recent amendment to the state constitution to define marriage as between one and one woman.  

Let's turn this around.  Imagine a world in which you were told you were only able to marry someone of the same sex as you.  How would you feel?


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

mytwolangs said:


> Well, the biggest one is this "gay marriage" debate. And when they have to act all flamboyant. It is ob-nox-ious.


 
Mytwolangs, 

I would like for you to take some time out and observe straight couples in public and depicted on television.  How often do you see public displays of affection?  Now compare it with the number of PDA incidents you see between same-sex couples?  Which is greater?

Now imagine a world in which only same-sex marriage was legal.  How many straight couples would be asking for the same right to be married?  

Would the straight couples' demands for equality before the law seem flamboyant to you?  Or would it only seem natural?

Maybe we need to define "flamboyant" as simply conspicuous, in which case seeing a same-sex couple showing PDA might seem a bit more conspicuous than a straight couple showing PDA because it is less common.  But is being conspicuous because it is less of a common sight necessarily a bad thing?


Let's get at the root of your assertion that discussing "gay marriage" is flamboyant, and implication that it's necessarily a negative thing.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Kajjo said:


> Unfortunately, I do not know the US circumstances well enough to really contribute to this discussion. What strikes me as strange, however, is equating _homophobia_ with _opinions_ like "not being in favor of gay marriages". There are huge differences between having _political opinions_ or _emotional reactions_ based on some kind of religion or ideology.
> 
> Honestly, I am personally opposed to offering any advantages to married gays compared to single people of any kind. I am even opposed of such advantages for heterosexual couples. Why should the society grant expensive, special rights to couples? Because it is so nice when two people are in love? And particularly in view of today's high divorce rates anyway.
> 
> It is fine with me to support parents. Raising children is the future of society and to relieve some of the burdens and expenses of parents will pay back the society in the end in form of future generations. For me it makes sense to offer them tax, social, health and other benefits. Supporting _marriages_ was originally supporting _families_. It is only a new turn of our century that propagation does not anymore go hand in hand with marriage.
> 
> But why support couples nowadays? I believe that many people are opposed to gay marriage not because of homophobia, but because in the case of gay couples it is very _transparent_ that they will never pay back society. Likewise do people wonder why grant advantages to heterosexual couples that openly pronounce they "never want children".
> 
> Kajjo


 
You raise a very important point. Maybe we should simply undo all the advantages married heterosexual couples without children benefit from, allow them to claim them when they have children, and give gay couples the same right to marry without the ability to claim benefits unless they have children.  That seems completely equitable.


----------



## maxiogee

mytwolangs said:


> The problem is the whole "out and proud" attitude that some have. No one wants their nose rubbed in it.



Indeed - isn't it revolting when you walk along the street and see two people kissing and you just know, automatically, without any other signals or indications, that they are a _ _ _ couple?

(a) Married
(b) Gay
(c) Inter-religious
(d) Inter-ethnic

Shouldn't be allowed!


----------



## Kajjo

jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> Adultery is characterized by a betrayal of trust between two people.  Homosexuality is simply having attraction to the same sex.


You are right.



> If you can present to me a cogent argument for why homosexuality is a sin, I am open to it.


(Please understand that the following citation is not my personal belief, but only a biblical reference I thought you asked for.)
Lev 20:13 -- _If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them._



> By the way, there is a plausible argument that Paul in the book of Romans was referring to men who behaved in a way that was contrary to their own nature.  That means to me self-recognized heterosexual men who choose to have sex with other men and vice versa (if you accept this argument).


Rom 1:26-27 -- _For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error._

Your interpretation is a modern, but reasonable one.



> Since I am not Christian, however, I am not obligated to believe anything that is written in the Holy Book.


Right. Biblical references can only give answers to Christians, not to Non-Christians. The whole concept of "sin" is a very religious principle and no atheist is bound to another one's belief.



> I apologize if I sound like I am attacking.  My intent is merely to encourage you to explore the reasons why you believe the way you do.


Again, the above is not my personal belief. It is just to answer your questions why Christians might be opposed to homosexuality.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> You raise a very important point. Maybe we should simply undo all the advantages married heterosexual couples without children benefit from, allow them to claim them when they have children, and give gay couples the same right to marry without the ability to claim benefits unless they have children.  That seems completely equitable.


Yes, my thoughts were indeed along those lines. However, it also raises the questions _why_ (and _if_) couples should have privileges. It is not reasonable, at least from my point of view, to claim any  benefits for gay marriages when it is obvious that such marriages will not contibute in any kind to society. In the case of heterosexual marriage all benefits are granted with expectation of "family" rather than "couple" and surely today's society needs to react to the fact that many marriages are not the start of a new family anymore. I agree with your above statement.

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

Kajjo said:


> You are right.
> 
> (Please understand that the following citation is not my personal belief, but only a biblical reference I thought you asked for.)
> Lev 20:13 -- _If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them._




Acknowledging that Kajjo is only making a point, I would ask *those who do feel that this stricture is a God-inspired proscription against homosexual behaviour* (and not against being homosexual, you'll note) if they hold to *all *the strictures of this particular book of the Bible?
If you don't - where did the right to pick and choose come from?


----------



## Kajjo

maxiogee said:


> Acknowledging that Kajjo is only making a point


Thanks a lot for doing so!



> I would ask *those who do feel that this stricture is a God-inspired proscription against homosexual behaviour* (and not against being homosexual, you'll note) if they hold to *all *the strictures of this particular book of the Bible? If you don't - where did the right to pick and choose come from?


A very good question. Usually Christians count Old Testament commandments as being revised by Jesus attitude of general love. Very much evil has been committed by Christians relying on Old Testament chapters and it is strange how modern Christianity tries to select a different bunch of commandments than medieval Christians did (e.g. "you shall kill witches"). With the right interpretation almost every notion can be justified with the bible.

I am waiting with you, Maxiogee, to Christian responses to your question.

Kajjo


----------



## RIU

jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> My sentiments exactly. In fact, I am not a Christian; I don't believe that Jesus Christ came to this world to save us by dying on the cross, but I still respect those who do have that belief because I think it is a comfort to them. The "doctrine" I subscribe to is live and let live.


 
Si, claro, pero el ser católico no te impide el _vive y deja vivir_ siempre y cuando el camino de la tolerancia sea de ida y vuelta. 

Soy católico y en mi opinión cada cual puede destrozar su vida como más le parezca, yo incluido; pero esto no le da ningún derecho a hacerlo ni en público -por que la calle es de todos- ni que sus actividades puedan llegar a tener influencia en el normal desarrollo de la infancia. Hoy en día, en las escuelas públicas españolas se enseña, o se predende hacer, que tan normal es niño-niña, niña-niño, niño-niño y niña-niña. Me pregunto si falta mucho para llegar el niño/a-perro/a por poner un ejemplo, puesto que somos tan _modernos_ y tan _progres_ que tambien estos tienen que tener sus derechos, no creeis?

Por lo tanto tan tolerante debo ser yo con los homosexuales como ellos conmigo. No estoy de acuerdo con su estilo de vida como seguro que ellos no lo están con el mío y por ello no les insulto llamándolos vete a saber que, mientras que ellos a mí sí que ma insultan llamándome homófofo. La diferencia está en que con mi estilo de vida no destrozo la infancia de nadie. Mis hijos son primeramente ellos, y en segundo término son hijos míos; y por respeto a ellos, a su desarrollo, a su convivencia con el entorno, a sus amistades y en definitiva, a su inteligencia no me da la gana que vean las actitudes ni heterosexuales ni homosexuales a las que por desgracia estamos acostumbrados, en plena calle. 



jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> Louisa, I was so touched by your kind words and that you also know exactly where I am coming from. We need more people like you in this world.


 
Si, yo también pero en ambos sentidos.




Kajjo said:


> Again, the above is not my personal belief. It is just to answer your questions why Christians might be opposed to homosexuality.
> 
> Kajjo


 
Me parece que estamos confundiendo la velocidad con el tocino. No hay error más grande que interpretar las sagradas escrituras al pié de la letra. Lo único que dicen las escrituras es lo que _yo_ debo hacer para alcanzar el cielo. No he leido nada de lo que _tu_ debas hacer. Con lo cual, las sagradas escrituras me dan, a lo sumo, motivos para rehusar _mi _homosexualidad, no la tuya. Haz lo que quieras con _tu_ vida, pero que esto no afecte a la de los demás, y en especial a los niños.


----------



## Nunty

I unfortunately don't read Spanish, so I missed out on what RIU said.

I am relating to several other posts before that one. Have we moved from discussing taking "a kinder view of homophobes" to freestyle Christian bashing? Very nice indeed. Heartwarming in the extreme.

I have very strong opinions on this subject (if indeed the subject is homophobia and/or the public debate about rights for homosexuals), but because some people may see me, a nun, as speaking for the Church, I shall refrain from expressing them in this public forum.

Now that I think of it, I'm no longer sure what the topic is, but it is pretty clear whatever it is, people are responding emotionally and not necessarily rationally.


----------



## LouisaB

Kajjo said:


> Usually Christians count Old Testament commandments as being revised by Jesus attitude of general love. Very much evil has been committed by Christians relying on Old Testament chapters and it is strange how modern Christianity tries to select a different bunch of commandments than medieval Christians did (e.g. "you shall kill witches"). With the right interpretation almost every notion can be justified with the bible.
> 
> I am waiting with you, Maxiogee, to Christian responses to your question.


 
I am a Christian, Kajjo.

I'm afraid I can't help with Tony's question as to how a Christian who takes the passages against homosexuality as law can conveniently ignore other strictures which suit them less. Personally, I do not accept those passages as Christian law (or any other law come to that!) and I would totally agree that a Christian who seeks to live by the rule of the Old Testament should endeavour to do so by _all_ of it, rather than by selected parts. But I can perhaps help explain why some modern Christians 'select a different bunch of commandments than medieval Christians did'.

As you say, Jesus' 'attitude of modern love' supercedes the Old Testament for many Christians, and it's in this group I would count myself. Since you're already familiar with this approach, you maybe don't need another exposition of it. But for what it's worth, here's where I stand:

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. _*For me*_, this means adhering to the word of Christ, and the example set by his actions (or rather it means _trying_ to do so, usually very badly). My sources for these are the four Gospels, ie the accounts of actual witnesses.

I cannot completely discount the Old Testament, because Jesus himself acknowledged it, and quoted Moses on more than one occasion. He also said specifically 'Think not I am come to destroy the law and the prophets' (Matthew, V, 17). However, I can treat it as having been superceded by Christ's new law on the following grounds:

1. What Jesus said: The passage in Matthew V (the Sermon on the Mount) continues as Jesus goes through the commandments and proceeds to modify them according to the new law. For example, he refers to the old law of 'an eye for an eye' and replaces it firmly with the concept of loving your enemies.

2. What Jesus did: On more than one occasion he flouted the rules of the Old Testament (eg the hygiene laws in Mark VII, or the rules of keeping the sabbath in Mark II and III and Luke XIV). He associated with Pharisees, Samaritans, tax collectors, 'sinners' and 'wine bibbers'(!), much to the disapproval of the Elders. When challenged, he explained the Son of Man had authority over the old rules, and also gave the parable of not putting new wine into old skins, ie a new rule has come, and we have to adapt the way we live accordingly.

3. The Rule of Love. In Matthew XXII, 35-40, Jesus describes the 'Two Commandments' - a) to love God, and b) to love 'thy neighbour as thyself'. He says 'On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets'. For me, this is crucial. Love is the touchstone. Bring any Old Testament commandment to this, and it either stands or falls. 'Thou shalt not leave a witch alive' crumbles into nothing - there is no love in it. Any kind of persecution crumbles against it. Where is the love in hating those whose sexuality is different from our own? 

_But_ I would also say 'Where is the love in hating those who are possessed of an irrational hatred of homosexuals?' I am a Christian, so I have to be bound by that - but I'm not saying everyone else does. That's up to our own individual laws of conduct. I obviously do not mean by this that I must be supportive of homophobia, or that I should stand by and permit injustice to be done. I do nothing of the sort. Back in 1997, I actually physically intervened to prevent an assault on a gay man in a pub, and went on to give evidence against the attackers in court. I would so so again. I don't think that's hypocritical - I think we are enjoined to 'hate the sin but love the sinner'. Unfortunately, I have to confess I am not as good at this latter part as I should be - and I'm grateful to the original question for making me realise that. I must do better!!!

Finally, Kajjo has also quoted the Epistles. As a Christian, I have great respect for these, as the work of very holy men. However, they are just that - _men._ The Epistles are not (for me) the word of God, in the same way that Jesus' own words are. I cannot argue with what for me is the Word of God. I can argue like anything with another man's interpretation of that Word.

I have no wish to attack Christians who hold different beliefs from my own. But it makes me unhappy whenever I see the word 'Christian' applied to opposition to homosexuality, for to me it is nothing of the kind. It is a natural label to apply, because so many people against homosexuality are, (or purport to be) Christian. But please, there are many of us who feel differently. And I hope, at least, this rambling post will show there is _some_ rationale behind the stance, even if it won't work for everybody.

I do apologise for the length of this post. If anyone's still awake out there, I hope the discussion can continue unhampered by this digression!

Louisa


----------



## maxiogee

maxiogee said:


> Acknowledging that Kajjo is only making a point, I would ask *those who do feel that this stricture is a God-inspired proscription against homosexual behaviour* (and not against being homosexual, you'll note) if they hold to *all *the strictures of this particular book of the Bible?
> If you don't - where did the right to pick and choose come from?





Nun-Translator said:


> I unfortunately don't read Spanish, so I missed out on what RIU said.
> 
> I am relating to several other posts before that one. Have we moved from discussing taking "a kinder view of homophobes" to freestyle Christian bashing? Very nice indeed. Heartwarming in the extreme.
> 
> I have very strong opinions on this subject (if indeed the subject is homophobia and/or the public debate about rights for homosexuals), but because some people may see me, a nun, as speaking for the Church, I shall refrain from expressing them in this public forum.
> 
> Now that I think of it, I'm no longer sure what the topic is, but it is pretty clear whatever it is, people are responding emotionally and not necessarily rationally.



Sr Claire, as you are the only 'spokesperson' we have I would almost automatically exclude you from speaking on behalf of the Catholic Church  It is too much to expect of one forer@ - and far too much to expect of anyone who is not a canon lawyer.

My view of the topic is '(ought we take) a kinder view of homophobes' - my question posed above was to begin to see what sort of basis some homophobes, who claim divine authority condemns homosexuality, to say whether they accept all the strictures of that divine authority. This is not Christian-bashing, this is the bashing of those who claim Christianity but are only using it as a veneer over their own personal bigotry.
If anyone who deems Leviticus is authoritative on sexual matters doesn't also deem it authoritative on diet and sacrificial offerings, cleanliness after childbirth and on the disabled becoming priests, then I would term them hypocrites and not worthy of any 'kinder view'. Did not Jesus rail against the outwardly-observant Scribes and Pharisees?


----------



## ElaineG

Kajjo,

Since you seem to associate benefit to society with having children, what makes you so sure that gay couples will not benefit society in this way?

In the recent gay marriage case in NJ, 5 of the 7 plaintiff same-sex couples had children, either through adoption or artificial insemination. The legal issues discussed by the Court largely focused on the difficulties in co-parenting in a legal structure other than marriage. 

I know many gay people who are parenting biological children from prior marriages, had through assisted reproduction, 
or through adoption. Surely they are entitled to whatever support the state provides anyone with children?

I find the idea of scrapping all state support for marriage intriguing but it is certainly the topic of another thread, so I won't get into it here.


----------



## Kajjo

ElaineG said:


> Since you seem to associate benefit to society with having children


Well, this is at least the current state of affairs in most Western countries. Personally, I agree to support parents to certain extent, but not entirely.

Let me have second try:

A society/country/government controls and regulates the population by laws and taxes. A country might have the desire or need for  more births per year, e.g. because of the demoscopic age structure, financing of retirement schemes, fulfilling all future tasks or for whatever other reasons. Such a society could, for example, offer tax reliefs for parents, social benefits for children, free education and health care. This would possible result in more births per year in average. This is currently true for most modern Western societies.

Of course, the situation could be the other way round. It is imaginable that a society would like to reduce the number of births per year, e.g. because of a shortage of ressources like food, drinking water, living space. Such a society could, for example, increase taxes for children, charge for school education and health care or offer free contraception. This would possibly result in less births per year. I believe this used to be true for China.

In summary, a society regulates with taxes and laws and if a society grants some people privileges or benefits for which other people have to pay, there needs to be a certain advantage for the society as a whole.

When granting privileges to married couples, these are at the core benefits meant for families. Society does not favor "people in love" just for the sake of it. Gay couples receiving privileges that single people do not obtain, is felt non-deserved by many singles -- without them being necessarily homophobic at all. I just see no reason at all to grant two gay people more privileges when they are married than when they are not. Of course, the same thought applies to heterosexual couples.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

LouisaB said:


> As you say, Jesus' 'attitude of modern love' supercedes the Old Testament for many Christians, and it's in this group I would count myself.


I called it "attitude of general love" which is very close to what you describe.



LouisaB said:


> I cannot completely discount the Old Testament, However, I can treat it as having been superceded by Christ


I agree that this approach is supported by many Christians. However, every Christian quotes the ten commandments but ignores the rules directly subsequent to them in the text. This feels strange to me.

Superceding some rules is not a viable explanation in my eyes. Do you really think it is you who should decide which rules Christ wanted to abolish and which to enforce?

Mat 5:18-19 -- _[...] Not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.  Therefore [...] whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
_
Will someone who does and teaches "you shall kill witches" and "you shall kill gays" will be great in heaven or will he not? I agree with you that Jesus did set love at the first place of his commandments, though.



> Love is the touchstone. Bring any Old Testament commandment to this, and it either stands or falls.


Sure, but the question of Non-Christians is, why didn't God tell this right away to Moses? He could have easily said, that love is the first principle. However, he had many commandments to give. All for nothing?



> Where is the love in hating those whose sexuality is different from our own?


In hate is never love.



