Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Homophobes are Gay

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 3:31:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There's several studies that prove that the most homophobic men are the most turned on by homoerotic stimuli, but here's one of the best studies. Table 2 on the top of page 443 shows the results of being shown 4-minute video clips of heterosexual, lesbian, and male homosexual clips. The homophobic men had the greatest response to lesbian and male homosexual porn. Pretty jokes!
http://www.psychologytoday.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 3:45:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That reminds me of someone I know...
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 3:47:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 3:31:34 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There's several studies that prove that the most homophobic men are the most turned on by homoerotic stimuli, but here's one of the best studies. Table 2 on the top of page 443 shows the results of being shown 4-minute video clips of heterosexual, lesbian, and male homosexual clips. The homophobic men had the greatest response to lesbian and male homosexual porn. Pretty jokes!
http://www.psychologytoday.com...

What does "response" mean?

If I were to hate, loathe, and detest (or even possibly resent or fear) something with all my being, why wouldn't I respond to it more than other stimuli?
My work here is, finally, done.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 4:01:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 3:47:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:31:34 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There's several studies that prove that the most homophobic men are the most turned on by homoerotic stimuli, but here's one of the best studies. Table 2 on the top of page 443 shows the results of being shown 4-minute video clips of heterosexual, lesbian, and male homosexual clips. The homophobic men had the greatest response to lesbian and male homosexual porn. Pretty jokes!
http://www.psychologytoday.com...

What does "response" mean?

"Response" was measured in mm increase in penis circumference. Technique is called Penile plethysmography.

If I were to hate, loathe, and detest (or even possibly resent or fear) something with all my being, why wouldn't I respond to it more than other stimuli?

They responded in measurable physical arousal to something they oppose verbally.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 4:03:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 3:45:47 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
That reminds me of someone I know...

16kadams and http://www.debate.org... come to mind
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 4:04:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 4:03:11 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:45:47 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
That reminds me of someone I know...

16kadams and http://www.debate.org... come to mind

I was thinking of someone else but I won't call his name. I linked this thread to him tho. XD
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 4:52:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 4:01:54 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:47:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:31:34 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There's several studies that prove that the most homophobic men are the most turned on by homoerotic stimuli, but here's one of the best studies. Table 2 on the top of page 443 shows the results of being shown 4-minute video clips of heterosexual, lesbian, and male homosexual clips. The homophobic men had the greatest response to lesbian and male homosexual porn. Pretty jokes!
http://www.psychologytoday.com...

What does "response" mean?

"Response" was measured in mm increase in penis circumference. Technique is called Penile plethysmography.

If I were to hate, loathe, and detest (or even possibly resent or fear) something with all my being, why wouldn't I respond to it more than other stimuli?

They responded in measurable physical arousal to something they oppose verbally.

And doesn't that happen when a man is angry, and his adrenaline and testosterone start pumping?
My work here is, finally, done.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 8:08:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ahh... The Gay Agenda's (No. Hundreds of organizations, and thousands of activists working toward a political goal are not invisible) rhetoric and redefinitions!

Can you define the term "Homophobia" and tell the distinction between homophobic and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality?
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 12:02:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 4:03:11 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:45:47 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
That reminds me of someone I know...

16kadams and http://www.debate.org... come to mind

lol
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 12:04:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 3:31:34 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There's several studies that prove that the most homophobic men are the most turned on by homoerotic stimuli, but here's one of the best studies. Table 2 on the top of page 443 shows the results of being shown 4-minute video clips of heterosexual, lesbian, and male homosexual clips. The homophobic men had the greatest response to lesbian and male homosexual porn. Pretty jokes!
http://www.psychologytoday.com...

o boi.
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 2:16:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 8:08:46 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ahh... The Gay Agenda's (No. Hundreds of organizations, and thousands of activists working toward a political goal are not invisible) rhetoric and redefinitions!

Can you define the term "Homophobia" and tell the distinction between homophobic and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality?

Look. Homosexuality can not be a mental illness since, according to psychiatry, it is not patological. Homosexuality can not be unnatural since, according to biology, it is present in thousands of animal species. It can not be detrimental since it is selected possitively through evolution. It can not even be considered unchristian since God made homosexuality and also made homosexuals.

So, if you can not appeal to psychiatry, biology, health, and not even to religion. You can only appeal to homophobia to be against homosexuality. And thus there's no such a thing as "non-homophobic opposition". You are an homophobe, GET OVER IT.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 2:18:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 3:31:34 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There's several studies that prove that the most homophobic men are the most turned on by homoerotic stimuli, but here's one of the best studies. Table 2 on the top of page 443 shows the results of being shown 4-minute video clips of heterosexual, lesbian, and male homosexual clips. The homophobic men had the greatest response to lesbian and male homosexual porn. Pretty jokes!
http://www.psychologytoday.com...

This study is flawed. It feels good to poke fun at homophobic men but the greater response could be due to hate or feeling uncomfortable. If they wanted to do the study correctly they should've attached electrodes to the penis to see if blood flow increased to it while they watched homoerotic scenes.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 2:20:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 3:31:34 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There's several studies that prove that the most homophobic men are the most turned on by homoerotic stimuli, but here's one of the best studies. Table 2 on the top of page 443 shows the results of being shown 4-minute video clips of heterosexual, lesbian, and male homosexual clips. The homophobic men had the greatest response to lesbian and male homosexual porn. Pretty jokes!
http://www.psychologytoday.com...

Nevermind I thought you were referring to a different study, apparently that one did something similar to what I suggested. I shoul've read it before assuming.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 3:53:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 2:16:49 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/29/2014 8:08:46 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ahh... The Gay Agenda's (No. Hundreds of organizations, and thousands of activists working toward a political goal are not invisible) rhetoric and redefinitions!

Can you define the term "Homophobia" and tell the distinction between homophobic and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality?

Look. Homosexuality can not be a mental illness since, according to psychiatry, it is not patological. Homosexuality can not be unnatural since, according to biology, it is present in thousands of animal species. It can not be detrimental since it is selected possitively through evolution. It can not even be considered unchristian since God made homosexuality and also made homosexuals.

So, if you can not appeal to psychiatry, biology, health, and not even to religion. You can only appeal to homophobia to be against homosexuality. And thus there's no such a thing as "non-homophobic opposition". You are an homophobe, GET OVER IT.

Lol, hilarious.

Psychiatry: Psychiatry is also having flip-flops in considering pedophilia (or any sexual behavior as long as it doesn't cause stress) a mental illness. Yay sexual revolution! Also, by definition a subjective state of mind is subject to change if the desire exists; if you believe pedophilia is changeable, there is no reason to believe homosexuality is changeable. If these people don't exist, then why is the B mentioned in the oh-so-popular acronym "LGBT". Hello! anybody remember them?

Biology: Rather than comparing humans to animals who can do all sort of weird s*** like infanticide, matricide, and rape how about you acknowledge anthropomorphism? That is a very simplistic view of biology. Animals can have homosexuality based in instinct, which can happen for many exotic reasons like establishing dominance hierarchy (which can sometimes result in a fight), and perhaps because their senses got confused (like they do when they go cannibal). Bird poop are natural, I don't see anyone eating them.

Health: Lol. Gawd. You are assuming that genetics are the main factory that brings homosexual behavior. Last I've heard, genetic determinism was refuted a few decades ago. Oh, and pray tell what net-positive evolutionary advantage homosexual behavior has, and how these utilitarian genes can be inherited when minorities within a minority conceive. And lol! Homosexuality is healthier than heterosexuality!

Religion: Dude... We have autism, down syndrome, schizophrenia, pathogens, paralysis, Hitler, natural disasters, birth defects, ALS, etc... Our purpose of life isn't to have one giant party, OK?

You didn't define "homophobia". Can you please define it?
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 3:53:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 2:18:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:31:34 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There's several studies that prove that the most homophobic men are the most turned on by homoerotic stimuli, but here's one of the best studies. Table 2 on the top of page 443 shows the results of being shown 4-minute video clips of heterosexual, lesbian, and male homosexual clips. The homophobic men had the greatest response to lesbian and male homosexual porn. Pretty jokes!
http://www.psychologytoday.com...

This study is flawed. It feels good to poke fun at homophobic men but the greater response could be due to hate or feeling uncomfortable. If they wanted to do the study correctly they should've attached electrodes to the penis to see if blood flow increased to it while they watched homoerotic scenes.

That has to be one of the worst arguments I've seen on this site. And I've been here almost three years now.

Firstly, in a common sense frame that makes no sense. If you are not sexually attracted to X, you will not show high sexual arousal for X. But, these homophobic men *did have* high sexual arousal in response to gay porn ( not just high, but the highest of the two tested groups).

Secondly, the anxiety, uneasiness, and hatred initiate the fight or flight response, which kills erections. "Medications that create blood flow to the penis can't help when an erection is blocked by the fear or anxiety of the fight-or-flight response," says Feloney.

Thank you. Try again to rationalize this reality away.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 6:25:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 3:53:21 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/29/2014 2:16:49 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/29/2014 8:08:46 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ahh... The Gay Agenda's (No. Hundreds of organizations, and thousands of activists working toward a political goal are not invisible) rhetoric and redefinitions!

Can you define the term "Homophobia" and tell the distinction between homophobic and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality?

Look. Homosexuality can not be a mental illness since, according to psychiatry, it is not patological. Homosexuality can not be unnatural since, according to biology, it is present in thousands of animal species. It can not be detrimental since it is selected possitively through evolution. It can not even be considered unchristian since God made homosexuality and also made homosexuals.