> Finally, Kajjo has also quoted the Epistles. [...] They are just that - _men._


Well, many catholic teachings are based on these books. By the way, I just quoted what jp_fr_linguaphile referred to for public reading.

Kajjo


----------



## ireney

Well, if we are talking about a phobia we should also think about how people who have phobias react. You don't go into an open place when you have agoraphobia, you freeze when you see a spider when you suffer from arachnophobia etc. 
If we are talking about people suffering from a phobia then yes, we should take a kinder look at their problem and ask them and see to it than they get psycological help to get over their problem. Of course the first step is for them to recognise that they suffer from a phobia and that they need a cure.

Is seeing people who have negative feelings toward the homosexuals in a kinder light the Christian thing to do? I am not quite sure. I am not an expert on the tenents of the Christian faith you see.
Usually however, when one speaks of Christianity in reference to acceptance, one speaks of the "love they neighbour" Christianity. In this spirit we should look at all people in a kinder way.

As to whether the Christian religion is or isn't against homosexuality, well, that's a different issue isn't it?


----------



## Kajjo

I consider the term "homophobes" to be highly inappropriate towards those who just oppose certain rights or movements. As we learned in this thread, phobias are disorders characterised by strong fear of situations or objects. I firmly believe that most of those people called "homophobes" do not have such disorder. They are just opposed to certain human or societal behaviour, sometimes very strong so and with religious or ideological fervor. I guess there are very few, if any, real homophobes in this literal sense.

Now, of course I agree that there is a lack of proper words for people who oppose certain homosexual traits or claims for homosexuals' rights. But if we call them homophobes just because of the lack of a better word, we have to accept that this terminology in itself is insulting and inappropriate. Not every homophobe has _fears_, some have arguments, points of view, religious beliefs -- whether those thoughts are justified or not, they are not just emotional crap to be discarded with or even "cured". There was a time not to long ago where people called for a "cure of homosexuality". This was wrong. But it is nothing more than crude rhetoric fallacy to call for a "cure of homophobia". Obviously nobody has learned his lesson. Such issues are about personal or public opinion, not about absolute truth.

Kajjo


----------



## Nunty

I am having a number of problems with this thread, and for the life of me I can't figure out why I keep coming back. But since I do, here is one of them.

Why do I keep hearing this equation homophobe = Christian?

Are there no Jewish homophobes? Last week in Jerusalem the gay pride event had to be changed from a parade downtown to a "happening" in the university stadium. Why? Because during the weeks preceeding the event there was a series of increasingly violent demonstrations in Jerusalem and threats that there would be "incendiary bottles" thrown and people stabbed if the parade took place. The protesters were _haredim_, who (grossly over-simplified) could be considered right-wing Jewish fundamentalists.

Are there no Muslim homophobes? What happens to gay men in Indonesia? Or have you heard about the young woman in her 20s, an Ugandan Muslim, who ran away to the UK because her father, learning that she is a lesbian, wants to kill her. (Now, three years later, the UK is deporting her back to Uganda. Bravo.)

I don't know anything about Boudhist and Hindu communities.

If you want to talk about bigots, about reactionaries, fine. If you want to talk about people-who-have-a-problem-with-homosexuals, fine. But please stop painting Christians with such a broad brush.

The Catholic Church and many other Christian churches have clear stands that are opposed to homosexual civil unions or marriage or to adoption of children by homosexual couples. That is true. It is also true that the Christian religion is not alone there, and it is also true that institutions do not always speak for all of their members.

This thread is supposed to be about a positive approach to homophobes, but from the very first post, that is equated with Christians. Come on, people. You are intelligent adults, at least for the most part. Are you not capable of speaking objectively?


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

> RIU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Si, claro, pero el ser católico no te impide el _vive y deja vivir_ siempre y cuando el camino de la tolerancia sea de ida y vuelta.
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree with you more. Tolerance is a two-way street. That's all I really want, but when I see the majority of this country voting into law actions that negatively impact me, I am rightly concerned. As a tolerant person, I think you would agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soy católico y en mi opinión cada cual puede destrozar su vida como más le parezca, yo incluido; pero esto no le da ningún derecho a hacerlo ni en público -por que la calle es de todos- ni que sus actividades puedan llegar a tener influencia en el normal desarrollo de la infancia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I understand you, it is each person's prerogative to mess up his life, but don't display it on the street because it may have a negative impact on the lives of children.
> On this point, too, I agree with you. Adults should be good role models of appropriate behavior. Apparently, we differ in our opinions on the scope of good behavior, however. Two people regardless of their sex who demonstrate love for each other does not constitute bad behavior to me. Two people who love and respect each other ARE a good role model for children, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Hoy en día, en las escuelas públicas españolas se enseña, o se predende hacer, que tan normal es niño-niña, niña-niño, niño-niño y niña-niña. Me pregunto si falta mucho para llegar el niño/a-perro/a por poner un ejemplo, puesto que somos tan _modernos_ y tan _progres_ que tambien estos tienen que tener sus derechos, no creeis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are referring to here is what is called the "slippery slope" in the US. I think marriage between humans and animals should be banned until the day when both participants can say "I do" in front of the altar. Do you see what I mean? Both have to be consensual participants in the relationship for it to be legitimate. If the law ever allows animal-human, human-inanimate object, human-vegetable, or adult-child marriages, I would join you in denouncing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Por lo tanto tan tolerante debo ser yo con los homosexuales como ellos conmigo. No estoy de acuerdo con su estilo de vida como seguro que ellos no lo están con el mío y por ello no les insulto llamándolos vete a saber que, mientras que ellos a mí sí que ma insultan llamándome homófofo. La diferencia está en que con mi estilo de vida no destrozo la infancia de nadie. Mis hijos son primeramente ellos, y en segundo término son hijos míos; y por respeto a ellos, a su desarrollo, a su convivencia con el entorno, a sus amistades y en definitiva, a su inteligencia no me da la gana que vean las actitudes ni heterosexuales ni homosexuales a las que por desgracia estamos acostumbrados, en plena calle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I don't live in Spain, I am not sure what kinds of activities you witness on the streets that negatively impact children's lives, but what I see in the States is a lack of common decency and courtesy. That worries me, too. That's a discussion for a separate thread which I am sure has already been taken up somewhere.
> 
> But another thing that concerns me is this: you want to respect the tenet of "live and let live," but what if one of your children happens to be gay? I was raised in a churchgoing family. I was a good boy, yet I recognized around the same time as other children were noticing the opposite sex that I was attracted to boys instead of girls. I wasn't molested by another child or adult. I wasn't exposed to homosexual behavior. It was never implied that homosexuality was a viable lifestyle in my family, school or society, yet this is who I am.
> 
> I want to respect your lifestyle, but I guess this is where we part ways. If you do have a gay child, I recommend you read the following book written by a Christian woman who drove her gay son to suicide: Prayers for Bobby. I won't quote statistics here because due to the nature of the subject, there is a lot of controversy regarding its accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me parece que estamos confundiendo la velocidad con el tocino.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just wanted to comment on this new expression I learned. For anglophones, it means to conflate two issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No hay error más grande que interpretar las sagradas escrituras al pié de la letra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't agree with you more. That is why there are a variety of interpretations of the Scriptures. On this issue, however, it seems you have chosen to interpreting according to the letter rather than the spirit or intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lo único que dicen las escrituras es lo que _yo_ debo hacer para alcanzar el cielo. No he leido nada de lo que _tu_ debas hacer. Con lo cual, las sagradas escrituras me dan, a lo sumo, motivos para rehusar _mi _homosexualidad, no la tuya. Haz lo que quieras con _tu_ vida, pero que esto no afecte a la de los demás, y en especial a los niños.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I have to agree with you. As long as your children are not gay and you don't use your political power to infringe on the rights of others, we are both free in clear conscience to respect each other's views.
Click to expand...


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Nun-Translator said:


> I am having a number of problems with this thread, and for the life of me I can't figure out why I keep coming back. But since I do, here is one of them.
> 
> Why do I keep hearing this equation homophobe = Christian?
> 
> Are there no Jewish homophobes? Last week in Jerusalem the gay pride event had to be changed from a parade downtown to a "happening" in the university stadium. Why? Because during the weeks preceeding the event there was a series of increasingly violent demonstrations in Jerusalem and threats that there would be "incendiary bottles" thrown and people stabbed if the parade took place. The protesters were _haredim_, who (grossly over-simplified) could be considered right-wing Jewish fundamentalists.
> 
> Are there no Muslim homophobes? What happens to gay men in Indonesia? Or have you heard about the young woman in her 20s, an Ugandan Muslim, who ran away to the UK because her father, learning that she is a lesbian, wants to kill her. (Now, three years later, the UK is deporting her back to Uganda. Bravo.)
> 
> I don't know anything about Boudhist and Hindu communities.
> 
> If you want to talk about bigots, about reactionaries, fine. If you want to talk about people-who-have-a-problem-with-homosexuals, fine. But please stop painting Christians with such a broad brush.
> 
> The Catholic Church and many other Christian churches have clear stands that are opposed to homosexual civil unions or marriage or to adoption of children by homosexual couples. That is true. It is also true that the Christian religion is not alone there, and it is also true that institutions do not always speak for all of their members.
> 
> This thread is supposed to be about a positive approach to homophobes, but from the very first post, that is equated with Christians. Come on, people. You are intelligent adults, at least for the most part. Are you not capable of speaking objectively?


 
You speak the truth.  I find it ironic that opposition to the gay march in Jerusalem is about the only thing leaders of the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian religions could agree on.  Is this cause for celebration?


----------



## ElaineG

> leaders of the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian religions


 
Just to be clear, the _haredim_ are no more the "leaders" of the Jewish religion than Jerry Falwell is the "leader" of the Christian religion.

There are as many interpretations of Judaism as there are Jews, really.

Reform Judaism, which is the largest Jewish movement (by far) in the United States, has done away with all theological discrimination against gay people, ordains gay rabbis, and while there is a great deal of debate about gay marriage, individual congregations and rabbis do permit and celebrate gay marriages.

I have attended services more than once at Beth Simchat Torah, NYC's "gay and lesbian" synagogue, which actually practices a more _conservative_ strain of Judaism than I do, and the congregation, made up largely of gay families raising children, is now one of the largest and most vibrant in New York.

Just as there are many many Christians who find great harmony between their beliefs and the full embrace of civil and religious rights for gay people, so are there many many Jews who do so.  I am sure the same is true for Muslims.


----------



## Kajjo

Nun-Translator said:


> I am having a number of problems with this thread. Why do I keep hearing this equation homophobe = Christian?


I believe that I contributed enough posts that do not support this equation, but, in contrary, suggest a secular view. I attempted to discuss that there might be _reasons _and not only _fears_ why some might oppose gay marriage, adoption or behaviour in general.

I also think that this discussion group mostly consists of Western members, most of them having a relation to Christianity. Thus, it is no wonder that moral issues are seen against a Christian background. Personally, I think that there are a lot more points to be raised than just Christian arguments.



> This thread is supposed to be about a positive approach to homophobes, but from the very first post, that is equated with Christians.


I wonder about that, too. I cannot comprehend why people presume that someone opposed to gay marriage must have an disorder, must be Christian, must be wrong, must be cured. There is a series of wrong assumptions here. It leaves the impression that while in former times, homosexuals were attacked, nowadays so-called homophobes are attacked by inappropriate arguments and prejudices.

Kajjo


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

> ElaineG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, the _haredim_ are no more the "leaders" of the Jewish religion than Jerry Falwell is the "leader" of the Christian religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point taken.  Your insights on the diversity of Judaism are very welcome and appreciated on this thread.
> 
> Thanks again for your participation.  Through honest and blameless dialogue, we are all edified and lifted to a more enlightened plane.
Click to expand...


----------



## emma42

I don't think that people opposed to gay marriage "must have a disorder, must be Christian,...must be cured".  I do think they are "wrong", though. 

I have never heard an argument  (be it based on a holy book, Darwinism, the generally accepted morality of a culture) against gay marriage which stands up to any kind of civilised, compassionate or, indeed, theological scrutiny.


----------



## ElaineG

Nun-Translator said:


> This thread is supposed to be about a positive approach to homophobes, but from the very first post, that is equated with Christians. Come on, people. You are intelligent adults, at least for the most part. Are you not capable of speaking objectively?


 
To be fair, I think the thread starter was talking about a specific context, which is how to respond a "Christian" fashion to those who justify bigotry with Christianity.  In the United States, that is the context we most frequently encounter.

I followed (from a distance) the terribly upsetting (to me) controversy about the Jerusalem gay rights parade.  Clearly, in Israel, the hatred and bigotry of gay people comes from other directions.  The wonderful (and hearbreaking) documentary Trembling Before G-d, which tells the story of several gay Orthodox Jews, would be very educational for anyone who thinks all homophobes are Christians.

I recognize that not all homophobes are Christian.  But I do think, if we are to address this tragic problem, it makes sense to think about how to reach out to Christians in language they understand, just as with each of the other religions.  A certain strain of Christianity is by far the dominant religious strain in American politics and culture (33.6% of _all Americans _identify themselves as evangelical Christians: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/septemberweb-only/137-21.0.html).  So, if these divisions are ever to be overcome in the U.S., we need to think about how to dialogue with that culture.

Obviously, in Israel, the challenge is different!



Kajjo said:


> I I attempted to discuss that there might be _reasons _and not only _fears_ why some might oppose gay marriage, adoption or behaviour in general.
> 
> ....
> 
> I wonder about that, too. I cannot comprehend why people presume that someone opposed to gay marriage must have an disorder, must be Christian, must be wrong, must be cured. .
> 
> Kajjo


 
I don't necessarily think that someone who opposes gay marriage "must be cured", although I do feel sorry for them.

However, someone who opposes "gay ... behaviour in general"?  I'm not a psychologist, but it seems to me that someone who "opposes" one fundamental, innate part of human race probably does have a "disorder."  At least, that's kinder than just thinking that they are stupid!

I should clarify that I think it is only disordered to hold such a view after you have been exposed to education, contact with real life gay citizens, etc.  It is like thinking something is true of all Blacks or all Jews when you haven't met any  -- that is maybe not so smart, but understandable, given the various cultural contexts we live in.

However, if you have the opportunity to know gay people in your community, in your workplace and/or in your family, and you are "opposed to their behavior in general", I do have to wonder what you are hiding, repressing or otherwise afraid of.


----------



## Kajjo

ElaineG said:


> I don't necessarily think that someone who opposes gay marriage "must be cured", although I do feel sorry for them.


Do you feel sorry for democrats if you are republican? Or vice versa? I think having different opinions about society and moral issues, is human and both opinions should be discussed freely. Feeling sorry might be interpreted as a little bit insulting by some of those of the other side.



> However, someone who opposes "gay ... behaviour in general"?  I'm not a psychologist, but it seems to me that someone who "opposes" one fundamental, innate part of human race probably does have a "disorder."  At least, that's kinder than just thinking that they are stupid!


_Who said that?_ I agree that nobody should oppose natural behaviour. But whether that is a disorder, I do not know. Are vegetarians disordered? Is celibacy a disorder? Who knows. It is an offensive categorisation anyway.

Kajjo


----------



## ireney

emma42 said:


> I don't think that people opposed to gay marriage "must have a disorder, must be Christian,...must be cured".  I do think they are "wrong", though.
> 
> I have never heard an argument  (be it based on a holy book, Darwinism, the generally accepted morality of a culture) against gay marriage which stands up to any kind of civilised, compassionate or, indeed, theological scrutiny.




Emma I was referring to anyone who _should_ be called a homophobe. A homophobe suffers from homophobia. Phobias are considered disorders. If what one has is not a phobia then  he or she is not a homophobe.


----------



## ElaineG

> Do you feel sorry for democrats if you are republican? Or vice versa? I think having different opinions about society and moral issues, is human and both opinions should be discussed freely. Feeling sorry might be interpreted as a little bit insulting by some of those of the other side


 
Well, I feel sorry for both Democrats and Republicans, given the current state of things .

But no, many political issues are just that political issues, and I don't feel sorry for people who hold differing views.

But I do feel sorry for anyone who spends their time making an issue out of whether two other human beings can enjoy the civil and religious benefits of marriage. What can I say? It seems like a sadly cramped and misanthropic way to be. I do feel for sorry for them.

I do not believe that all viewpoints about fundamental moral issues of dignity and respect are created equal. That is simply my religious and moral philosophy. I couldn't prove it to you any more than anyone can prove their moral or religious beliefs.

I see absolutely no moral difference between the movement for full gay civil rights and an end to all forms of bigotry and discrimination against gay people, and earlier historical movements for the civil rights of people of color, women, Jews, Catholics etc. etc. 

Are people who say that Black people should not be entitled to full civil rights worthy of respect and tolerance? To me, no. And the question is answered the same, for me, if you substitute gay for Black.


----------



## Kajjo

While I tried to play the role of _advocatus diaboli_ in this thread for some time and tried to defend those called homophobes on a foundation of fairness, better words and less prejudices, I feel that I have to state some points clearly.

I believe that sexual attraction to the same or opposite gender is no choice, but obviously deeply felt. It is a natural fact that a minority of humans feels attracted to the same sex for as yet unknown reasons.

I believe that the sexual and emotional life is a very private matter and should not be judged, controlled or regulated by anyone as far as only consenting adults are concerned. Everyone is entitled to live how he likes as long as nobody else is limited in his respective liberty to do the same.

As soon as others are concerned, e.g. in gay adoptions it is the child, the welfare of that third person must be openly discussed. Also, when granting privileges to certain groups of people, there has to be a reason, a positive effect being achieved for the society that grants these privileges. Such reasonable points have nothing to do with "fear" or "aversion", they are typical for all kinds of social decisions -- and in case of gay rights often shadowed by political correctness nowadays, hindering a free and fair discussion.

Kajjo


----------



## emma42

Kajjo, I don't believe you have to tell us that you were playing devil's advocate!  I, for one, view you as a compassionate and intelligent person, based on what I have read.

Hello, Ireney.  I am not sure what you mean in your post # 85.  I was addressing some points made by Kajjo.


----------



## maxiogee

Nun-Translator said:


> Why do I keep hearing this equation homophobe = Christian?