So, if you can not appeal to psychiatry, biology, health, and not even to religion. You can only appeal to homophobia to be against homosexuality. And thus there's no such a thing as "non-homophobic opposition". You are an homophobe, GET OVER IT.

Lol, hilarious.

Psychiatry: Psychiatry is also having flip-flops in considering pedophilia (or any sexual behavior as long as it doesn't cause stress) a mental illness. Yay sexual revolution! Also, by definition a subjective state of mind is subject to change if the desire exists; if you believe pedophilia is changeable, there is no reason to believe homosexuality is changeable. If these people don't exist, then why is the B mentioned in the oh-so-popular acronym "LGBT". Hello! anybody remember them?

Yes, because psychiatry is full of biased people that love homosexuals and thus they can not help but to hide this disastrous mental disease under the politically correct euphemism "sexual orientation". They are afraid of the famous LGTB assassins.

Biology: Rather than comparing humans to animals who can do all sort of weird s*** like infanticide, matricide, and rape how about you acknowledge anthropomorphism? That is a very simplistic view of biology. Animals can have homosexuality based in instinct, which can happen for many exotic reasons like establishing dominance hierarchy (which can sometimes result in a fight), and perhaps because their senses got confused (like they do when they go cannibal).

Oh but indeed! Rape, killer instinct, domination and confusion at maximum splendor: https://www.youtube.com...

Bird poop are natural, I don't see anyone eating them.

That doesn't make it unnatural.

Health: Lol. Gawd. You are assuming that genetics are the main factory that brings homosexual behavior. Last I've heard, genetic determinism was refuted a few decades ago. Oh, and pray tell what net-positive evolutionary advantage homosexual behavior has, and how these utilitarian genes can be inherited when minorities within a minority conceive. And lol! Homosexuality is healthier than heterosexuality!

Never assumed anything. I'm talking about empirical data: the more complex is the specie, the more prevalent is homosexuality. This means homosexuality is selected positively, something impossible if it were a detrimental trait. Your interpretation of the data, or wether you can see the usefulness of the trait or not, are irrelevant.

Religion: Dude... We have autism, down syndrome, schizophrenia, pathogens, paralysis, Hitler, natural disasters, birth defects, ALS, etc... Our purpose of life isn't to have one giant party, OK?

You didn't define "homophobia". Can you please define it?

I don't need to. If you have access to Debate.org, then you have access to an online dictionary.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 10:41:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 6:25:21 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/29/2014 3:53:21 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/29/2014 2:16:49 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/29/2014 8:08:46 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ahh... The Gay Agenda's (No. Hundreds of organizations, and thousands of activists working toward a political goal are not invisible) rhetoric and redefinitions!

Can you define the term "Homophobia" and tell the distinction between homophobic and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality?

Look. Homosexuality can not be a mental illness since, according to psychiatry, it is not patological. Homosexuality can not be unnatural since, according to biology, it is present in thousands of animal species. It can not be detrimental since it is selected possitively through evolution. It can not even be considered unchristian since God made homosexuality and also made homosexuals.

So, if you can not appeal to psychiatry, biology, health, and not even to religion. You can only appeal to homophobia to be against homosexuality. And thus there's no such a thing as "non-homophobic opposition". You are an homophobe, GET OVER IT.

Lol, hilarious.

Psychiatry: Psychiatry is also having flip-flops in considering pedophilia (or any sexual behavior as long as it doesn't cause stress) a mental illness. Yay sexual revolution! Also, by definition a subjective state of mind is subject to change if the desire exists; if you believe pedophilia is changeable, there is no reason to believe homosexuality is changeable. If these people don't exist, then why is the B mentioned in the oh-so-popular acronym "LGBT". Hello! anybody remember them?

Yes, because psychiatry is full of biased people that love homosexuals and thus they can not help but to hide this disastrous mental disease under the politically correct euphemism "sexual orientation". They are afraid of the famous LGTB assassins.

Exactly! Militant advocates are sooo peaceful! And the decision was made on the basis consensus and new research discoveries!

Biology: Rather than comparing humans to animals who can do all sort of weird s*** like infanticide, matricide, and rape how about you acknowledge anthropomorphism? That is a very simplistic view of biology. Animals can have homosexuality based in instinct, which can happen for many exotic reasons like establishing dominance hierarchy (which can sometimes result in a fight), and perhaps because their senses got confused (like they do when they go cannibal).

Oh but indeed! Rape, killer instinct, domination and confusion at maximum splendor: https://www.youtube.com...

Yes! Instincts got hormone overload!

Bird poop are natural, I don't see anyone eating them.

That doesn't make it unnatural.

That also doesn't make it delicious.

Health: Lol. Gawd. You are assuming that genetics are the main factory that brings homosexual behavior. Last I've heard, genetic determinism was refuted a few decades ago. Oh, and pray tell what net-positive evolutionary advantage homosexual behavior has, and how these utilitarian genes can be inherited when minorities within a minority conceive. And lol! Homosexuality is healthier than heterosexuality!

Never assumed anything. I'm talking about empirical data: the more complex is the specie, the more prevalent is homosexuality. This means homosexuality is selected positively, something impossible if it were a detrimental trait. Your interpretation of the data, or wether you can see the usefulness of the trait or not, are irrelevant.

Again, you are ignoring anthropomorphism and the fact the humans are conscious. Pray tell, do homosexuals do homosexuality to establish dominance or woo the opposite gender? Do animals perform homosexuality because they fell in love with each other? Your argument does not follow thus not valid, so you need to provide evolutionary advantage in humans.

You are begging the question. Are genetic factors overwhelming (ICD)? In other words, are homosexuals capable in not engaging fellatio?

Religion: Dude... We have autism, down syndrome, schizophrenia, pathogens, paralysis, Hitler, natural disasters, birth defects, ALS, etc... Our purpose of life isn't to have one giant party, OK?

You didn't define "homophobia". Can you please define it?

I don't need to. If you have access to Debate.org, then you have access to an online dictionary.

And how do I know it is the definition you are using?
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 10:48:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"There's several studies that prove that the most homophobic men are the most turned on by homoerotic stimuli"

Well, this explains why gays all hate each other.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 5:07:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 10:41:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Exactly! Militant advocates are sooo peaceful! And the decision was made on the basis consensus and new research discoveries!

At last we agree on something!

Yes! Instincts got hormone overload!

Awww sure sweetie!

That also doesn't make it delicious.

How typical of christians! They somehow know what's good and what's bad, what's natural and what's not, but now they even know what's delicious and what's not! They are like... SO wise bubu!

Again, you are ignoring anthropomorphism and the fact the humans are conscious. Pray tell, do homosexuals do homosexuality to establish dominance or woo the opposite gender? Do animals perform homosexuality because they fell in love with each other?

You yet have to prove that: 1) Animals are not conscious. 2) Animals don't fall in love.

Your argument does not follow thus not valid, so you need to provide evolutionary advantage in humans.

I don't need to provide anything. As I said, one thing is the empirical data that shows homosexuality is not detrimental to animals, and the other thing is your (or my) irrelevant interpretation of homosexuality's apparent advantages/disvantages.

You are begging the question. Are genetic factors overwhelming (ICD)? In other words, are homosexuals capable in not engaging fellatio?

As u may know, genes have not the power of controling your brain so no. Even if you are an homosexual, you don't have to have sex with men if you don't want to. Although I don't think celibacy is very healthy.

And how do I know it is the definition you are using?

Then I will figure out a definition myself since you are not interested on academic definitions. Don't worry, mine is much better and less boring:

Homophobia: A severe mental disease, usually prominent in american republicans, leading one to:
- Hide own repressed sexuality.
- Innacurately use Bible quotings for the justification of killing people.
- Restrict the rights of millions.
- Have an excuse to pursue homosexuals everywhere without appearing gay.
- Look masculine by calling things "Gay".

You are welcome!
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 3:48:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 2:16:49 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/29/2014 8:08:46 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ahh... The Gay Agenda's (No. Hundreds of organizations, and thousands of activists working toward a political goal are not invisible) rhetoric and redefinitions!

Can you define the term "Homophobia" and tell the distinction between homophobic and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality?

Look. Homosexuality can not be a mental illness since, according to psychiatry, it is not patological. Homosexuality can not be unnatural since, according to biology, it is present in thousands of animal species. It can not be detrimental since it is selected possitively through evolution. It can not even be considered unchristian since God made homosexuality and also made homosexuals.

So, if you can not appeal to psychiatry, biology, health, and not even to religion. You can only appeal to homophobia to be against homosexuality. And thus there's no such a thing as "non-homophobic opposition". You are an homophobe, GET OVER IT.

^ This.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 4:14:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 2:16:49 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/29/2014 8:08:46 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ahh... The Gay Agenda's (No. Hundreds of organizations, and thousands of activists working toward a political goal are not invisible) rhetoric and redefinitions!

Can you define the term "Homophobia" and tell the distinction between homophobic and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality?

Look. Homosexuality can not be a mental illness since, according to psychiatry, it is not patological. Homosexuality can not be unnatural since, according to biology, it is present in thousands of animal species. It can not be detrimental since it is selected possitively through evolution. It can not even be considered unchristian since God made homosexuality and also made homosexuals.