Do you though?
I've mentioned it once, and have referred to the Book of Leviticus a few times. I've also mentioned Jesus once.
The reason I mentioned these is that when those who denounce homosexuality do so on religious grounds, the only religions I hear mentioend by them are Christian ones of varying denominations. This is not to say that other religions don't do this, but that I don't hear them naming their religion when they do, or (and probably more appositely) the media I consume don't name non-Christian religions when they report religious denunciations of homosexuality.


----------



## ireney

emma Kajjo post #75 was (I think) referring to my post #74 in which I state that if someone is really a homophobe then he or she suffers from a phobia and phobias are to be cured.

As I said before, if a person does not suffer from a phobia then this person should _not_ be called a homophobe. A homophobe is, by definition, someone afraid of the homosexuals (well ok, if we are nitpicking it's someone who is afraid of either "homos" -not a nice term if you ask me- or is afraid of those who are the same as he/she ). Someone who dislikes to any degree the homosexuals but is not afraid of them is not a homophobe (since anyone afraid of them if definitely suffering from an irrational fear ergo a phobia).


And Nun-Translator perhaps instead of getting frustrated by those who bring up Christianity in relation with averse feelings toward homosexuals in this thread who should you should get angry with those who use Christianity to clothe their dislike for other human beings with the mantle of Christianity


----------



## LouisaB

ireney said:


> And Nun-Translator perhaps instead of getting frustrated by those who bring up Christianity in relation with averse feelings toward homosexuals in this thread who should you should get angry with those who use Christianity to clothe their dislike for other human beings with the mantle of Christianity


 
Why 'instead', ireney? Aren't they _both_ 'wrong'?


----------



## Kajjo

LouisaB said:


> Why 'instead', ireney? Aren't they _both_ 'wrong'?


Well, Louisa, surely it is wrong to solely focus on "Christians oppose homosexuality", but it is not wrong in itself to discuss why and to which extent some Christians are opposed to gays. Whether we like it or not, in the US the perceived Christian voice appears to position itself against homosexuality. By the way, this is not the case in Germany, at least by far not to the extent it appears to be in the US.

On the other hand, it is morally wrong to use Christianity as mantle to disguise other origins of feelings against homosexuality. Thus, I can follow Ireney's point of view.

Kajjo


----------



## ireney

Well LouisaB, as far as I can tell, the posts here do not do anything more than talk about those who use Chirstianity to cloak (got the verb right this time) their feelings against homosexuals. I must admit to not remembring the details of each post but, as far as I remember, no one here has  actually made an equasion between the two. That's why I used "instead". If indeed someone has equated the two then it is a case of "both".


----------



## emma42

Thanks for the clarification, Ireney. 

 I don't think this discussion about "homophobia" necessarily meaning "fear" of homosexuals is particularly helpful (not to me, anyway).  I know the Greek word "phobia" (sorry, I don't know how to write it in Greek) means "fear", but I would suggest it is generally used now to refer to those who are against homosexuality in some way.


----------



## Kajjo

emma42 said:


> I would suggest it is generally used now to refer to those who are against homosexuality in some way.


Yes, unfortunately it is. I regard it as discriminating and insulting to call someone a homophobic whose reasonable point of view makes him to be opposed to _some_ _claims _of homosexuals.

Imagine the following _partly fictive _examples:

_1) Gay men's applications to federal jobs should be preferred over those of heterosexuals.
2) Someone believes that children need a mom and dad and thus claims that both gay men and single mothers should not adopt children.
3) Someone does not like homosexual parades in inner cities.
_
Are each of them homophobes? I believe not. You may agree or disagree with such notions, but it does not say anything about whether such a person accepts, likes or opposes homosexuality itself. 

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:


> Thanks for the clarification, Ireney.
> 
> I don't think this discussion about "homophobia" necessarily meaning "fear" of homosexuals is particularly helpful (not to me, anyway).  I know the Greek word "phobia" (sorry, I don't know how to write it in Greek) means "fear", but I would suggest it is generally used now to refer to those who are against homosexuality in some way.



Surely not? 

Homophobia is about a whole lot more than just 'being against homosexuality'. I'm against certain political parties in Ireland (some of them 'strongly against'), but I don't think anyone would suggest that this ranks as ~phobia.


----------



## emma42

I see your points,  but where is the better word for the moment?  Take Kajjo's Example 3 - I would call that a homophobic attitude.  If you must have it that it means "fear" of homosexuals or homosexuality, I will call it "discriminatory against homosexuals and homosexuality".  My view remains the same.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

> To be fair, I think the thread starter was talking about a specific context, which is how to respond a "Christian" fashion to those who justify bigotry with Christianity. In the United States, that is the context we most frequently encounter.


This is indeed, the context, to which I was referring, as someone who lives in the Bible Belt.  However, I wouldn't want this thread to be restricted to the homophobia of many Christians, more precisely born-again Evangelical Christians.  I hope that anyone who has a fear of homosexuals and hides behind their faith's ideology could benefit from the discussion we are having.  



> I followed (from a distance) the terribly upsetting (to me) controversy about the Jerusalem gay rights parade. Clearly, in Israel, the hatred and bigotry of gay people comes from other directions. The wonderful (and hearbreaking) documentary Trembling Before G-d, which tells the story of several gay Orthodox Jews, would be very educational for anyone who thinks all homophobes are Christians.


I want to check out that documentary.  


> I recognize that not all homophobes are Christian.


Or that all Christians are homophobes.  Check out the wonderful Christian organizations who are dedicated to educating congregations across America.  
Lutherans Concerned/North America http://www.lcna.org/
More Light Presbyterians http://www.mlp.org
DignityUSA http://dignityusa.org
Rainbow Baptists http://www.rainbowbaptists.org

Buddhists in the US already embrace their gay brethren. But for those interested: Gay Buddhists http://gaybuddhists.org



> I don't necessarily think that someone who opposes gay marriage "must be cured", although I do feel sorry for them.


Unfortunately, the expression "feel sorry for" does smack of superiority, in my opinion.  But I understand what you're saying.  Homophobes, though, don't usually know that they are missing out on opportunities to know some genuinely good people.  




> I should clarify that I think it is only disordered to hold such a view after you have been exposed to education, contact with real life gay citizens, etc. It is like thinking something is true of all Blacks or all Jews when you haven't met any -- that is maybe not so smart, but understandable, given the various cultural contexts we live in.


You know, though, it's amazing how close in proximity we can live to each other and really not know or appreciate the other.  Race relations in the States is a perfect example of that.  I went to school with black people, in a town that was majority black, but my family still tried to inculcate prejudice in me, to no avail.  I am proud to say that it's because I knew from an early age that I was a member of a denigrated minority group.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

I feel I must address the issue of gay marriage as I see it since it has been touched upon a few times in this thread.  

First of all, I think the reason some gays want it can be summed up in this analogy: "Momma, that's not fair.  Why does she get to have (fill in the blank) and I don't?"  On a primordial level it seems unfair that one segment of the population is entitled to something that another segment is not, even though both groups are supposed to be equal before the law.  It basically hurts people's feelings and makes one feel somehow less American.  

I do agree, Kajjo, that there needs to be a re-evaluation of some aspects of marital rights, but consider this also.  In the States, we have the Family Medical Leave Act.  This act bestows very important rights on married couples, some of which are the right to bereavement leave, leave to care for a sick spouse, guarantee of continued health coverage while off work to take care of that spouse, and a guarantee that he or she can return to the same job.  Single people (regardless of whether they are in a relationship or not) and gay couples are not entitled to these rights.  Straight couples who want to enjoy these precious rights need only to get married to avail themselves of them.  Gay couples, in the majority of the states in this country do not have this option available to them.  Many Fortune 500 companies, however, do offer these benefits as part of their package to committed gay and straight couples for which they are to be commended.  They also tend to have a policy that prevents discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation at their work site.  It makes good business sense in my opinion.  And for another it is compassionate (although I suspect this is not a motivation for them.)


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Macunaíma said:


> Exerça a sua liberdade, e deixe que os outros façam o mesmo. Busque a sua felicidade, e não seja uma barreira à felicidade dos outros _a vida já é tão difícil, tão inexplicável, tão frágil...não compliquem as coisas.
> 
> Cheers!



I agree with you 100%.  It looks like the majority of Americans, though, are not ready to take your advice.  I guess it's our Puritanical heritage.  Do you find that many Brazilians have the same type of "live and let live" attitude?  
It's a very commendable one.


----------



## ireney

emma42 said:


> Thanks for the clarification, Ireney.
> 
> I don't think this discussion about "homophobia" necessarily meaning "fear" of homosexuals is particularly helpful (not to me, anyway).  I know the Greek word "phobia" (sorry, I don't know how to write it in Greek) means "fear", but I would suggest it is generally used now to refer to those who are against homosexuality in some way.



Err.. I wasn't talking as a Greek. In other words I wasn't doing a translation from Greek (OK, I admit that in that parenthesis of mine I did indulge in a little "Greekness"  but  those who created this word were a little less accurate than most -if not all- psychiatrists who create the ~phobias when they chose only the "homo" part of the word and I just couldn't resist). When I was talking about what a "phobia" is I was thinking about what a phobia means in English, as a part of the English vocabulary. Sure it comes from Greek but its meaning and its use as a term for a psychological disorder is not "greek" if you know what I mean. After all it wasn't Greeks who categorised them or even defined them 


The way I see it very few, if any of those termed homophobes deserve to be called so. And I say deserve because an "agoraphobe" is i.e. helpless and cannot in any way be blamed for his phobia. He wants to change but needs help to do so. Homophobe seems to me as a sort of euphemism. How many of the homophobes want to change attitude and just can't? How many feel hampered by their feelings toward homophobes? How many ask for help to deal with their problem? How many actually see it as a problem?
There are people who either hate homosexuals or are disgusted by the homosexuals or despise homosexuals (and perhaps another category I am not aware of?)

I don't see why a new term (or two) cannot be created. It's not as if "homophobe" has such a long history of existence or that even if it did it would be the first words to be abandoned in preference of another one.


----------



## Lusitania

I agree with the right to disagree.

However, regarding same sex marriages, I don't know why should I give my opinion on it as much as I should about my neighbours choice for their partner. If a person wants to live with someone of its own sex, I don't have anything to do with their private live. As much as I wouldn't like to hear someone giving me opinion on my private live and which partner to choose. In Portugal we have civil unions for same sex couples but not marriage.

On the case of marriage, I wonder why the State has to agree on peoples marriages and to provide licenses for people to marry. If I wish to marry,I'll have to ask the State, the government. I mean, it's obsolete. People should be able to marry who they won't despite the sex.

On the case of adoption, I must say that I had a gay couple baby-sitting me when I was younger and I dont see why they can't be accepted as parents as other couples. They probably can have biological children, why not adopt?

I hope that same sex marriages will be possible soon in Portugal. For now, we will just have to vote yes to not criminalise abortion any longer.


----------



## emma42

Dear Ireney, just to clarify - my comments on the Greek word "phobia" were not  directed at you because you are Greek!  They were for general consumption.

I don't see the point in this interminable discussion on the meaning of the word "homophobe".  We all know who we are talking about, don't we?


----------



## Maja

papillon said:


> A claustrophobic president may:
> order a few walls  knocked down in the White House so as to eliminate any tight spaces...
> 
> An  acrophobic (height-fearing) president may:
> scrap the plans by the previous  president to add floors 7-12 to the White House. She will also travel by train  or bus, like John Madden...
> 
> An arachnophobic president may:
> have a  serious heart-to-heart with a White House staffer rumored to keep a pet  tarantula...
> 
> A homophobic president may:
> try to change the  Constitution to deny a certain population of their equal  rights...


Now, if you really want to be fair, you  should either change the last premise into smt like: 
"A homophobe may not  hire a certain population as his immediate co-workers..."
or 
you should  leave that one as it is, and change others to be in the same category ->  "acrophobe may change the Constitution and forbid all flights over US territory  and forbid buildings higher then 3rd floor"; 
"arachnophobe may order  extermination of all spiders on the US territory"!

Why do you  automatically assume that a homophobe would take things to a whole different  (and global) level, and those other phobes would just make some changes in  their immediate environment???

However, If we are  talking about HATE towards homosexuals, then that is entirely different  matter!


----------



## Victoria32

cuchuflete said:


> Hola Fernando,
> Perhaps to help it make more sense, we could look at a post in this thread.  A woman stated that a homosexual man competed with her for the affection of another man.  She implied that this increased her aversion to homosexuals.
> Suppose it had been a woman competing for her boyfriend's attention.  Logically, shouldn't that lead her to dislike heterosexual women?
> 
> Even more logically, shouldn't she keep her dislike to just the single individual involved, and not project it to any group of people?
> 
> Conclusion: emotional responses are not logical.


That was me, cuchuflete. It was not just "competing" that I objected to. I was used to that! (People are shallow, he was very attarctive, still is actually.) The point is, he and I were together, it meant a lot to me, much more than you seem to think. It was therefore a very emotional and upsetting situation. However no *woman accompanied her stated determination to take this man away from me with threats against my job, my family and my personal safety! The homosexual man did, however. *


jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> Do you have a problem with male homosexuality because you had bad experiences with gay men? That must have been difficult for you to have another man treat you so horribly because he desired your boyfriend.
> 
> That was wrong on that individual gay man's part. You see where I am going with this. For every one gay man who has nothing but disdain for a couple's relationship, I guarantee you there are at least nine who do.
> 
> Most of my friends are gay and none of them would approve of hitting on someone who was unavailable.
> 
> Your challenge is to forgive that one gay man of his intolerable behavior and acknowledge that he is not the norm.
> 
> Peace be with you.


I have forgiven him, jp_fr_linguaphile....


jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> I think what all these categories of people have in common is an aversion to homosexuals, which would make them "homophobes."
> 
> I'd be curious to hear an argument from people who don't claim to be homophobes, but object to gay marriage, adoption by gay couples, and would like to see them shot.


I object to adoption by gay couples, but equating that with my wanting them shot, is very unfair! Due to circumstances, I brought my son up on my own, but that was not ideal. Children need two opposite sex parents in order to develop properly. That is my experience. 


jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> This is the kind of prejudice that needs to be fleshed out using logic.  Homosexuality is qualitatively different from adultery and other traditional sins.  I feel like you owe it to us and yourself to prove your case other than just saying that your father believed it too, although he was an adamant atheist.
> 
> Adultery is characterized by a betrayal of trust between two people.  Homosexuality is simply having attraction to the same sex.  A homosexual relationship can be adulterous or monogamous.  An adulterous homosexual relationship I can see as a sin, but a monogamous homosexual relationship?  I just don't get it.
> 
> "But I _do_ believe that homosexuality is actually wrong...it is not a special class of 'worst sin.'"  This is a popular opinion.  In fact, I heard it today by colleagues who were consoling a colleague whose grandmother refused to have him and his partner over for Thanksgiving dinner.  "He who is without sin cast the first stone."
> 
> Their attempts to console him were honorable, but the belief is still based on an illogical belief system.
> 
> If you can present to me a cogent argument for why homosexuality is a sin, I am open to it.  By the way, there is a plausible argument that Paul in the book of Romans was referring to men who behaved in a way that was contrary to their own nature.  That means to me self-recognized heterosexual men who choose to have sex with other men and vice versa (if you accept this argument).
> 
> Since I am not Christian, however, I am not obligated to believe anything that is written in the Holy Book.  But Christians should spend some time discerning the meaning of the Word of God.
> 
> I apologize if I sound like I am attacking.  My intent is merely to encourage you to explore the reasons why you believe the way you do.  If you still arrive at the same conclusion, then please choose to live and let live.
> 
> Best regards,


I will concede that a lot of my feeling that homosexuality is wrong, is just that, a feeling. I cannot explain that or expect anyone to share it. As it happens, I am just as 'turned off' by straight couples living together and practising 'serial monogamy', especially if children are invoved - they need stability! I accept Christian arguments, which I acknowledge mean nothing to any one who is not a Christian - but I also consider homosexuality to be, what is the phrase, 'fundamentally disordered'?
However, the 'god hates fags' guy, I can't remember his name, is disordered as well! 


Kajjo said:


> I consider the term "homophobes" to be highly inappropriate towards those who just oppose certain rights or movements. As we learned in this thread, phobias are disorders characterised by strong fear of situations or objects. I firmly believe that most of those people called "homophobes" do not have such disorder. They are just opposed to certain human or societal behaviour, sometimes very strong so and with religious or ideological fervor. I guess there are very few, if any, real homophobes in this literal sense.
> 
> Now, of course I agree that there is a lack of proper words for people who oppose certain homosexual traits or claims for homosexuals' rights. But if we call them homophobes just because of the lack of a better word, we have to accept that this terminology in itself is insulting and inappropriate. Not every homophobe has _fears_, some have arguments, points of view, religious beliefs -- whether those thoughts are justified or not, they are not just emotional crap to be discarded with or even "cured". There was a time not to long ago where people called for a "cure of homosexuality". This was wrong. But it is nothing more than crude rhetoric fallacy to call for a "cure of homophobia". Obviously nobody has learned his lesson. Such issues are about personal or public opinion, not about absolute truth.
> 
> Kajjo


I agree, Kajjo! 



emma42 said:


> I don't think this discussion about "homophobia" necessarily meaning "fear" of homosexuals is particularly helpful (not to me, anyway).  I know the Greek word "phobia" (sorry, I don't know how to write it in Greek) means "fear", but I would suggest it is generally used now to refer to those who are against homosexuality in some way.


Which is I think, an error. Although I accept that people say I am a homophobe, I don't accept that label. I am not _afraid of homosexual_s, I dislike the things they do!


----------



## emma42

I see objecting to gays adopting, and describing homosexuals as "fundamentally disordered" as more of an error.


----------



## Nunty

Maxiogee, in answer to your question, look at Post #1 and others _passim_. 

Elaine, I think I made it clear in my last post that calling _haredim_ "right-wing fundamentalist Jews" is a gross oversimplification and in no way did I imply they are the "leaders" of Jewry. Those in Jerusalem are, however ,"noisy" and unafraid to take to the streets. I was born, raised and lived a large part of my adult life as a _haredi_ Jew in Jerusalem. I think I can speak about that community sector authoritatively.