So, if you can not appeal to psychiatry, biology, health, and not even to religion. You can only appeal to homophobia to be against homosexuality. And thus there's no such a thing as "non-homophobic opposition". You are an homophobe, GET OVER IT.

God made murderers too. And Bible verses condemning homosexuality have not been overridden by any New Testament verses. Religion is still a valid reason to object to homosexuality. Your train of thought has fallen off the track.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 4:26:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 2:16:49 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/29/2014 8:08:46 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ahh... The Gay Agenda's (No. Hundreds of organizations, and thousands of activists working toward a political goal are not invisible) rhetoric and redefinitions!

Can you define the term "Homophobia" and tell the distinction between homophobic and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality?

Look. Homosexuality can not be a mental illness since, according to psychiatry, it is not patological.
Appeal to authority.
Homosexuality can not be unnatural since, according to biology, it is present in thousands of animal species.
Humans do things animals don't do en masse, like mate for life, or farm.
Further, are these homosexual animals truly homosexual, or releasing themselves on whatever (like my leg), or are they forced to "mate" with others due to being too weak to fight the alpha males.
Some day I'll do research on this, but if you can link me to a source taking about lesbian animals, I may well reconsider this.

It can not be detrimental since it is selected possitively through evolution.
This doesn't make since. I think circular logic applies here.
Assuming homosexuality is not natural, but learned or choice, then it is impossible to stamp out, and has nothing to do with evolution.

It can not even be considered unchristian since God made homosexuality and also made homosexuals.
By this logic, nothing is a sin, not envy, greed, sloth, wrath, lust, pride, or the other one, since they are all emotions created by God.
Same with murder, rape, theft, etc.
Pretty sure the ten commandments contradicts this heavily.


So, if you can not appeal to psychiatry, biology, health, and not even to religion. You can only appeal to homophobia to be against homosexuality. And thus there's no such a thing as "non-homophobic opposition". You are an homophobe, GET OVER IT.

Why can't you be opposed to something without having personal feelings about it?
For example, I am for legalizing prostitution, but look down upon them and their clientele.
My work here is, finally, done.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 4:54:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 2:16:49 PM, Otokage wrote:
Look. Homosexuality can not be a mental illness since, according to psychiatry, it is not patological.

Pretty the consensus is it is not a medical illness.

Homosexuality can not be unnatural since, according to biology, it is present in thousands of animal species

So you approve of cannibalism, rape, murder, slavery, and eating of children?

It can not be detrimental since it is selected possitively through evolution.

Source?

It can not even be considered unchristian since God made homosexuality and also made homosexuals.

That's maybe the stupidest logic I have ever heard. Studies show genetic links to murder, violence , alcoholism, and pedophilia. Do you approve of all of these?

So, if you can not appeal to psychiatry, biology, health, and not even to religion.

Actually you could very well appeal to the last two due to the massive prominence of STDs in the gay community, and clear statements against it in every religion.

Can to be against homosexuality. And thus there's no such a thing as "non-homophobic opposition". You are an homophobe, GET OVER IT.

No, I'm not. Just because I don't think some things are morally right (alcoholism, atheism, promiscuity, premarital sex, homosexuality, etc.) doesn't mean I am afraid of or hate anyone who does them. You can disagree with someone's actions and still like and respect them as a person.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 5:38:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 4:54:22 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/29/2014 2:16:49 PM, Otokage wrote:
Look. Homosexuality can not be a mental illness since, according to psychiatry, it is not patological.

Pretty the consensus is it is not a medical illness.
Sexuality is not illness. "Illness" is synonymous to "not being in a state of full health", and there is no proven *direct* correlation to homosexuality and being inherently less healthy mentally or physically.
Homosexuality can not be unnatural since, according to biology, it is present in thousands of animal species

So you approve of cannibalism, rape, murder, slavery, and eating of children?
This is such a slippery slope.. you can approve of something in nature without having to approve of *every* other thing that occurs in nature.

The point was that homosexuality is natural, which is in itself a red herring. Whether or not male baboons like to get it on doesn't matter, the only reason people debate it is to appease fundamentalist christians who think homosexuality must be bad because it doesn't make sense as a direct result of their god.

Homosexual persons don't need to be "natural" to be treated rightfully and equally within society, even though they are.

It can not be detrimental since it is selected possitively through evolution.

Source?

It can not even be considered unchristian since God made homosexuality and also made homosexuals.

That's maybe the stupidest logic I have ever heard. Studies show genetic links to murder, violence , alcoholism, and pedophilia. Do you approve of all of these?
Violence, alcoholism, and pedophilia all have a definite capability of harming someone without consent. Homosexuality is none of these.

Again, this is a slippery slope. Homosexuality is genetic - that in no way infers I have to support every other genetic condition on earth.

So, if you can not appeal to psychiatry, biology, health, and not even to religion.

Actually you could very well appeal to the last two due to the massive prominence of STDs in the gay community, and clear statements against it in every religion.
The idealism of any religion can not be scientifically proven; homosexuality is a scientific concept.

Also, there is no correlation of STD's to homosexuals, there's a massive prominence of STD's amongst people who partake in anal sex.

Anal sex - which is the prime cause of the higher prominence of STD's amongst homosexuals - and homosexuality in itself are not directly correlated. There are homosexuals who will never partake in sodomy or anal sex throughout their entire lives.

Can to be against homosexuality. And thus there's no such a thing as "non-homophobic opposition". You are an homophobe, GET OVER IT.

No, I'm not. Just because I don't think some things are morally right (alcoholism, atheism, promiscuity, premarital sex, homosexuality, etc.) doesn't mean I am afraid of or hate anyone who does them. You can disagree with someone's actions and still like and respect them as a person.
Definition of homophobia:
"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

Not only is your aversion and discriminative nature towards homosexuality inherently irrational as per the definition of homophobia , the fact that people are concerned about what we do amongst ourselves and so deathly opposed to us being respected probably means they fear what would happen if we were treated the same way as everybody else.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 5:48:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 5:38:28 PM, Daltonian wrote:

No, I'm not. Just because I don't think some things are morally right (alcoholism, atheism, promiscuity, premarital sex, homosexuality, etc.) doesn't mean I am afraid of or hate anyone who does them. You can disagree with someone's actions and still like and respect them as a person.
Definition of homophobia:
"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

Not only is your aversion and discriminative nature towards homosexuality inherently irrational as per the definition of homophobia , the fact that people are concerned about what we do amongst ourselves and so deathly opposed to us being respected probably means they fear what would happen if we were treated the same way as everybody else.

So, if I am perfectly fine with legal matters of gays, and willing to let my neighbors live in peace, but I do not ever invite them over, because I believe they live in sin, and I don't want that in my house, is that homophobia?
What would be a "rational" reason to dislike someone, anyway?
My work here is, finally, done.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 5:55:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 5:48:29 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/30/2014 5:38:28 PM, Daltonian wrote:

No, I'm not. Just because I don't think some things are morally right (alcoholism, atheism, promiscuity, premarital sex, homosexuality, etc.) doesn't mean I am afraid of or hate anyone who does them. You can disagree with someone's actions and still like and respect them as a person.
Definition of homophobia:
"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

Not only is your aversion and discriminative nature towards homosexuality inherently irrational as per the definition of homophobia , the fact that people are concerned about what we do amongst ourselves and so deathly opposed to us being respected probably means they fear what would happen if we were treated the same way as everybody else.

So, if I am perfectly fine with legal matters of gays, and willing to let my neighbors live in peace, but I do not ever invite them over, because I believe they live in sin, and I don't want that in my house, is that homophobia?
What would be a "rational" reason to dislike someone, anyway?
In all technicality, yes, because you're being discriminative towards homosexuals about who you invite to dinner. Motivated discrimination towards people for the reason of their homosexuality fits under the definition of "homophobia". (http://www.reference.com...)

In terms of "rational reasons to dislike someone", that's all up to interpretation, but in my opinion disliking someone for the sole reason that said person enjoys intercourse with someone of the same sex isn't really a "rational" reason to dislike someone.. as opposed to if they had a vile personality or were sadistic or cruel.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 6:34:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 5:38:28 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 8/30/2014 4:54:22 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/29/2014 2:16:49 PM, Otokage wrote:
Look. Homosexuality can not be a mental illness since, according to psychiatry, it is not patological.

Pretty the consensus is it is not a medical illness.
Sexuality is not illness. "Illness" is synonymous to "not being in a state of full health", and there is no proven *direct* correlation to homosexuality and being inherently less healthy mentally or physically.

And I agree with that.

Homosexuality can not be unnatural since, according to biology, it is present in thousands of animal species

So you approve of cannibalism, rape, murder, slavery, and eating of children?
This is such a slippery slope.. you can approve of something in nature without having to approve of *every* other thing that occurs in nature.

Sure. But using nature as a justification for something being right is terrible logic.

The point was that homosexuality is natural, which is in itself a red herring. Whether or not male baboons like to get it on doesn't matter, the only reason people debate it is to appease fundamentalist christians who think homosexuality must be bad because it doesn't make sense as a direct result of their god.

Nobody debates whether or not some animals have sex with other animals of the same sex. It's a red herring to argue it must be right because animals do it, without regard to why they do it or whether or not significant numbers of animals take lifetime same-sex partners, raise young animals, etc.

Homosexual persons don't need to be "natural" to be treated rightfully and equally within society, even though they are.

Agreed, and I support equal treatment of them.

It can not be detrimental since it is selected possitively through evolution.

Source?