For the rest, I live in Jerusalem. I followed the "World Pride" developments up close and personal, with fear and trembling, not least because I was so worried about my gay and lesbian friends (among whom are Jerusalem Jews and Christians) who were planning to march, but also because I was worried about my friends and their husbands and sons who were being injured and arrested in those violent demonstrations, doing damage not only to their bodies  but also -- to my way of thinking -- to their souls.

Further, my closest, most dearly loved family member is gay. We each disapprove of the other for many reasons, but there is nothing but love in the relationship. Although he is not "out", he lives in the US because he feels safer and less targeted there. That was part of my point in bringing up incendiary bottles in Jerusalem and murderous fathers in Uganda: let's keep things in proportion. It's awful to be denied basic human rights because of your sexual orientation or behavior; it's worse to be killed for it.

Finally, I was unaware that this is a thread for discussing American homosexuals and American homophobes in the Amercian social context, although I should have assumed that early on. In fact, I find that people from other countries and people who self-identify as non-institutional Christians were indeed welcomed respectfully into the discussion. Institutionally affiliated Christians are easy targets; _qal v'homer_ Israeli Christians.

For those who skim to the bottom without reading, here is the point: Don't make easy assumptions about anyone and let's all of us try to get out of our own little culture-centric worlds. I'll direct that at myself, too, of course.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

To reiterate:




jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> This is indeed, the context, to which I was referring, as someone who lives in the Bible Belt. However, I wouldn't want this thread to be restricted to the homophobia of many Christians, more precisely born-again Evangelical Christians. I hope that anyone who has a fear of homosexuals or is otherwise anti-homosexual and hides behind their faith's ideology could benefit from the discussion we are having.


----------



## Nunty

So, is it your contention that homophobia is faith-based, rather than an emotional reaction or, indeed, what psychologists call a reaction formation?


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Victoria32 said:


> I object to adoption by gay couples, but equating that with my wanting them shot, is very unfair! Due to circumstances, I brought my son up on my own, but that was not ideal. Children need two opposite sex parents in order to develop properly. That is my experience.


 
I never meant to imply that objecting to gay adoption was the equivalent of having homocidal tendencies. 

I was wondering if you could tell us more about the experience you refer to that taught you it was better for two opposite sex parents to raise a well-adjusted child. 



> I will concede that a lot of my feeling that homosexuality is wrong, is just that, a feeling. I cannot explain that or expect anyone to share it. As it happens, I am just as 'turned off' by straight couples living together and practising 'serial monogamy', especially if children are invoved - they need stability! I accept Christian arguments, which I acknowledge mean nothing to any one who is not a Christian - but I also consider homosexuality to be, what is the phrase, 'fundamentally disordered'?


 
I am repeating myself from an earlier post, but what if your child were gay? Would you be willing to more critically examine your feelings about homosexuality? I guarantee you that if your child is gay, s/he has already been emotionally affected by your homophobia. 

As a gay child of homophobic parents, I'll tell you I surely was, but then we grow up, heal, and forgive if we are willing and able. 

This is something to really think about. Those who want to make the argument "think about the children" should seriously consider it from the other way around too. Even if your child is not gay, s/he may beget a child who is gay who in turn will be hurt by her parent. 

I can't stress enough the fact that children are NOT taught or recruited to be gay. It is a naturally occurring phenomenon, even among the rest of the animal kingdom. We cannot wish it away or pray it away. 



> However, the 'god hates fags' guy, I can't remember his name, is disordered as well!


 Fred Phelps from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas



> Although I accept that people say I am a homophobe, I don't accept that label. I am not _afraid of homosexual_s, I dislike the things they do!


What things do we do that heterosexuals don't do? Please be honest. That is my wish for this forum.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Nun-Translator said:


> So, is it your contention that homophobia is faith-based, rather than an emotional reaction or, indeed, what psychologists call a reaction formation?


 
I'm afraid you may have misunderstood me.  I was making the comment that many people justify their homophobia by using religious ideology as a pretext.  That's very different than suggesting it is faith-based per se.  I have close straight friends who don't interpret their faith's Holy Book as saying homosexuality is a sin.  

As far as the question of reaction formation and the role it plays in it, Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church may be a perfect example of that, although I am not qualified to make such a diagnosis. 

I think a lot of homophobia which exists is actually implicitly taught, passed down from generation to generation.  

What do you think?


----------



## Nunty

I think homophobia is, like any kind of bigotry and prejudice, learned from and nourished by the environment.

I agree that homosexuals are born, not made.

I distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior, the same as I do for heterosexuals. 

I agree with some of what my Church teaches about sexual morality, and I disagree with some of it.

And apropos of nothing, I just want to add that most pedophiles are adult males targeting little girls.


*EDIT: I want to add, jp, that you are very skilled at non-violent facilitation, and I'm learning a lot from you. *


----------



## maxiogee

Nun-Translator said:


> Maxiogee, in answer to your question, look at Post #1 and others _passim_.
> 
> quote=jp_fr_linguaphile;1792046]
> All we can do is pray that such people will embrace the more loving side of Christianity and learn to live and let live, instead of, I suspect, voting to write discrimination into the constitution.



My reading of this is that all those who are homophobic - of whatever religion - could embrace the more loving side of Christianity. In other words, homophobic Wiccans (there must be _some _) could do well to look at the concept of "love thy neighbour".

In another post, j_f_l wrote:


jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> My argument is topics such as homosexuality affect people on such a visceral level that they are often unable to have a logical debate about it. It is important to acknowledge that. The feeling of aversion many homophobes have to the idea of two members of the same sex being intimate is equal to the revulsion of most people watching someone eat a bucketful of live insects. Alas, it's not fair to expect someone with such an aversion to be able to discuss it logically.
> 
> This is what we forget. When we intensely dislike something, we desperately latch onto any existing "argument," tenable or not, to rationalize our belief. for instance, the Bible was quoted to justify the second-class citizenship of African-Americans in the US.
> 
> 
> All we can do is pray that such people will embrace the more loving side of Christianity and learn to live and let live, instead of, I suspect, voting to write discrimination into the constitution.
> 
> I thought my message was important enough to start a new thread.  Is there anyone who agrees with me?
> 
> I would like to suggest that this thread does not become another opportunity to spit vitriolic. Let's have a humane discussion.





jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> This is indeed, the context, to which I was referring, as someone who lives in the Bible Belt. However, I wouldn't want this thread to be restricted to the homophobia of many Christians, more precisely born-again Evangelical Christians. I hope that anyone who has a fear of homosexuals and hides behind their faith's ideology could benefit from the discussion we are having.


Now I see the emphasis in there being on the word 'and' - thus
"I hope that anyone who has a fear of homosexuals *and *hides behind their faith's ideology could benefit from the discussion we are having."


----------



## LV4-26

Just to try clear up the matter about the word "homophobe/homophobia"
The question has been asked : must we take it literaly, i.e. based on its etymological meaning? Here, some do and some don't. Hence, some misunderstandings.

Yes, the Greek-derived suffix "_phobia"_ refers to some kind of pathological fear of something expressed in the first part of the word. Hence arachnophobe ---> afraid of spiders.
But if we stick to that etymological interpretation, the word _homophobe_ doesn't make much sense in any case or, at least, fails to describe the kind of people we're referring to :
homophobe ---> afraid of same  full stop.
Hence, strictly, etymologically speaking, being a _homophobe_ should mean something like fearing one's clone. 

Something else. If a homophobe is what was described in the thread's initial post (and which does* not* match emma42's concept when she says "we all know who we're talking about"), i.e. somebody who feels terribly uncomfortable in seeing homosexuals behaving intimately in the street, then I would define them as _someone who's afraid of homosexua*lity*_, rather than _of homosexuals_.

Hence, depending on who's speaking we may have
- afraid of the same (OK, we all agree it isn't that)
- afraid of homosexuality
- hating homosexuals
-  opposing gay marriage and adoption
(some may refer to more than one option)


----------



## quitejaded

I think people (or atleast boys) in England are more harsh towards homosexuality than in America. There are a lot of pro-homo organizations and things here. I don't know if they don't have that in England.


----------



## maxiogee

quitejaded said:


> There are a lot of pro-homo organizations and things here.



Can you not think of a more felicitous phrase than that, or do you not wish to?


----------



## ElaineG

> Elaine, I think I made it clear in my last post that calling _haredim_ "right-wing fundamentalist Jews" is a gross oversimplification and in no way did I imply they are the "leaders" of Jewry.


 
NT, my post about the leaders of Jewry was not in reply to you, but in reply to another post.  



> Finally, I was unaware that this is a thread for discussing American homosexuals and American homophobes in the Amercian social context, although I should have assumed that early on.


 
In my earlier post, I tried to explain to you where some of the ideas in this thread came from.  Obviously, each of us can only speak from the social contexts they know.   The thread is, what each of us makes of it.



> Institutionally affiliated Christians are easy targets;


 
I don't think anyone on this thread has said anything about institutionally affiliate Christians (I don't know what that is, even), but I could be wrong.


----------



## Kajjo

LV4-26 said:


> Just to try clear up the matter about the word "homophobe/homophobia": homophobe ---> afraid of same ?? full stop. Hence, strictly, etymologically speaking, being a _homophobe_ should mean something like fearing one's clone.


No, strictly speaking the word homophobe is dumb-speak. People who do not know what they talk about extract the easy-to-recognise part "homo" and take it to form other words like homophobe. We all know that the word is meant to mean "against homosexuals".

Interestingly enough, there is no German word for homophobe. The idea that a special class of people exist, who are against homosexuality (see below) is not typical here. Individuals are opposed to or not, but they are categorised.



> Hence, depending on who's speaking we may have
> 1- afraid of the same (OK, we all agree it isn't that)
> 2- afraid of homosexuality
> 3- hating homosexuals
> 4-  opposing gay marriage and adoption


Right. Personally, I could agree to 1..3 as homophobes, but 4 does not clearly express any such notion. People convinced of 4 might have any kind of arguments, points of view or ideas. They also might belong to category 1-3, but they might not.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

emma42 said:


> Take Kajjo's Example 3 - I would call that a homophobic attitude.  If you must have it that it means "fear" of homosexuals or homosexuality, I will call it "discriminatory against homosexuals and homosexuality".  My view remains the same.


No, Emma, I do not feel that example 3 (opposition to gay parades in cities) necessarily means someone is homophobic. Maybe such parades are different around the world, but in Germany they consist of public display of all kinds of kinky sexual behaviour like leather, latex, piercings, tattoos, sadomasochism, flippant clothing, nudity, open sexuality. I have no idea why that is supposed to represent homosexuality, but I can follow a lot of people who think that such a display is nothing for inner cities but for private exhibitions. Many of what I call kinky in these parades could evenly apply to heterosexual behaviour. What homosexual parades are about in Germany is pure provocation. There are enough gay people in Germany who are opposed to such displays, because it makes people believe all homosexuals entertain such kinky behaviour, while in truth many homosexuals are fully integrated and would never be imagined to be gay.

For example, Hamburg, the 3rd largest city in Germany, has a gay mayor who belongs to the conservative party and he is widely accepted. But would you expect him to be in favor of kinky parades?

I think there are a lot of prejudices out there about people having reasonable arguments against certain homosexual claims and certain behaviour displayed openly.

Kajjo


----------



## emma42

THanks for clarifying, Kajjo.  If people are objecting to these parades on the basis of kinky behaviour, which they would just as soon object to from heterosexuals, then, no, they are not discriminating against gay people.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

LV4-26 said:


> Just to try clear up the matter about the word "homophobe/homophobia"
> The question has been asked : must we take it literaly, i.e. based on its etymological meaning? Here, some do and some don't. Hence, some misunderstandings.


 
I had started to address this earlier. Allow me to do so now.  Although I realize semantics is important, I think it may get in the way of genuine dialogue.  
In our case, we are all on the same page as to what we are discussing.  We are talking about the visceral-level aversion of gays and lesbians particular way of expressing their sexuality as opposed to the straights' expression of sexuality.  And I would add to that the negative impact that aversion has on the lives of gays and lesbians.  

This is what I have wanted all of us intelligent folk to focus on.  

Can we agree to put this argument of semantics to rest?

I realize there is still lingering arguments regarding my addendum to the definition: "negative impact that aversion has on the lives of gays and lesbians. "

This is a very important difference of opinion, which warrants, should I remind us all, humane debate.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Kajjo said:


> Maybe such parades are different around the world, but in Germany they consist of public display of all kinds of kinky sexual behaviour like leather, latex, piercings, tattoos, sadomasochism, flippant clothing, nudity, open sexuality. I have no idea why that is supposed to represent homosexuality, but I can follow a lot of people who think that such a display is nothing for inner cities but for private exhibitions. Many of what I call kinky in these parades could evenly apply to heterosexual behaviour. What homosexual parades are about in Germany is pure provocation. There are enough gay people in Germany who are opposed to such displays, because it makes people believe all homosexuals entertain such kinky behaviour, while in truth many homosexuals are fully integrated and would never be imagined to be gay.


 
The same can be said for many of the larger gay pride parades in the US.  There is hot debate among a segment of the gay community here to the appropriateness of the lewd display of sexuality.  It gives the wrong idea and does NOTHING to help our position that we are just like the majority of mainstream society.  

If you want to know the origins of such behavior, though, I can confidently say it is in part a lashing out, an exaggerative manifestation, if you will, of years of pent-up repression.  Unfortunately, this type of behavior has come to be "enshrined" as an institution, in the gay community at-large.    

That's why it's always so important for a minority to be mindful of his behavior, at least in front of the majority.  We don't need to offer any exhibititionist behavior for those who are averse to homosexuality to latch on to and use as justification for their discrimination. 

In a perfect world, we would just say, "look at those *people* behaving badly."    In the real world, it's usually "look at those fags/perverts/homos behaving badly."

I might add that Mardi Gras in Louisiana is such an example of heterosexuals (I acknowledge there is a homosexual element also) behaving badly.


----------



## emma42

Fair enough, jp, I'll agree, for the purposes of this discussion, to interpret "homophobe" as someone who has a "visceral-level aversion" to homosexuality.  But everyone else has to too!


----------



## Kajjo

emma42 said:


> Fair enough, jp, I'll agree, for the purposes of this discussion to interpret "homophobe" as someone who has a "visceral-level aversion" to homosexuality.  But everyone else has to too!


I agree to JP's definition. However, I feel that we need to address and discuss both visceral-level homophobes and reasonable arguments against some homosexual traits and claims.

So far I have not responded to the visceral-level homophobes. I think there are only very few in Germany. People opposing homosexual claims are much more frequent, people who do not know about and do not feel comfortable with gays are quite frequent, too, but people who hate, despise or are actually repulsed by normal homosexuality are really rare. I guess this is quite different in the US.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> The same can be said for many of the larger gay pride parades in the US.  There is hot debate among a segment of the gay community here to the appropriateness of the lewd display of sexuality.  It gives the wrong idea and does NOTHING to help our position that we are just like the majority of mainstream society.


That is exactly what I meant and what I believe to be very common opinion of German gays, too. I further agree that you are right that such behaviour is not helping the homosexual acceptance at all.

I believe that we touch a very  important point in the visceral-level homophobe debate. It is no wonder that less educated people do not realise that not all gays are like that. What we see in TV and real life paints gays as kinky, provocative, non-integrated persons. It is my guess, that many of the US homophobes react to those pictures, that this attitude makes them being afraid of and opposed to gay behaviour.

Kajjo


----------



## Lusitania

Nun-Translator said:


> And apropos of nothing, I just want to add that most pedophiles are adult males targeting little girls.


 
I fully agree, the majority of sexual abuse is inside the family (heterossexual) and the victims are usually girls.

We had a pedophile scandal here in Portugal and as it involved mainly boys and men. People often mix up homossexuals with pedophiles. Homossexuality is sexual orientation, has to do with same sex relations between adults. Pedophiles are deviant characters and it's not a sexual orientation.


----------



## LV4-26

Kajjo said:


> No, strictly speaking the word homophobe is dumb-speak. People who do not know what they talk about extract the easy-to-recognise part "homo" and take it to form other words like homophobe. We all know that the word is meant to mean "against homosexuals".


 OK, that was precisely my point : to refute the idea (which has been expressed here and there) that we could define this word by resorting to its etymology. When we strictly do so, what we get doesn't make sense.





			
				jp said:
			
		

> In our case, we are all on the same page as to what we are discussing. We are talking about the visceral-level aversion of gays and lesbians particular way of expressing their sexuality as opposed to the straights' expression of sexuality. And I would add to that the negative impact that aversion has on the lives of gays and lesbians. [...]Can we agree to put this argument of semantics to rest?[...]


Now that you, the thread starter, have made the above clear, I suppose we can. Though, I'd like to add that I'm sure some of those gut-level "homophobes" do repress that aversion and make sure it doesn't have any "impact on the lives of gays and lesbians".


----------



## Victoria32

Nun-Translator said:


> Maxiogee, in answer to your question, look at Post #1 and others _passim_.
> 
> Elaine, I think I made it clear in my last post that calling _haredim_ "right-wing fundamentalist Jews" is a gross oversimplification and in no way did I imply they are the "leaders" of Jewry. Those in Jerusalem are, however ,"noisy" and unafraid to take to the streets. I was born, raised and lived a large part of my adult life as a _haredi_ Jew in Jerusalem. I think I can speak about that community sector authoritatively.
> 
> For the rest, I live in Jerusalem. I followed the "World Pride" developments up close and personal, with fear and trembling, not least because I was so worried about my gay and lesbian friends (among whom are Jerusalem Jews and Christians) who were planning to march, but also because I was worried about my friends and their husbands and sons who were being injured and arrested in those violent demonstrations, doing damage not only to their bodies but also -- to my way of thinking -- to their souls.
> 
> Further, my closest, most dearly loved family member is gay. We each disapprove of the other for many reasons, but there is nothing but love in the relationship. Although he is not "out", he lives in the US because he feels safer and less targeted there. That was part of my point in bringing up incendiary bottles in Jerusalem and murderous fathers in Uganda: let's keep things in proportion. It's awful to be denied basic human rights because of your sexual orientation or behavior; it's worse to be killed for it.
> 
> Finally, I was unaware that this is a thread for discussing American homosexuals and American homophobes in the Amercian social context, although I should have assumed that early on. In fact, I find that people from other countries and people who self-identify as non-institutional Christians were indeed welcomed respectfully into the discussion. Institutionally affiliated Christians are easy targets; _qal v'homer_ Israeli Christians.
> 
> For those who skim to the bottom without reading, here is the point: Don't make easy assumptions about anyone and let's all of us try to get out of our own little culture-centric worlds. I'll direct that at myself, too, of course.


Very well said, Sister!  


jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> I never meant to imply that objecting to gay adoption was the equivalent of having homocidal tendencies.
> 
> I was wondering if you could tell us more about the experience you refer to that taught you it was better for two opposite sex parents to raise a well-adjusted child.
> 
> 
> 
> I am repeating myself from an earlier post, but what if your child were gay? Would you be willing to more critically examine your feelings about homosexuality? I guarantee you that if your child is gay, s/he has already been emotionally affected by your homophobia.
> 
> As a gay child of homophobic parents, I'll tell you I surely was, but then we grow up, heal, and forgive if we are willing and able.
> 
> This is something to really think about. Those who want to make the argument "think about the children" should seriously consider it from the other way around too. Even if your child is not gay, s/he may beget a child who is gay who in turn will be hurt by her parent.
> 
> I can't stress enough the fact that children are NOT taught or recruited to be gay. It is a naturally occurring phenomenon, even among the rest of the animal kingdom. We cannot wish it away or pray it away.
> 
> Fred Phelps from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas
> 
> What things do we do that heterosexuals don't do? Please be honest. That is my wish for this forum.


If any of my children turned out to be gay, I honestly don't know how I would react... I would be tremendously sad for them of course... even if only because of society's probable reaction... 
I can see that my son's upbringing, with only me, and no father, was far from optimal. My brother substituted as a male role model, and was a very good one - although when my brother died in 2004, that caused problems in itself! My son is highyl intelligent, but is not what I would call optimal in his view of male/female roles and relationships. He has a marked loathing of fathers and fatherhood in general, and really no idea of relationships, having never had one modelled for him. (My other son, brought up by his _father - a different one, has similar problems, but from the other side.) _

It is my perception - to answer your last question, that male homosexuals are less likely to be in stable relationships, and more likely to be promiscuous... although I have met lesbians in lasting relationships, the gay men I have known (and there were many) are comparatively rootless and wandering! 
Gay parades, a topic that has occupied a few posters here, don't help! Whilst I can _understand _the behaviour, seeing men letting it all hang out, often literally, doesn't help one little bit, as you have acknowledged... 

I hope I have not caused offence! I just want to be honest...

VL


----------



## Cnaeius

Nun-Translator said:


> I agree that homosexuals are born, not made.


 
Once more I strongly disagree with this "black or white" view. 
Sorry but this statement is Scientism, which Tv and generally media are used to, whenever journalists claim something without knowing nothing on that and using a lot of simplifications as the "black or white" one.
But, really, do we think that environment and our proper evolution can influence all what concerns us, included Intelligence, but do not influence sexuality? 
And this does not imply that one cannot be born homosexual. But this does not deny that an heterosexual can become homosexual for more environmental reason than a "simple gene mutation" or something like that.
But, we know, this _becoming homosexual_ is difficult to explain on the media and it is simpler to cut up all and say "All homosexual are born" instead of saying: " One can be born homosexual".


----------



## mytwolangs

One thing that complicates the gay marriage thing - 
In straight couple divorces in America, There are certain things that normally happen. Normally the woman gets this, the man gets that... He has certain rights, she has certain rights... It is pretty normal for things to go a certain way. We have all known dovirced people and we all know how things normally go. It is usually an unfair arrangement for both people.
I am not saying it is right or wrong, good or bad...

BUT - If two women got a divorce or two men got a divorce, which partner would get what rights and favoring for things? How complicated would divorces be? 
Could this little problem be slowing the move to make gay marriages legal?


----------



## cuchuflete

As I look at all the serious thought and strong emotion that has gone into the conversation in this thread, I can't help but wonder about something:

In my life away from the computer, I give almost no attention at all to the topics of homosexuality and homophobia.  I am a member of a majority—heterosexuals.  I accept that there is a minority.  I said "accept".  I do not patronizingly "tolerate" the minority.  They are present in the world, and I acknowledge that fact.  I am not, and have no need or desire to be, either "for" or "against".  

Homophobes, as the word is commonly used and understood, seem to be more conscious of the existence of homosexuals. They seem to feel a need, for whatever sound or unsound reasons, to take a stand about how that minority should or should not be allowed to exist and behave.  

I honestly don't know why this is as it is.  Homosexuals do far less to impinge on my life than heterosexuals.  They don't tell me how to behave, other than to ask me not to oppress them when there is a referendum about some proposed law.  They seem content to let me live my life as I see fit.  I attempt, with almost no expenditure of energy at all, to return the favor.  

Homophobes, or anti-homosexuals, or whatever term you prefer, by way of contrast, seem very insistent on making homosexuality an issue, and demanding both my attention and my agreement that there is a problematical "homosexual agenda".  I wish they would keep to themselves, and stop intruding on my inherent right to mind my own business, and my right not to try to manage the behavior and rights of those fellow humans, and fellow citizens, who are homosexuals.

I have no problem with people who for philosophical or religious or whatever other reasons don't want to keep company with homosexuals.  That's their affair.  They may even dislike or disagree with what they believe to be homosexual practices, despite their general lack of experience of these.  I think they ought to express their disagreement by living their own lives as they see fit, and letting those with whom they have a disagreement do exactly the same.  

There are well over a dozen different churches—each with a different system of beliefs—in my very small community.  I disagree with some of those belief systems.  I have a simple solution to any tension or discord that disagreement might engender: I don't attend those churces with which I have a disagreement.   I have no desire or inclination to shut them down, or even make public assertions about them.  Many of the parishioners of those churches are good neighbors, and some even friends.  We have a disagreement about something important to each of us.  It is not cause for angst or hostility; I do not feel beseiged nor do I need to try to constrain the practice of someone else's fundamental way of perceiving the world.  I just leave it alone.

So, all that said, what should I do about homophobes?  Nothing at all, so long as they don't try to impose their views on me or my homosexual neighbors.  In other words, if they mind their own business, I will be delighted to give none of my time and attention to their viewpoints about homosexuality.  I am not suggesting armed neutrality, rather that they and I accept one another as having distinct views and opinions, and just leave it at that.  

One of the participants in this thread expressed annoyance at the flamboyant behavior of {_some?_} homosexuals.  I am annoyed at the conspicuous, flamboyant behavior of some of those who have an aversion to homosexual people. Why don't all of those who insist on being flamboyantly _for_ or _against_ just take a break, and let *all *other people get on with their private lives?


----------



## papillon

Cnaeius said:


> But, really, do we think that environment and our proper evolution can influence all what concerns us, included Intelligence, but do not influence sexuality?
> And this does not imply that one cannot be born homosexual. But this does not deny that an heterosexual can become homosexual for more environmental reason than a "simple gene mutation" or something like that.
> But, we know, this _becoming homosexual_ is difficult to explain on the media and it is simpler to cut up all and say "All homosexual are born" instead of saying: " One can be born homosexual".



Well, I think becoming homosexual would be difficult to explain, without resorting to some scientific/genetic basis. 

I do believe that sexuality is deeper than many other traits. In fact, if it wasn't for some innate quality, what _social pressures_ would cause an otherwise heterosexual man become homosexual? After all

1. The parents of homosexuals are typicaly heterosexual.
2. Most people around us are heterosexual.
3. Most people on TV are heterosexual.

Furthermore, becoming homosexual does not make your life easier. Quite the opposite, it usually makes it a lot harder.

So, why is it so hard to believe that there is something that homosexuals are born with that makes them homosexual, just like there is something that you are born with that makes you attracted to the opposite sex?

I (a heterosexual male) remember being interested in girls from a very young age, long before puberty and long before I even knew what sexuality was. This was something I was born with. I imagine the same is true for the homosexuals.

It is true, that once the stigma of being a homosexual is removed, more people will come out of the closet, so it may appear that in tolerant societies there are more homosexuals. But in reality, the percentage is probably the same, just more people admitting it. In Soviet Union, homosexuality was illegal and resulted in jail time (so no relationship Christianity there...). And we still had (closeted) homosexuals. If they weren't born that way, I don't know why they would go through that...

As for the actual science behind these claims, I think it is still at it's infancy. Since human sexuality is closely tied to the study of the brain, any progress in this field will come by way of neuroscience - and that is nor Scientism, just Science. In the end, we will probably confirm that in most cases, one's sexual orientation is not a choice, but a consequence brain wiring.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Victoria32 said:


> I hope I have not caused offence! I just want to be honest...
> VL


 
None taken.  I would be more offended if you weren't honest with me.  True progress and mutual understanding cannot take place without honesty.  

I understand that you subscribe to the view that male/female roles are very important for children.  I really don't know enough about it to agree or disagree, but I really think it depends on the child.  I would have done just as well with two female parents, I think, no more gay than I am now having been raised by a male and female.  Genetics play more of a role, I suspect, than some people are willing to admit.  As one contributor to the thread has said, I think that as the field of neuroscience advances we will come to know more about the connection between genetics/hardwiring of the brain and sexuality.  

The real question, though, is "how willing will those averse to homosexuality be in accepting what science has to tell us?


----------



## Nunty

ElaineG said:


> NT, my post about the leaders of Jewry was not in reply to you, but in reply to another post.


In that case, I beg your pardon. I misunderstood. 




ElaineG said:


> In my earlier post, I tried to explain to you where some of the ideas in this thread came from.  Obviously, each of us can only speak from the social contexts they know.   The thread is, what each of us makes of it.


I clearly did not understand what you tried to explain. I will attribute some, but not all, of my dullness to the fact that before I joined this forum it has been many years since I had so much discourse in written English.





ElaineG said:


> I don't think anyone on this thread has said anything about institutionally affiliate Christians (I don't know what that is, even), but I could be wrong.


No? Perhaps I am reading wrong. You didn't ask, but I'll explain anyway: what I called an "institutionally affiliated Christian" is one who belongs to an institutional church community: Seventh-Day Adventist, Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Orthodox, Waldensian... Other Christians belong to what are sometimes called "free churches" and still others identify themselves with descriptions such as "I am Christian but I don't believe in religion".

Thank you for your courteous reply when you must been feeling quite annoyed at me.


----------



## malonso2

I mainly see it as a medium through which hate is generally spread and spread rapidly as people in large groups tend to think alike or be easily persuaded by like individuals.  I try to avoid being to hateful of religion in itself... but most forms I'm familiar with always seem to try and control people and scare monger them into conformance.    Hence how religion affects homosexuals because they do not conform.

My second point was trying to get someone to produce one real reason why same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt kids as that was one of the topics at hand.  I believe it was brought up, but obviously same sex couple were brought up by heterosexual parents... there exists a need for children to have homes - why not let loving people provide that home.   

I assumed you read it, but if not - I was also against people "remaining neutral" to the denial of rights to a specific group.  That just allows the Majority group to continue to dominate the Minority.  I think its sad that every now and again I hear of a state hear in the US banning same sex marriages and think damn - I live in a country ruled by religious prejudice.


----------



## ElaineG

Well, I want to come out in favor of gays having any kind of parade they like!

Every year on Saint Patrick's Day in NY, the streets are filled with drunken, vomiting people acting like utter louts.  I have no idea how many of the parade goers are actually Irish-Americans, but I can distinguish between those who choose to gather for such a parade, and Irish-Americans and Irish people in general.  

The Puerto Rican day parade in NY has also been regularly marked by notable episodes of sexual violence against women, petty crime, and public drunkeness. Again, I would be an idiot to develop a set of beliefs about the behavior of Puerto Ricans based on who chooses to come out for a parade.

Someone threw up on my shoes at the San Gennaro festival this year, and a bunch of Italian kids from NJ were dancing shirtless in the street and groping the breasts of every woman from 15 to 50 that made the mistake of walking by.  I still love the Italians, in general, but won't go back to that particular festival.

Pride parades of any stripe are often by nature rowdy mass celebrations.  They attract people of whatever group being celebrated who want a rowdy mass party.

As someone who hates street closings and public drunkeness, I'd be happy to do away with all parades in NY.  But I can hardly single out gay pride for bad or flamboyant public behavior.


----------



## maxiogee

ElaineG said:


> But I can hardly single out gay pride for bad or flamboyant public behavior.



But you *could *single out the organisers of the St Patrick's Day parade for consistently refusing to let the gay Irish march in the parade!


----------



## Cnaeius

papillon said:


> Since human sexuality is closely tied to the study of the brain, any progress in this field will come by way of neuroscience - and that is nor Scientism, just Science. In the end, we will probably confirm that in *most* cases, one's sexual orientation is not a choice, but a consequence brain wiring.


 
...And the study of the brain says that Intelligence is strongly influence by the environment. What you are saying it is not Scientism. Scientism is doing absolute adfirmation by means of partial scientific proof or by means of pseudoscientific "proof". But also it is not Science. Yours it is a personal hope or a thought. Science proceeds slowly and when it proceeds faster, it does it by means of theories. And in theories 100% percentage does not exist and when it exists there are a loooooot of premises of validity and assumptions.
In any case I don't want to do things excessively complex. 
I want only saying that in this matters simplifications are dangerous. Homosexuality is complex, has a lot of nuances. We cannot reduce it into a simple "all homosexuals are born"


----------



## RIU

jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> I couldn't agree with you more. Tolerance is a two-way street. That's all I really want, but when I see the majority of this country voting into law actions that negatively impact me, I am rightly concerned. As a tolerant person, I think you would agree.
> 
> But another thing that concerns me is this: you want to respect the tenet of "live and let live," but what if one of your children happens to be gay? I was raised in a churchgoing family. I was a good boy, yet I recognized around the same time as other children were noticing the opposite sex that I was attracted to boys instead of girls. I wasn't molested by another child or adult. I wasn't exposed to homosexual behavior. It was never implied that homosexuality was a viable lifestyle in my family, school or society, yet this is who I am.
> 
> I want to respect your lifestyle, but I guess this is where we part ways. If you do have a gay child, I recommend you read the following book written by a Christian woman who drove her gay son to suicide: Prayers for Bobby. I won't quote statistics here because due to the nature of the subject, there is a lot of controversy regarding its accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> _Tolerance is a two-way street._
> 
> Si, estamos diciendo lo mismo. Creo que no nos hemos entendido del todo.
> 
> Un pequeño resumen en mi pobre inglés para nuestra Hermana.
> 
> Yes, we are saying the same.
> 
> Como Victoria, no sé que haría si un hijo mio fuera gay. Y si lo he entendido bien eres gay, ¿cierto? Creo que has escogido esta opción en el libre ejercicio de tu libertad, como nos explicas. Creo firmemente en la libertad del hombre, como el único ser en la tierra que tiene esta capacidad. Esto es lo más grande que nos haya podido ocurrir, y al mismo tiempo es nuestra gran desdicha. ¿Cuantas veces, y a diario, utilizamos mal nuestra libertad? Es por esto y, ahora enlazo con *Cnaeius* que ser homosexual en mi opinión, ni es una enfermedad -vaya tontería- ni está en los genes - otra que tal. Ser homo, hetero, bi, incluso fiel a tu esposa, son opciones que cada cual elige libremente. Luego no podemos quejarnos de nuestra elección.
> 
> As Victoria, I don't know what I will do if one of my childs becomes gay. I understand that you're gay, insn't it? I believe that you choosed these option in the free exercise of your freedom, as you explain to us. I believe hardly in men's freedom. That is our best characteristic and at the sometime that is our worst misfortune. I understand that be homosexual don't is an illness -it's stupid- or it is writted in DNA -another one. To be an homo, hetero, bi or loyal to your wife are options tha everyone choose freedom. Then we mustn't complain about our choice.
Click to expand...


----------



## ireney

So some people woke up one day and decided that having a social stigma, having to hide their sexual inclination from friends and family, maybe having to feel shame for their sexual inclination if they are brought up in a "homosexuals are to be despised" environment and in general go through a social and emotional gauntlet would be FUN!

Somehow that doesn't makes sense


----------



## Nunty

Can we flip the question on its side? Are heterosexuals born that way? Or is it the overwhelming influence of the environment?


----------



## cuchuflete

In the spirit of question flipping, and with no intent to flip off those who think it's all a matter of choice, no matter how deserving they may be, let's follow the logic.

Premises:
1. Sexuality is a matter of choice, with genes as casual bystanders to the parade of human folly;
2. Being heterosexual is far easier: greater choice of partners, government tax benefits when legally coupled, fewer hassels by bigots and hatemongers, and the time-honored ability to throw mud at minorities just because they are smaller in number.

Therefore...

3. Being heterosexual is the obvious choice for lazy people. 

We are opening a Scientism discussion group to further analyze this and related topics. Attendees are invited to bring
all relevent prejudices and ignorance, and will be treated with
love and understanding.  The meeting will be followed by an informal talk given by Prof. Mountebank, of the Flat Earth Society.


----------



## emma42

I will certainly attend, and thank you kindly.

I am lazy.  I often leave the dirty plates until the next morning, I hardly ever wash and my bed sheets have not been changed since 1973.  I must, therefore, be heterosexual.  This has come as a great relief to me because I really wasn't sure before.


----------



## Cnaeius

Nun-Translator said:


> Can we flip the question on its side? Are heterosexuals born that way? Or is it the overwhelming influence of the environment?


 
Which question? Which side? 

Is it too difficult to see a dangerously strong relation between the fear and/or the hate against homosexuals, and the fear/hate against the people who try to criticize/analise homosexuality without reducing all to "homosexual are born"?
To me both sides are large and dangerous. I don't say bigot because it is a too arrogant word


----------



## cuchuflete

The Free Choice Association is sponsoring a posthumous presentation by Dr. Timouthy Leery on "Learning Sexual Disorders" or LSD.  All are invited.