It can not even be considered unchristian since God made homosexuality and also made homosexuals.

That's maybe the stupidest logic I have ever heard. Studies show genetic links to murder, violence , alcoholism, and pedophilia. Do you approve of all of these?
Violence, alcoholism, and pedophilia all have a definite capability of harming someone without consent. Homosexuality is none of these.

If you want to argue simply being homosexual (attraction to other men) doesn't harm anyone, how can you say pedophilia (attraction to adolescents) harms people in and of itself? Anyone is capable of abstaining from sex.

Again, this is a slippery slope. Homosexuality is genetic - that in no way infers I have to support every other genetic condition on earth.

It's your problem for devising logic that leads to it. There are perfectly valid reasons for endorsing homosexuality, and genetics/animals are not some of them. Using it as justification naturally leads to the question of 'why endorse that, but not these other genetic things'?, because that is a natural consequence of your question. It's like saying "I oppose war because killing people is wrong", and then complaining when somebody asks whether or not you think people should be able to defend themselves.

So, if you can not appeal to psychiatry, biology, health, and not even to religion.

Actually you could very well appeal to the last two due to the massive prominence of STDs in the gay community, and clear statements against it in every religion.
The idealism of any religion can not be scientifically proven; homosexuality is a scientific concept.

Also, there is no correlation of STD's to homosexuals, there's a massive prominence of STD's amongst people who partake in anal sex.

Anal sex - which is the prime cause of the higher prominence of STD's amongst homosexuals - and homosexuality in itself are not directly correlated. There are homosexuals who will never partake in sodomy or anal sex throughout their entire lives.

It is nice to see someone note that homosexuality (attraction to the same sex) and homosexual sex are not one and the same. You and I see to agree homosexuals can abstain from gay sex. In that regard, you and I have similar views here - we both agree they have the right to do it, the only difference is I would, personally, prefer they abstain from gay sex. How does that make me homophobic?

Can to be against homosexuality. And thus there's no such a thing as "non-homophobic opposition". You are an homophobe, GET OVER IT.

No, I'm not. Just because I don't think some things are morally right (alcoholism, atheism, promiscuity, premarital sex, homosexuality, etc.) doesn't mean I am afraid of or hate anyone who does them. You can disagree with someone's actions and still like and respect them as a person.
Definition of homophobia:
"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

Not only is your aversion and discriminative nature towards homosexuality inherently irrational as per the definition of homophobia , the fact that people are concerned about what we do amongst ourselves and so deathly opposed to us being respected probably means they fear what would happen if we were treated the same way as everybody else.

Nice straw man there. The definition you provided requires an 'irrational fear' of homosexuals or homosexuality, and discriminate against them. You can certainly argue my stance is irrational (I would disagree, as you reject my system of rationality), but you can hardly argue I am afraid of homosexuals/homosexuality or that I discriminate against them. I have no fear of homosexuality/homosexuals, and I don't discriminate against them, either in policy (ie. I oppose gay marriage, but only because I think government should not define marriage) or in practice (ie. I treat everyone on this site equally, and I don't confront or discuss with anyone what they do in their bedroom). Thus your entire argument is unfounded and wrong.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 6:49:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 5:55:32 PM, Daltonian wrote:
At 8/30/2014 5:48:29 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/30/2014 5:38:28 PM, Daltonian wrote:

No, I'm not. Just because I don't think some things are morally right (alcoholism, atheism, promiscuity, premarital sex, homosexuality, etc.) doesn't mean I am afraid of or hate anyone who does them. You can disagree with someone's actions and still like and respect them as a person.
Definition of homophobia:
"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

Not only is your aversion and discriminative nature towards homosexuality inherently irrational as per the definition of homophobia , the fact that people are concerned about what we do amongst ourselves and so deathly opposed to us being respected probably means they fear what would happen if we were treated the same way as everybody else.

So, if I am perfectly fine with legal matters of gays, and willing to let my neighbors live in peace, but I do not ever invite them over, because I believe they live in sin, and I don't want that in my house, is that homophobia?
What would be a "rational" reason to dislike someone, anyway?
In all technicality, yes, because you're being discriminative towards homosexuals about who you invite to dinner. Motivated discrimination towards people for the reason of their homosexuality fits under the definition of "homophobia". (http://www.reference.com...)

So, in your opinion, no one can disagree/dislike homosexuals or their agendas without being a homophobe, which means there is no difference in degree of actual hatred/discrimination and simply an aversion/dislike/being uncomfortable.

In terms of "rational reasons to dislike someone", that's all up to interpretation, but in my opinion disliking someone for the sole reason that said person enjoys intercourse with someone of the same sex isn't really a "rational" reason to dislike someone.. as opposed to if they had a vile personality or were sadistic or cruel.