----------



## kazijistan

I would like to ask you all a question.: for all my life I liked the Oscar Wilde`s stories. Suddenly I know that he was in jail for having had homosexual behaviour in his age. ¿Should I stop admiring his talent just because now I know he was gay?


----------



## cuchuflete

Assume that you have in front of you seven homosexuals.  Some were "born that way", while others chose to be "that way".  Would a homophobe treat different members of that group of seven any differently?

The question is a nonsensical diversion.  One may as well waste time trying to decide if there is a genetic basis for bigotry.


----------



## emma42

Kazijistan, no.

Cnaeius, every single gay person I have ever known swears s/he was born gay.  In any event, it does not matter.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Alright, whoever spiked the lemonade, 'fess up now!*   Cuchu and Emma, get down from the kitchen table this instant!  Kazijistan, take that lampshade off your head and put it back where you found it!

*I suspect that it was Sister Claire Edith .... 

(One of Bill Mauldin's best WWII cartoons featured some scruffy dogfaces telling a wet-behind-the-ears recruit -  "We never joke about sex round here; it's a reverent subject.")


----------



## Cnaeius

cuchuflete said:


> Assume that you have in front of you seven homosexuals. Some were "born that way", while others chose to be "that way". Would a homophobe treat different members of that group of seven any differently?
> 
> The question is a nonsensical diversion. One may as well waste time trying to decide if there is a genetic basis for bigotry.


 

Yes, perfectly agreeing. In any case whenever one jumps out saying all homosexual are born i will ask him to demonstrate it.
Nonsensical questions can follow nonsensical adfirmations.
If we accept homosexuality a priori saying "It does not matter" (and I agree with this position), why do we have to justify this position with logic and false assumptions (all homosexual born)? I don't think it is necessary.
Using logic and assumptions to show that reveals:
- that this logic and assumptions are weak
- that who uses has other kind of phobiae.


----------



## Cnaeius

emma42 said:


> Kazijistan, no.
> 
> Cnaeius, every single gay person I have ever known swears s/he was born gay. In any event, it does not matter.


 
It is your personal statistics, in any case with the position "it does not matter", without premises and logics I always agree (sincerely), as I said in the previous.


----------



## Nunty

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Alright, whoever spiked the lemonade, 'fess up now!*   Cuchu and Emma, get down from the kitchen table this instant!  Kazijistan, take that lampshade off your head and put it back where you found it!
> 
> *I suspect that it was Sister Claire Edith ....



I cannot tell a lie...hic...


----------



## papillon

Cnaeius said:


> Yes, perfectly agreeing. In any case whenever one jumps out saying all homosexual are born i will ask him to demonstrate it.
> Nonsensical questions can follow nonsensical adfirmations.
> If we accept homosexuality a priori saying "It does not matter" (and I agree with this position), why do we have to justify this position ...



Fair enough. So, if I may summarize your position: _who cares if homosexuals are born that way, they should be accepted either way_. If everyone believed that, then we probably wouldn't even be having  this discussion, would we? Or rather, it would be relegated to the pages of the the Journal of Neuroscience.

Sadly, this thread is NOT about you. It is about people who believe that homosexuals made a choice, and an evil/immoral one at that. We are examining and trying to address their underlying basis for this belief. 

And I think it is fair to ask a question: is it even a choice in the first place? When I am at a furniture store, I can decide to buy this chair, or that chair. I may like one slightly better, but I would be OK with the other one. I have a choice.
 If I may use a Sister C.-E. quote:


> Can we flip the question on its side? Are heterosexuals born that way? Or is it the overwhelming influence of the environment?


Those who believe that homosexuality is a choice should examine their own sexuality. Was there a point when you decided: well, heterosexuality sounds good to me, I think I'll join the straight camp. After all, if gays had that choice, wouldn't a straight person? If we follow that logic, then presumably at some younger age, there was a point when both options were open for the taking. 

As a heterosexual, I can't remember ever having that choice. Did I miss out on something?


----------



## ireney

When we say "by choice" what _exactly_ do we mean? They could choose whether to become heterosexual or homosexuals (which means they were bisexual and just didn't like it) and they chose to go "that way"?

It's one thing to say that the environment had something to do with a person's sexual preferences and quite another to say that this person "chose" what sex to like.


----------



## Cnaeius

papillon said:


> Fair enough. So, if I may summarize your position: _who cares if homosexuals are born that way, they should be accepted either way_. If everyone believed that, then we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion, would we? Or rather, it would be relegated to the pages of the the Journal of Neuroscience.
> 
> Sadly, this thread is NOT about you. It is about people who believe that homosexuals made a choice, and an evil/immoral one at that. We are examining and trying to address their underlying basis for this belief.
> 
> And I think it is fair to ask a question: is it even a choice in the first place? When I am at a furniture store, I can decide to buy this chair, or that chair. I may like one slightly better, but I would be OK with the other one. I have a choice.
> If I may use a Sister C.-E. quote:
> Those who believe that homosexuality is a choice should examine their own sexuality. Was there a point when you decided: well, heterosexuality sounds good to me, I think I'll join the straight camp. After all, if gays had that choice, wouldn't a straight person? If we follow that logic, then presumably at some younger age, there was a point when both options were open for the taking.
> 
> As a heterosexual, I can't remember ever having that choice. Did I miss out on something?


 

I agree with that position in the sense I respect it, I cannot say anything, it is perfectly coherent. But it is not _my_ position. 
Does my position have to exclude by force other positions?
In any case I don't spare words because i like it. If you follow there is a logic line around which I posted


----------



## malonso2

On to the topic... why do homophobes exist?  

Environment.

You are not born hating certain groups, hating people, hating in general. It is learned. Mostly it is passed down from generation to generation. I've already proposed what I feel is a main cause of the continuing cycle of hate. Since it provides an easy means of connecting people together - and apparently contains references thats says homosexuality is wrong. 

We need more accountabilty for people in positions of power - such as a minister, preist, the pope, and to my shame... the president of the United States.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Cnaeius said:


> In any case whenever one jumps out saying all homosexual are born i will ask him to demonstrate it.


I will be presumptuous enough to answer your question. It may not be the proof you are looking for, but I can say that I did not make a choice. I was not taught to be this way by caregivers or educators. I did not grow up in an environment that in any way encouraged it. Therefore, it is fair enough to logically deduce that I was born this way. 

A question that has been posed here is a valid one. Cnaeius, I am presuming you are heterosexual. Do you believe you chose it or were you born that way? Assuming of course, no one can have definitive answers until we allow science to bear it out for us.

Please answer yes or no and qualify your answer.  I believe you owe that to everyone on this thread.


----------



## papillon

malonso2 said:


> I mean Pap, your saying we I buy a certain chair and you don't like that chair... its ok for you to exclude me from certain rights granted to you?



I'm saying, you didn't buy the chair. The flat came furnished, the chair was already there when you moved in.


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:


> I will certainly attend, and thank you kindly.
> 
> I am lazy.  I often leave the dirty plates until the next morning, I hardly ever wash and my bed sheets have not been changed since 1973.  I must, therefore, be heterosexual.  This has come as a great relief to me because I really wasn't sure before.



N-o-w I know who you are ...... you're Tracey Emin, aren't you?


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

I demonstrated the available proof and asked for Cnaieus' to do so in kind.  He has graciously bowed out.  



jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> My argument is topics such as homosexuality affect people on such a visceral level that they are often unable to have a logical debate about it.


 QED (quod erat demonstrandum)

Cnaieus, I mean you no ill will.  My wish is you have embraced or will come to embrace the noble philosophy of "live and let live."  Pax Vobiscum.


----------



## Cnaeius

jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> I demonstrated the available proof and asked for Cnaieus' to do so in kind. He has graciously bowed out.
> 
> QED (quod erat demonstrandum)
> 
> Cnaieus, I mean you no ill will. My wish is you have embraced or will come to embrace the noble philosophy of "live and let live." Pax Vobiscum.


 

I simply don't answer to personal questions and from my side I finished to post.
QED, logic, assumptions etc.. are nice but dangerous things. Often they are traps.
My wish is that we can understand better "live and let live" philosophy and other corollaries as "think different and let think different" or "post and let post" or "do not post" and "let do not post", etc..


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

emma42 said:


> every single gay person I have ever known swears s/he was born gay. In any event, it does not matter.


For those who don't care to discriminate, it doesn't matter, indeed.  But I am sure you are aware that insistence that it IS a choice is the most potent weapon in the arsenal of those who wish to discriminate.  
That's why I am so enthusiastic for neuroscience to develop to the point where there can be no argument.  After that weapon has been removed from the arsenal, only religiously-based prejudice and this visceral-level aversion will remain.  
Of course, that offers little consolation when you consider that African-Americans never had to demonstrate that they were born that way.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Cnaeius said:


> I simply don't answer to personal questions and from my side I finished to post.
> .


 Fair enough.  I just wonder if you have accepted the proof I had to offer from my own personal experience.  You asked for it and I provided it.  
Can you see why this is of personal interest to me?  This issue affects my quality of life.  I can't just stand on the sidelines and be impartial.  

You are, of course, free to post or not post.  And I do respect your privacy.  No hard feelings, I hope.


----------



## Kajjo

emma42 said:


> Every single gay person I have ever known swears s/he was born gay.  In any event, it does not matter.


I believe most gay people are born gay and do not decide to be gay. I am heterosexual and I surely never decided to be, I always felt naturally attracted to girls. I expect the same is true for gays, just to the same gender instead the opposite. I figure the hypothesis is valid that a minority of humans is gay for whatever unknown reasons, in whatever culture.

However, Emma, I personally met many lesbians that choose to lead a lesbian lifestyle for a part of their life. It was always connected to left-wing feminism and sort of belonged to the correct group behaviour of such women. I still wonder why, but is truely took place at many German universities in the 80s and 90s. Many of those "political lesbians" as we called them, turned out to be both sexually and politically normal after some time of mellowing and growing-up.

Kajjo


----------



## papillon

jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> ...after that weapon has been removed from the arsenal, only religiously-based prejudice and this visceral-level aversion will remain ...



I think you are letting your personal experiences with the US circumstances block a wider view of things. In fact, any totalitarian society will probably declare itself the supreme source of proper morality, and that will inevitably include the persecution of gays. 

Consider the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. While the first one had a very tenuous connection to religion, the second one was decidedly _anti_-religion. The former sent gays to concentration camps, the latter to prisons.

I think all this rather fits with the the dislike of _those who are different_, when this dislike becomes institutionalized.


----------



## emma42

kajjo, yes, I am aware that some women made a "political" choice to be/behave like lesbians.  I thought of that when I was posting before, and it is an interesting point.  I think that women are better able to choose to experience lesbianism than men are to choose the equivalent.  I surmise that this is because women find it easier to be closer to their own sex than men do, they do not baulk at physicality (not necessarily sexual contact) with other women, they are emotionally intimate with each other etc.  I am just talking about my own culture here.  Indeed, it is known that one of the commonest sexual fantasies of heterosexual women is to be with another woman.  I do not think the same applies to heterosexual men.

Yes, jp, I agree with you about the choice issue (despite what I have just written).  I understand that some people believe that, homosexuality being a "sickness" or "disorder", it is a choice to seek or not seek a "cure".  In addition, there is the view that homosexuals "cannot help it", but they can choose to not practise homosexuality.  By this, I understand such people to mean homosexual sex acts.  Because, of course, that is all there is to it.  Heaven preserve us from any thoughts of homosexual _love_, intimacy, care, tenderness.


----------



## Kajjo

ElaineG said:


> Well, I want to come out in favor of gays having any kind of parade they like! [...] I'd be happy to do away with all parades in NY.  But I can hardly single out gay pride for bad or flamboyant public behavior.


No, you probably cannot. However, in Germany gay parades are the only parades of that style and many people would be more than happy to put away with those parades -- without being homophobic. They would equally despise heterosexual display of this kind of things.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> In my life away from the computer, I give almost no attention at all to the topics of homosexuality and homophobia.


Well, Cuchu, it is the same for me. Besides this thread there is almost no talk about homophobia and only little talk about homosexuality in Germany. I suppose, that is drastically different in the US.

But whatever talk there is about homosexuality in Germany, is stirred up by the homosexuals and not by what this thread calls homophobes. I am convinced that all this talk about gay marriage and other claims does nothing good to the gay community. There is no important homophobia in Germany, but the more talk there is the more could arise.



> Homophobes, as the word is commonly used and understood, seem to be more conscious of the existence of homosexuals. They seem to feel a need, for whatever sound or unsound reasons, to take a stand about how that minority should or should not be allowed to exist and behave.


That appears to be a specialty of the US and maybe a consequence of the right-winged Christianity as it is exercised in the US.



> One of the participants in this thread expressed annoyance at the flamboyant behavior of homosexuals.  I am annoyed at the conspicuous, flamboyant behavior of some of those who have an aversion to homosexual people.


I am with you here, but please think about the gay parade contributions and other openly provocative behaviour of a minority of gay people. I consider this provocation to be not in the interest of the majority of gay people because it paints an absolutely wrong picture of lewd, extreme-minded and difficult-to-accept homosexuals, while most of them are just normal people like you and me. However, I guess the other poster you referred to might have had this provocations in mind.

Kajjo


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

papillon said:


> In fact, any totalitarian society will probably declare itself the supreme source of proper morality, and that will inevitably include the persecution of gays.


You have misunderstood me. I did say religious-based prejudice *and *visceral-level aversion to homosexuality. The latter encompasses what you are referring to. 



> I think all this rather fits with the the dislike of _those who are different_, when this dislike becomes institutionalized.


Institutionalized religion behaves the same way. Substitute Fuhrer or Premier with priest/preacher and voila. 

As an aside, many of the most Christ-like Christians, I know, by the way, don't go to church because they recognize the hypocrisy.


----------



## Redisca

Kajjo said:


> [homophobia]That appears to be a specialty of the US and maybe a consequence of the right-winged Christianity as it is exercised in the US. Kajjo


It appears to be so because of the way the media portrays it.  A few months ago, the Russian gay community was prohibited from holding a gay pride rally in Moscow only because they are gay.  When the organizers showed up anyway, they were scattered by the police.  The event received virtually no coverage in the Western media.  I  cannot imagine something like this happening in New York.  This is not to excuse the fundamentalist Christian wing here, just to show that the US did not invent homophobia.


----------



## emma42

This would be very unlikely to happen in England as well.  An "industrial" demonstration/march might be a different matter, however.


----------



## Victoria32

jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> None taken. I would be more offended if you weren't honest with me. True progress and mutual understanding cannot take place without honesty.
> 
> I understand that you subscribe to the view that male/female roles are very important for children. I really don't know enough about it to agree or disagree, but I really think it depends on the child. I would have done just as well with two female parents, I think, no more gay than I am now having been raised by a male and female. Genetics play more of a role, I suspect, than some people are willing to admit. As one contributor to the thread has said, I think that as the field of neuroscience advances we will come to know more about the connection between genetics/hardwiring of the brain and sexuality.
> 
> The real question, though, is "how willing will those averse to homosexuality be in accepting what science has to tell us?


I have read a lot about the question of whether homosexuals are born that way, or made that way by society/each other - and as far as I know, there's no scientific evidence either way - yet... 




emma42 said:


> Kazijistan, no.
> 
> Cnaeius, every single gay person I have ever known swears s/he was born gay. In any event, it does not matter.


On the contrary, I think it matters very much indeed! In fact it is the central question - as if it  is _not innate_ then those who are gay can become straight, if they wish... It is my view and my experience that those who are ex-gay are happier in themselves - and not just because of society!


----------



## RAPHUS CUCULLATUS

Victoria32 said:


> In fact it is the central question - as if it _not innate_ then those who are gay straight can become straight gay, if they wish... It is my view and my experience that those who are ex-gay are happier in themselves - and not just because of society!



How old were you when you decided which fork in the road to take?


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Victoria32 said:


> On the contrary, I think it matters very much indeed! In fact it is the central question - as if it _not innate_ then those who are gay can become straight, if they wish... It is my view and my experience that those who are ex-gay are happier in themselves - and not just because of society!


 This brings into the debate a very interesting point. It belongs to a different thread, though. I would wager that the majority of your experiences with gays have been those who have great internal strife between their religious beliefs and their self-perceived sexual orientation. It is hard to be content with yourself when you've been taught by those who matter in your life from birth that it is a sinful condition, and what's more through prayer it can be overcome. I really feel sorry for such people, and I thank God, yes, God that my family were not hyper-zealots. I really do encourage you to read the book Prayers for Bobby. Check out this link: http://www.critpath.org/pflag-talk/cowan.htm It was not written by a radical homosexual activist. Instead, it was inspired by a woman who earnestly believed in God and her church and who unwittingly drove her gay son to suicide. You seem openminded enough to at least take a good look at the book in order to develop a more well-rounded opinion on the subject. 
Best Regards,


----------



## emma42

*Quote [Victoria32]
On the cotrary, I think it matters very much indeed! In fact it is the central question - as if it not innate then those who are gay can become straight, if they wish... It is my view and my experience that those who are ex-gay are happier in themselves - and not just because of society![/quote]*

Victoria, I am actually lost for words.  You have achieved something that many have attempted.


----------



## Victoria32

RAPHUS CUCULLATUS said:


> How old were you when you decided which fork in the road to take?


Seventeen, I think... having been approached (if that is the word) by at least three lesbians by then, and having decided it wasn't for me... 


jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> This brings into the debate a very interesting point. It belongs to a different thread, though. I would wager that the majority of your experiences with gays have been those who have great internal strife between their religious beliefs and their self-perceived sexual orientation. It is hard to be content with yourself when you've been taught by those who matter in your life from birth that it is a sinful condition, and what's more through prayer it can be overcome. I really feel sorry for such people, and I thank God, yes, God that my family were not hyper-zealots. I really do encourage you to read the book Prayers for Bobby. Check out this link: http://www.critpath.org/pflag-talk/cowan.htm It was not written by a radical homosexual activist. Instead, it was inspired by a woman who earnestly believed in God and her church and who unwittingly drove her gay son to suicide. You seem openminded enough to at least take a good look at the book in order to develop a more well-rounded opinion on the subject.
> Best Regards,


I will have a look at that, yes, and I think I may have already read that book, if it is the one I am thinking of...
No, the homosexuals I have known personally, did not come from religious backgrounds - New Zealand is a very secular country, and probably only about 20% of the population come from such a brackground.  That being said, they were all very prone to depression!


----------



## Selena1967

I've been wondering how can you choose being heterosexual or homosexual, is it a real choice? 

Since I was an  teenager, even earlier,  I had heart palpitations and a really red  face every time I was close a guy whom I would had liked to date with. Even when I thought that was a stupid reaction, I could not choose a 'rational response'  on my behaviour to overcome that situation, my hormones had decided for me. So, how can anyone find out a 'rational' response about their sexual choice in wich you are genetically predisposed to do. Has anyone ever met someone who has 'rationally' chosen their sexual feelings for another human being. I'm sorry not to understand, but I don't get it.


----------



## cuchuflete

Victoria32 said:


> Seventeen, I think... having been approached (if that is the word) by at least three lesbians by then, and having decided it wasn't for me...



Did you decide, or simply take note of your feelings of attraction or lack of same?

At about that age I was "hit on" by heterosexual girls...It gave me a pleasing sensation...and by a homosexual man.  In the later case I felt totally disinterested.  I didn't think about it, analyse it, or attempt to apply logic or theology.  I just followed my instincts.  Did you have instincts at age seventeen?


----------



## emma42

Selena, I don't think you _can _choose your sexuality.  We mentioned "political lesbianism" earlier, but I don't believe that those women actually _changed_ their sexuality - their behaviour, yes.

Also, I believe that there is a kind of continuum of sexuality in terms of homo or heterosexuality.  Some people are at one end or the other, others are somewhere in between.  I do not venture to give percentages.  Love is love; sexual attraction is sexual attraction.


----------



## Maja

Nun-Translator said:


> You didn't ask, but I'll explain anyway: what I called an "*institutionally affiliated Christian*" is one who belongs to an institutional church community: Seventh-Day Adventist, Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Orthodox, Waldensian... Other Christians belong to what are sometimes called "free churches" and still others identify themselves with descriptions such as "I am Christian but I don't believe in religion".


"Institutionally affiliated Christian", I like it! Thank you Sister. 


jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> I can't stress enough the fact that children are NOT taught or recruited to be gay. It is a *naturally occurring phenomenon, even among the rest of the animal kingdom*.


Really???


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

> Originally Posted by *jp_fr_linguaphile* I can't stress enough the fact that children are NOT taught or recruited to be gay. It is a *naturally occurring phenomenon, even among the rest of the animal kingdom*.


 I should have said some animal species. It apparently occurs among penguins. Here's a link to an article discussing the topic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm Of course, because it is a controversial topic, accusations of its being biased or exaggerated are bound to be made. Take a look for what it's worth.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Victoria32 said:


> Seventeen, I think... having been approached (if that is the word) by at least three lesbians by then, and having decided it wasn't for me...


Had your hormones already informed you of your heterosexual attractions, or were you equally open to both sexual orientations until you had experienced both?


----------



## RIU

Kajjo said:


> I am heterosexual and I surely never decided to be, I always felt naturally attracted to girls.
> Kajjo


 
I understand that you are deciding _not to choose_ now!




Selena1967 said:


> ... my hormones had decided for me. So, how can anyone find out a 'rational' response about their sexual choice in wich you are genetically predisposed to do. Has anyone ever met someone who has 'rationally' chosen their sexual feelings for another human being. I'm sorry not to understand, but I don't get it.


 
I don't understand how can you speak, listen, feel or another one with your hormones.



cuchuflete said:


> At about that age I was "hit on" by heterosexual girls...It gave me a pleasing sensation...and by a homosexual man. In the later case I felt totally disinterested. I didn't think about it, analyse it, or attempt to apply logic or theology. I just followed my instincts. Did you have instincts at age seventeen?


 
I'm not in your goose (correct?) but I think that you had tried the "_hit_ _on by heterosexual girls"_ and was easy for you to make your choose. 

Is possible that you -people- don't believe that the human are more than an animal who only can follow its instinct? 

Why people disguise their respectable decision about their sexuality reducing it at simple hormonal question?


----------



## papillon

RIU said:


> Is possible that you -people- don't believe that the human are more than an animal who only can follow its instinct?
> 
> Why people disguise their respectable decision about their sexuality reducing it at simple hormonal question?



So tell us then - how was it in your case? I mean, how did you arrive at the decision of being - I presume - heterosexual?

Did you ever consider both options? Were you ever attracted to a person of the same sex, but decided not to act on it? Did you have you heart beat faster when an attractive person of the same sex walked by? And if so, did you then think about it and made a _concious_ decision that this would be wrong, and that you should really focus on the opposite sex?

Did you sit down with your parents of friends and had a discussion of the choice of sexual orientation? After all, if this were a decision, it would be an important one, don't you agee?

How did you make your choice?


----------



## Selena1967

emma42 said:


> Selena, I don't think you _can _choose your sexuality. We mentioned "political lesbianism" earlier, but I don't believe that those women actually _changed_ their sexuality - their behaviour, yes.
> 
> Also, I believe that there is a kind of continuum of sexuality in terms of homo or heterosexuality. Some people are at one end or the other, others are somewhere in between. I do not venture to give percentages. Love is love; sexual attraction is sexual attraction.


 
Well totally agree, love is not sexual attraction, but, I don't think that's the point. Because, I'm not going to fall in love with anyone, not matter how wonderful he/she can be if I cannot feel a sexual attraction for her/him. That is what really matters.

Through the years, you learn how to 'control', hide, repress, those 'visceral' reactions that emerge so strongly when you are a teenager, but you cannot 'swift them off'. They are going to be there forever and ever, not matter how old you are, no matter how tough you try to change. 

It makes me think that is the very same type of reaction for anyone of us 'choosing' not to be what we are genetically predisposed to do, when we try to have a relationship with someone who can be a wonderful people, although we don't feel that sexual attraction for them as we do for another same or opposite sex person.


----------



## RIU

papillon said:


> So tell us then - how was it in your case? I mean, how did you arrive at the decision of being - I presume - heterosexual?
> 
> Did you ever consider both options? Were you ever attracted to a person of the same sex, but decided not to act on it? Did you have you heart beat faster when an attractive person of the same sex walked by? And if so, did you then think about it and made a _concious_ decision that this would be wrong, and that you should really focus on the opposite sex?
> 
> Did you sit down with your parents of friends and had a discussion of the choice of sexual orientation? After all, if this were a decision, it would be an important one, don't you agee?
> 
> How did you make your choice?



Oh, yes, I'm heterosexual, and only "know" my wife. I must be pretty for men -I presume - because I had been not less than ten attempts to hit with me. My heart don't beat faster, no. And when is the opposite sex I must be so stupid, I never understand when it occours! Or I don't like to see it...

My brother had the opportunity to talk it with my father, he died -my father- when I was 13 years old, I couldn't do it. For me, when I look a male or a female...well I never have and had doubt. I don't think that it was an important decision, it was another one only. But you need to think in a fact, _every time that I discover a male or female who wants to hit on me I'm choosing something._ Don't forget it.


----------



## la reine victoria

Heterosexual men can suddenly change their sexuality. I don't know the reason why because it's not a subject I give much attention to.

One of my female cousins was happily married, with one daughter. One day her husband came home from work, packed a bag and said he was off to live with his boyfriend. My cousin and her daughter were devastated. He had been a model husband, certainly not one of those "always going out with the lads" types, nor someone who went out on his own.

His explanation was very matter of fact. "I've met a man at work and fallen in love with him. I can't live without him so I'm leaving you."

The same thing happened to a work colleague. He had been married for quite a long time and had three wonderful children. He was seduced by a gay man who worked with us, and he left his family in the same way as my cousin's husband did.

One often reads of married women who desert their family, having been seduced by a lesbian.

I can only conclude that this desire to be sexually united with someone of the same sex can lie dormant until something happens to awaken it.

Whatever the reason, I find it all very sad. It causes so much
heartache.

These incidents, however, do not make me a homophobe. I accept that human beings are very diverse in their sexual practices.

As for a kinder view of homophobes. I feel we should respect everyone's right to their opinions. I have a girlfriend who is outraged by any portrayal of lesbian behaviour on television. She happily accepts homosexual men but is so scathing of lesbians that I sometimes wonder if she is "in the closet". She is a widow with three grown-up children. I just listen to her ranting and say nothing.



LRV


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

The reverse can also happen.  One of my girlfriends is married to a man who left his same-sex partner of twenty years for her.


----------



## la reine victoria

That's very interesting, Chaska, and I would imagine fairly unusual.





LRV


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

Selena1967 said:


> It makes me think that is the very same type of reaction for anyone of us 'choosing' not to be what we are genetically predisposed to do, when we try to have a relationship with someone who can be a wonderful people, although we don't feel that sexual attraction for them as we do for another same or opposite sex person.


This can be said in my case for sure.  Back in my college days, I met a woman who was a perfect match in every way, but ONE.  I felt no sexual attraction for her. (This wasn't a case of impotence, either.  I regularly have no sexual attraction towards women.)  How fair would that have been if I had decided to ignore this fact, court her, and then insist on a platonic relationship?  She is married with child now, and I can't help but feel a tinge of envy, but she is with a mate who has been able to love her in every way that she deserves.


----------



## emma42

I think when I said "love is love; sexual attraction is sexual attraction" I was unclear.  I merely meant that love and sexual attraction are equally valid, for want of a better word, _whether they are related to someone of the same sex or someone of the opposite sex._  I was not drawing a distinction between love and sexual attraction, although, obviously, the two are not the same.


----------



## GEmatt

Jp_fr_linguaphile, wow!: Religion, politics and sexuality, all in one thread! I agree that it's not fair to expect a logical discussion on such matters from the religious homophobe. Actually, I think logical discussion with them is almost impossible, since I have great difficulty believing that faith and logic are compatible at all (I'm endlessly fascinated by scientists who believe in a God, for example; doesn't faith demand the _abdication_ of logic?), especially when religion can be and is manipulated into a seemingly legitimate cover, through which homophobic sentiment can be more safely vented.

Some fundamentalist religious groups may, as you mention, use the Bible as a basis for anti-gay polemic (sometimes to a degree which, in any other context, would be branded 'incitement to hatred', and dealt with accordingly by the relevant authorities), although even a cursory glance at the cited biblical excerpts reveals passages that are moot at best, and certainly not in condemnation of homosexuals.

I seem to remember an anti-gay march that took place in the US, some weeks or months ago, on the occasion of some state allowing gay unions. A banner-toting woman, when asked what she was protesting about, observed "It's not the homosexuals; it's God we should be worried about." It's a shame, but there's not much one can do about such fundamental ignorance; it's an insult both to gays and to more enlightened people everywhere, equally.

For what they're worth, my observations are that 1) it's more difficult to stigmatize the individual (especially the _known_ individual) member of a minority than it is to stigmatize the minority as a whole, since bigotry thrives, amongst other things, on generalization; 2) it's more difficult to maintain bigotry in the face of persistent, constructive engagement, since bigotry requires only occasional, arm's-length confrontation with the object of its "affections", in order to keep its coals burning.

In this spirit, I believe that an 'integrationist' and less in-your-face approach, as a complement to associations and organizations, is useful in helping homophobes out of their predicament. I think that, when confronted with, say, a homosexual co-worker, even the most outspoken, Bible-wielding bigot tends to see a homosexual _person_, and not just a walking personification of sexual perversion. 'Person' is the operative word, and what brings everyone together, rather than the label, which keeps people apart. If homophobes are engaged with on the personal level, in a personable way, couldn't many an inflammatory situation be defused?


----------



## Poetic Device

I know that this is not just towards homosexuals, but this thread reminded me of this.  Did you know that Sesame Street added a new character to their line?  Did you know that this character is HIV pisitive?


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

GEmatt said:


> Jp_fr_linguaphile, wow!: Religion, politics and sexuality, all in one thread! I agree that it's not fair to expect a logical discussion on such matters from the religious homophobe.


The three are entertwined on a daily basis, so what the heck?! 


> Actually, I think logical discussion with them is almost impossible, since I have great difficulty believing that faith and logic are compatible at all (I'm endlessly fascinated by scientists who believe in a God, for example; doesn't faith demand the _abdication_ of logic?), especially when religion can be and is manipulated into a seemingly legitimate cover, through which homophobic sentiment can be more safely vented.


This truth came poignantly through the other day in a dialogue I read between an atheist and Christian geneticist. 


> I seem to remember an anti-gay march that took place in the US, some weeks or months ago, on the occasion of some state allowing gay unions. A banner-toting woman, when asked what she was protesting about, observed "It's not the homosexuals; it's God we should be worried about."


This is often seen in the Fred Phelps strain of "Christianity." 


> For what they're worth, my observations are that 1) it's more difficult to stigmatize the individual (especially the _known_ individual) member of a minority than it is to stigmatize the minority as a whole, since bigotry thrives, amongst other things, on generalization; 2) it's more difficult to maintain bigotry in the face of persistent, constructive engagement, since bigotry requires only occasional, arm's-length confrontation with the object of its "affections", in order to keep its coals burning.


It is my hope in this thread to give people an opportunity to meet one of those people. 


> In this spirit, I believe that an 'integrationist' and less in-your-face approach, as a complement to associations and organizations, is useful in helping homophobes out of their predicament.


Thanks for your endorsement. That is the spirit I meant for this thread. 


> I think that, when confronted with, say, a homosexual co-worker, even the most outspoken, Bible-wielding bigot tends to see a homosexual _person_, and not just a walking personification of sexual perversion. 'Person' is the operative word, and what brings everyone together, rather than the label, which keeps people apart. If homophobes are engaged with on the personal level, in a personable way, couldn't many an inflammatory situation be defused?


This is true, but you wouldn't believe how many people still vote in line with their religious party line, nonetheless. There is a big disconnect there. And I don't know what the solution to that is.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

RIU said:


> Oh, yes, I'm heterosexual, and only "know" my wife. I must be pretty for men -I presume - because I had been not less than ten attempts to hit with me. My heart don't beat faster, no. And when is the opposite sex I must be so stupid, I never understand when it occours! Or I don't like to see it...


You sound like the perfect husband!  There are women and men who can only dream of such a loyal man as you.  

I am curious.  Do you judge others by your own standard?  I must personally admit that it is tempting to do.  But it's my personal belief we should resist the temptation As I understand it, this is also a Christian belief.  ("Judge not lest ye be judged.")  Although I am not Christian, I have embraced this tenet of Christianity.    


> My brother had the opportunity to talk it with my father, he died -my father- when I was 13 years old, I couldn't do it. For me, when I look a male or a female...well I never have and had doubt. I don't think that it was an important decision, it was another one only. But you need to think in a fact, _every time that I discover a male or female who wants to hit on me I'm choosing something._ Don't forget it.


  Let's be clear about what you are choosing here. You are choosing to go by your instincts.  You are not choosing to go with the female because in your religion it is a sin for you to go with a male.  That is a very important distinction.  Why should I not be allowed to choose based on my instinct?  That seems inherently unfair.


----------



## Victoria32

cuchuflete said:


> Did you decide, or simply take note of your feelings of attraction or lack of same?
> 
> At about that age I was "hit on" by heterosexual girls...It gave me a pleasing sensation...and by a homosexual man. In the later case I felt totally disinterested. I didn't think about it, analyse it, or attempt to apply logic or theology. I just followed my instincts. Did you have instincts at age seventeen?


Not really, I don't think... I have always lived more in my intellect. 


jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> Had your hormones already informed you of your heterosexual attractions, or were you equally open to both sexual orientations until you had experienced both?


I don't recall ever actually being attracted to anyone until I was in my 20s, and I have certainly never been particularly 'swept away'... 


la reine victoria said:


> Heterosexual men can suddenly change their sexuality. I don't know the reason why because it's not a subject I give much attention to.
> 
> One of my female cousins was happily married, with one daughter. One day her husband came home from work, packed a bag and said he was off to live with his boyfriend. My cousin and her daughter were devastated. He had been a model husband, certainly not one of those "always going out with the lads" types, nor someone who went out on his own.
> 
> His explanation was very matter of fact. "I've met a man at work and fallen in love with him. I can't live without him so I'm leaving you."
> 
> The same thing happened to a work colleague. He had been married for quite a long time and had three wonderful children. He was seduced by a gay man who worked with us, and he left his family in the same way as my cousin's husband did.
> 
> One often reads of married women who desert their family, having been seduced by a lesbian.
> 
> I can only conclude that this desire to be sexually united with someone of the same sex can lie dormant until something happens to awaken it.
> 
> Whatever the reason, I find it all very sad. It causes so much
> heartache.
> 
> These incidents, however, do not make me a homophobe. I accept that human beings are very diverse in their sexual practices.
> 
> As for a kinder view of homophobes. I feel we should respect everyone's right to their opinions. I have a girlfriend who is outraged by any portrayal of lesbian behaviour on television. She happily accepts homosexual men but is so scathing of lesbians that I sometimes wonder if she is "in the closet". She is a widow with three grown-up children. I just listen to her ranting and say nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> LRV


Those are really sad stories, LRV. I have heard similar... 


GEmatt said:


> . Actually, I think logical discussion with them is almost impossible, since I have great difficulty believing that faith and logic are compatible at all (I'm endlessly fascinated by scientists who believe in a God, for example; doesn't faith demand the _abdication_ of logic?),.
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, no!
Click to expand...


----------



## Selena1967

emma42 said:


> I think when I said "love is love; sexual attraction is sexual attraction" I was unclear. I merely meant that love and sexual attraction are equally valid, for want of a better word, _whether they are related to someone of the same sex or someone of the opposite sex._ I was not drawing a distinction between love and sexual attraction, although, obviously, the two are not the same.


 
Well emma, I assume that someday I could find out that my perfect soul mate is a woman whom I share my fears, my miseries, my happiness with and feel love and respect for her but not a sexual attraction such as I could feel for a man. 

Think, if you are a confused and lost teenager and people, who you really care, are telling you how wrong your feelings are, some type of perversion. Being honest, what would you do?

In my opinion, I would try to change my so-called 'options' thinking there is something wrong in me but even doing that, one day or the other, Mother Nature is going to remind that I'm not what I'm pretending to be . If I don't want to get crazy, I will have to accept myself for what I am not for what the rest of the World  thinks what I should be. That's what I'm saying.


----------



## emma42

Selena, I have absolutely no argument with you.  I think there has been a misunderstanding.


----------



## Outsider

la reine victoria said:


> I can only conclude that this desire to be sexually united with someone of the same sex can lie dormant until something happens to awaken it.
> 
> Whatever the reason, I find it all very sad. It causes so much
> heartache.
> 
> These incidents, however, do not make me a homophobe. I accept that human beings are very diverse in their sexual practices.


You might also remind yourself that it's more often than not with female lovers that middle aged, otherwise good husbands, run off.

My interpretation of such cases is not so much that there was something "dormant" which was suddenly awaken in those men, but that love of any sort is unpredictable, and it can knock on one's door when least expected.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

emma42 said:


> Selena, I have absolutely no argument with you. I think there has been a misunderstanding.


As I see it, you two are on the same page.  In this case, let's agree to agree.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

RIU said:


> I understand that you are deciding _not to choose_ now!


I am trying very hard to understand where you are coming from.  What do you mean Kajjo is not choosing to decide?  As I see it, he doesn't have to "choose" because he already "is."  



> I don't understand how can you speak, listen, feel or another one with your hormones.


Are you familiar with Mr. Spock on Star Trek?  I am tempted to ask if you are related to him.  I am interpreting your statement as you ALWAYS use logic in favor of emotion in every area of your life.  Am I correct?




> I'm not in your goose (correct?) but I think that you had tried the "_hit_ _on by heterosexual girls"_ and was easy for you to make your choose.


I am not sure what you are saying here.  What do you mean by "goose?"



> Is possible that you -people- don't believe that the human are more than an animal who only can follow its instinct?


I don't think people use instinct alone, but as animals, we behave by instinct when we show emotion of any kind.  Surely you agree with that.


----------



## RIU

jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> You sound like the perfect husband! There are women and men who can only dream of such a loyal man as you.
> 
> I am curious. Do you judge others by your own standard? I must personally admit that it is tempting to do. But it's my personal belief we should resist the temptation As I understand it, this is also a Christian belief. ("Judge not lest ye be judged.") Although I am not Christian, I have embraced this tenet of Christianity.
> Let's be clear about what you are choosing here. You are choosing to go by your instincts. You are not choosing to go with the female because in your religion it is a sin for you to go with a male. That is a very important distinction. Why should I not be allowed to choose based on my instinct? That seems inherently unfair.


 
Are you crazy? (sorry for the word) If you can ask to my wife she would said to you that is so difficult her marriage with me. The marriage is more than loyalty. Loyalty is included, of course, but there are mooooooooore things in that. I only said that I did a promise and I keep this. Yes, I did the promise _to my wife _wrap up on Catholic Church, but you are making a mistakeor you are a gullible if you think that I never do a sin. I'm worse than I would be. Is difficult to be a good catholic in our world, not today, I think since year number zero. Is so easy for you to remember me my rules while you are bragging to have no one. _That seems inherently unfair_ as you said.

JP, there are two profession that I never could do: surgeon and judge. I believe hardly un human freedom. You can do that you want, understanding that you freedom finish where started my own. That is respect only. But don't forget a fact: only you are the responsible of your actions. Is _your problem_ if finaly Heaven exist (You don't believe in that, I think). Is your problem if you are homosexual, atheist or salesman if you want. Are you judging me for coincidence?

If I go by my instincts... well I'm sure that you would hear to me not across WR. Why if somenoe follow their rational decision, their rational believe, etc. are you determined in call it an instinctive decision? There are two think wich are common in all comunities of the world: the sense of rhythm and the need of a religion. Do you think for this, that both are instictives?

Otherwise, you're free to reduce your life at instinctive reactions. You are free to justifiy your behaviour in the instinct. And you are free of think that you can do anything. _It's your problem_. Are you happy with your kind of life? Answer it to you, I will not do anything with this. In advance, I'm happy with mine.


----------



## emma42

Hello RIU.  *"You are free to justify your behaviour in the instinct".

*Sexual attraction and love _are_ instinctual.  We cannot choose to whom we are attracted, we can only choose whether to act on our instincts.  Are you saying that we have a choice in everything?  That we have no instincts?


----------



## RIU

jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> I am trying very hard to understand where you are coming from.  What do you mean Kajjo is not choosing to decide?  As I see it, he doesn't have to "choose" because he already "is."


 
I put you an example. I'm smoker. It's bad for my healt. But I enjoy smoking. My _instinct _say me that I mustn't smoke. But I'm enjoying smoking. I decide to smoke another one cigarrette. Have I the necessary cheek to say that I'm smoking by instinct? Or in my set of values I'm putting my pleasure up than my healt?



jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> Are you familiar with Mr. Spock on Star Trek?  I am tempted to ask if you are related to him.  I am interpreting your statement as you ALWAYS use logic in favor of emotion in every area of your life.  Am I correct?.




Another one _la velocidad con el tocino_. As I understand the series:

Mr Spock gives preference to community at ithe ndividuality. Including his own life (remember when he change de atomic battery (?) and latter he dies.

Kirck gives preference to individuality at the community. Well, he is the hero and obtain both.

Scotty gives preference to engine and loyalty to Kirck at community.

Data gives preference to statistic probability to himself.

Who of them are instinctive? Are all of them follow their own logical set?



jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> I am not sure what you are saying here.  What do you mean by "goose?"



In spanish we say _no estoy en tu piel ( o en tu pellejo)_ I'm not in your life.



jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> I don't think people use instinct alone, but as animals, we behave by instinct when we show emotion of any kind.  Surely you agree with that.



Of course, emotion of any kind... Sometimes when I'm correcting the conduct of my children I'm laughing into me. I understand their attitude because I didn't forget when I was child. I mustn't tolerate it not for me, but their future. If I tolerate it, tomorrow I need a supernany... Do you thik that I'm repressing my childs' instinct?

I only understand behave by instinct when you don't think in your action. You never think about your homosexuality? Then, I don't understand that it could be instinct.


----------



## emma42

RIU, your instinct does not say you must not smoke.  It is your _reason _which says that.

I think there is a fundamental difference here in forer@s understanding of "instinct".


----------



## RIU

emma42 said:


> Hello RIU.  *"You are free to justify your behaviour in the instinct".
> 
> *Sexual attraction and love _are_ instinctual.  We cannot choose to whom we are attracted, we can only choose whether to act on our instincts.  Are you saying that we have a choice in everything?  That we have no instincts?



Yes, you have a choice in everything that you do (24/7). You have instinct, of course, but _you __decide _what you want to follow. Otherwise, body attraction coul be instinctual but follow body attraction and love attraction no, I think, of course, for me, people are more than a beefsteak with eyes. At the sometimes, form me to you, there are some people that the most deep is their sleep.


----------



## RIU

emma42 said:


> RIU, your instinct does not say you must not smoke.  It is your _reason _which says that.
> 
> I think there is a fundamental difference here in forer@s understanding of "instinct".



And the peyed survival instinct? Where do you put it?


----------



## emma42

Sorry, RIU, I don't understand "peyed".  What does it mean?


----------



## GEmatt

jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> This is often seen in the Fred Phelps strain of "Christianity."


 
That was the name, yes! I've just read on wikipedia that the large majority of his brand of Baptism is related to him through blood or marriage, so I guess you could call it a 'genetic defect' rather than a Christian movement 



jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> you wouldn't believe how many people still vote in line with their religious party line, nonetheless. There is a big disconnect there. And I don't know what the solution to that is.


 
Doesn't it go back to what I mentioned about incitement to hatred? Why should such people have the privilege of voting, when the corollary of their vote is regression and repression? Isn't it enough that they enjoy freedom of speech? Taking a parallel example, look at what happened to Abu Hamza al-Masri; nothing against regular Islam, of course, but the point is that this is extreme anti-social behaviour that goes beyond having personal views kept to oneself, should be taken as the public upset it represents, and dealt with accordingly. And if it isn't being dealt with, then that raises the question of _why_ it is not being dealt with.

But there's nothing wrong with voting in line with one's religious persuasions. I have no problem with folks who wish to maintain the status quo - it's a natural desire, and I might end up that way one day, myself. Even better are the progressive ones who seek reconciliation and understanding at Sunday Mass, or whenever. The problem, I agree, is with Phelpsers and others, who effectively advocate regression and repression, through the "religion/ballot-box" medium. 

I don't hear much of the same kind of religion-affiliated anti-gay fervour in Europe, strangely. Maybe it's not as headline-grabbing over here; maybe I'm just not very perceptive to what's going on in my own 'hood. Would you say this kind of evangelistic homophobia is peculiar to the US?  I'm probably being very naïve, but over here it seems like bigotry is directed much more at foreigners than at gays, though that's for another thread...


----------



## RIU

emma42 said:


> Sorry, RIU, I don't understand "peyed".  What does it mean?



I would say _cacareado_ instinto de supervivencia.

http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=cacareado&dict=esen


----------



## emma42

Thanks, RIU.  "The so-called survival instinct"?  "The survival instinct that people go on about"?

Actually, I still don't know what your question is.  Sorry.  Also, are we going off-topic?  This seems to be developing into a discussion about "What is human instinct?"  Interesting, but possibly off-topic.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

RIU said:


> In spanish we say _no estoy en tu piel ( o en tu pellejo)_ I'm not in your life.


I see.  We say "I'm not in your shoes" in English.  



> Of course, emotion of any kind... Sometimes when I'm correcting the conduct of my children I'm laughing into me. I understand their attitude because I didn't forget when I was child. I mustn't tolerate it not for me, but their future. If I tolerate it, tomorrow I need a supernany... Do you thik that I'm repressing my childs' instinct?


You are right to repress some of the instincts of your children, as you put it.  You are training them up to be responsible citizens of Spain.  I have no argument with that whatsoever.  We come into this world very self-centered, and must be taught that for us to live in harmony we must sometimes pay attention to others' needs.  And that for our own good we should learn to repress the urge to indulge in destructive behavior.  We agree on that.  


> I only understand behave by instinct when you don't think in your action. You never think about your homosexuality? Then, I don't understand that it could be instinct.


 Sexual attraction is instinctual for me the same as it is for you, if you would be honest.  Do you have marital relations with your wife ONLY because it is your marital responsibility as a husband and it is a religious mandate that you go forth and multiply (have many children)?  Or is it because you happen to be sexually attracted to her?  It is the same thing in many gay relationships. People can still have an instinctual sexual attraction, but choose to have relations with this person and not that one.  Do you see we are talking about the same thing and that it's not a case of _la velocidad con el tocino?_


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

GEmatt said:


> Taking a parallel example, look at what happened to Abu Hamza al-Masri; nothing against regular Islam, of course, but the point is that this is extreme anti-social behaviour that goes beyond having personal views kept to oneself, should be taken as the public upset it represents, and dealt with accordingly. And if it isn't being dealt with, then that raises the question of _why_ it is not being dealt with.


 In many strictly Muslim cultures, Sharia law is the law of the land.  That would explain why there.  I will restrict my comment to that so as not to be accused of inflammatory speech.  



> But there's nothing wrong with voting in line with one's religious persuasions. I have no problem with folks who wish to maintain the status quo - it's a natural desire, and I might end up that way one day, myself.


I am kind of surprised to "hear" you say that. But then again, I must acknowledge that we are from a different cultural milieu. The status quo in this country is to keep gays and lesbians as second-class citizens and (other things that are not related to this thread).  


> I don't hear much of the same kind of religion-affiliated anti-gay fervour in Europe, strangely. Maybe it's not as headline-grabbing over here; maybe I'm just not very perceptive to what's going on in my own 'hood. Would you say this kind of evangelistic homophobia is peculiar to the US? I'm probably being very naïve, but over here it seems like bigotry is directed much more at foreigners than at gays, though that's for another thread


Are we just comparing Europe and the US?  I can't really say as I am not very familiar with Europe, but I can say this.  This country was founded on conservative religious beliefs, and immigrants to this country tended to be adherents of conservative religions.  So, it is a defining characteristic of the US, yes.


----------



## Nunty

In an interesting postscript to my post about the violent demonstrations protesting the Gay Pride parade in Jerusalem recently, I'd like to mention that the Israeli Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Israeli same-sex couples who are married in a civil ceremony abroad can register themselves  in the Interior Ministry here as married and enjoy all the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples. (There is no civil marriage in Israel and many couples who cannot be married in the country for religious regions choose to be married in a foreign civil ceremony.)

I don't know what that says about anything, but I felt it important to fill out the picture of the situation here. The decision, needless to say, has not gone without comment.


----------



## RIU

emma42 said:


> Thanks, RIU.  "The so-called survival instinct"?  "The survival instinct that people go on about"?



So called. All right. Thank you.



emma42 said:


> Actually, I still don't know what your question is.  Sorry.  Also, are we going off-topic?  This seems to be developing into a discussion about "What is human instinct?"  Interesting, but possibly off-topic.



Could be... but.. Who is the manager, our mind or our instinct? Do you want to start it? Or we have to count with permission of our moderators?



jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> I see.  We say "I'm not in your shoes" in English.



In your shoes? well, thank you. 




jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> Sexual attraction is instinctual for me the same as it is for you, if you would be honest.  Do you have marital relations with your wife ONLY because it is your marital responsibility as a husband and it is a religious mandate that you go forth and multiply (have many children)?  Or is it because you happen to be sexually attracted to her?  It is the same thing in many gay relationships. People can still have an instinctual sexual attraction, _*but choose to have *_relations with this person and not that one.  Do you see we are talking about the same thing and that it's not a case of _la velocidad con el tocino?_



Are you taken the bait or really you believe in that?


----------



## emma42

Hi RIU.  I am not saying that "so-called" is the correct translation.  I am asking you if I have understood you.

Also, I think that it is up to _all _forer@s to try to keep to the rules - it is in everybody's interests.  We should not just go off-topic and wait until a moderator tells us off.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

RIU said:


> Sexual attraction is instinctual for me the same as it is for you, if you would be honest. Do you have marital relations with your wife ONLY because it is your marital responsibility as a husband and it is a religious mandate that you go forth and multiply (have many children)? Or is it because you happen to be sexually attracted to her? It is the same thing in many gay relationships. People can still have an instinctual sexual attraction, _*but choose to have *_relations with this person and not that one. Do you see we are talking about the same thing and that it's not a case of _la velocidad con el tocino?_
> 
> Are you taken the bait or really you believe in that?


I am not sure what you are asking, but it seems to me you are suggestng that gay people have sex like animals with anyone that is physically appealing to them. If that is what you believe, then you really do have a loathing of gays. 

My argument follows perfect logic. In the same way *you choose* to not have relations with a woman who is not your wife, I can *choose not to* have relations with someone I am not committed to. If you can't see we're talking about the same thing, it's because you are *choosing* to allow your ingrained prejudice prevent you from understanding, which proves my point in the first post.

See my next post below.


----------



## RIU

emma42 said:


> Hi RIU.  I am not saying that "so-called" is the correct translation.  I am asking you if I have understood you.
> 
> OK I think that you understand it.
> 
> Also, I think that it is up to _all _forer@s to try to keep to the rules - it is in everybody's interests.  We should not just go off-topic and wait until a moderator tells us off.



All right. But I don't made the rules...


----------



## GEmatt

jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> In many strictly Muslim cultures, Sharia law is the law of the land. That would explain why there. I will restrict my comment to that so as not to be accused of inflammatory speech.


 
Hi again jp_fr_linguaphile,
I know very little of Sharia, just what I've followed in the news and such. But the gentleman I mentioned is not in a strictly Muslim culture; he is (was) in the middle of London, and his words extended to non-Muslims alike. Preaching draconian punishment for people of a system who transgress within that system might be despicable, but it does have an internal logic. That's one thing; actually preaching hatred across the board is another. But I don't want to go off-topic too much, interesting though it is 



jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> I am kind of surprised to "hear" you say that. But then again, I must acknowledge that we are from a different cultural milieu. The status quo in this country is to keep gays and lesbians as second-class citizens.


 
Yes, that's the point I was trying to make (clumsily, I guess). I'm as familiar with the US as you are with Europe, but see little issue 'this side of the pond' in voting conservative, as the Right that I know is more secular and progressive, I believe. I don't want to restrict your thread to US-Europe comparisons, however!



jp_fr_linguaphile said:


> This country was founded on conservative religious beliefs, and immigrants to this country tended to be adherents of conservative religions. So, it is a defining characteristic of the US, yes.


 
Very interesting.. do you think the processes towards equal rights in other countries has much bearing on what goes on in the US, then, in these matters?


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

I apologize for being hasty in my judgment of you, RIU.  I can tell that your intentions are good.  There just seems to be a little miscommunication between us.  
And it sounds like you are doing your best to be the best father to your children.  When in this country, there are so many children who are abandoned by their fathers, it's good to see your concern for yours.  I am only worried if you have a gay child. I encourage you to recognize that being gay is *not* a choice.  I and my friends are proof of that.  There *is *the choice of whether to express that love in a caring relationship or not.  It's the same for anyone who chooses celibacy.  Maybe it's easier for some than others to suppress their sexuality, but we all have one.


----------



## jp_fr_linguaphile

GEmatt said:


> Very interesting.. do you think the processes towards equal rights in other countries has much bearing on what goes on in the US, then, in these matters?


 In that it has indirectly caused a negative backlash against gays and lesbians in this country, yes, I think so. (Legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts has had the most galvanizing effect on the country, though.) This is only my personal opinion, and I could be wrong, but the majority of Americans I know seem to feel  superior to citizens of other countries (which is unjustifiable, in my opinion.)  It's a mentality that is born out of our "top" position in the world.  Consequently, most people I encounter in this part of the country don't feel compelled to emulate another country's social or international policies for that matter. 

I can imagine it now: a slough of posts attacking or supporting this statement.  Please refrain as it is not the subject of the post.  My purpose is only to answer the GEmatt's question.


----------