Why not?
People dislike people who want to have sex with animals, children, the dead, family members. Is this equally irrational?
People dislike people who allow themselves to be manipulated and taken advantage of, abused, beaten, etc. I've known people who will not associate with others simply because of their boyfriend (and the fact that he does X).
Hell, people discriminate and avoid people based on job or income. You don't see many doctors hanging out with machinists.
People dislike, discriminate, and avoid people who make lifestyle choices as well, like drugs, alcohol, religion, spanking their children, or even political alignment.

Why are any of these more rational or acceptable than against gays?
My work here is, finally, done.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 6:57:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 6:34:17 PM, TN05 wrote:
Sure. But using nature as a justification for something being right is terrible logic.
It goes for the reverse as well. Too often, people will call homosexuality "unnatural" when trying to prove why it is morally wrong.

The point was that homosexuality is natural, which is in itself a red herring. Whether or not male baboons like to get it on doesn't matter, the only reason people debate it is to appease fundamentalist christians who think homosexuality must be bad because it doesn't make sense as a direct result of their god.

Nobody debates whether or not some animals have sex with other animals of the same sex. It's a red herring to argue it must be right because animals do it, without regard to why they do it or whether or not significant numbers of animals take lifetime same-sex partners, raise young animals, etc.
The entire issue of whether or not homosexuality is or is not natural is a red herring, not just the animals part.

Homosexual persons don't need to be "natural" to be treated rightfully and equally within society, even though they are.

Agreed, and I support equal treatment of them.
So long as marriage is recognized federally, they are not being treated equally.
The only instance in which I would not support the nationwide legalization of gay marriage would be if civil unions were a universal platform and marriage was an independent institution granted at will by individual churches. I think I half-agree with you on this point.
Violence, alcoholism, and pedophilia all have a definite capability of harming someone without consent. Homosexuality is none of these.

If you want to argue simply being homosexual (attraction to other men) doesn't harm anyone, how can you say pedophilia (attraction to adolescents) harms people in and of itself? Anyone is capable of abstaining from sex.
Homosexual actions are not inherently harmful, whilst pedophilic ones are.

Again, this is a slippery slope. Homosexuality is genetic - that in no way infers I have to support every other genetic condition on earth.

It's your problem for devising logic that leads to it. There are perfectly valid reasons for endorsing homosexuality, and genetics/animals are not some of them. Using it as justification naturally leads to the question of 'why endorse that, but not these other genetic things'?, because that is a natural consequence of your question. It's like saying "I oppose war because killing people is wrong", and then complaining when somebody asks whether or not you think people should be able to defend themselves.

Actually you could very well appeal to the last two due to the massive prominence of STDs in the gay community, and clear statements against it in every religion.
The idealism of any religion can not be scientifically proven; homosexuality is a scientific concept.

Also, there is no correlation of STD's to homosexuals, there's a massive prominence of STD's amongst people who partake in anal sex.

Anal sex - which is the prime cause of the higher prominence of STD's amongst homosexuals - and homosexuality in itself are not directly correlated. There are homosexuals who will never partake in sodomy or anal sex throughout their entire lives.

It is nice to see someone note that homosexuality (attraction to the same sex) and homosexual sex are not one and the same. You and I see to agree homosexuals can abstain from gay sex. In that regard, you and I have similar views here - we both agree they have the right to do it, the only difference is I would, personally, prefer they abstain from gay sex. How does that make me homophobic?
This doesn't make you homophobic, though the entire argument riddles down to how literally we define "sex" - is sensitive touching sex?

Whilst citing anything to do with anal intercourse as a reason for homosexuality's immorality is invalid, it accomplishes nothing to redirect the controversy from homosexuality in itself to homosexual acts - which is a different phobia in itself.

Think of it this way: Anal sex is not exclusively homosexual, but having anal sex with another member of the same sex is an exclusively homosexual act. If you have an aversion towards exclusively homosexual acts, does that make you homophobic? I'm not entirely sure. It makes you phobic of homosexual acts (or just maybe phobic of anal sex/sodomy, I don't know what your beliefs are about male-female anal sex).

I still don't think it's rational to dislike someone because they like anal sex, but I suppose it doesn't fall strictly under the definition of "homophobia"
No, I'm not. Just because I don't think some things are morally right (alcoholism, atheism, promiscuity, premarital sex, homosexuality, etc.) doesn't mean I am afraid of or hate anyone who does them. You can disagree with someone's actions and still like and respect them as a person.
Definition of homophobia:
"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

Not only is your aversion and discriminative nature towards homosexuality inherently irrational as per the definition of homophobia , the fact that people are concerned about what we do amongst ourselves and so deathly opposed to us being respected probably means they fear what would happen if we were treated the same way as everybody else.

Nice straw man there. The definition you provided requires an 'irrational fear' of homosexuals or homosexuality, and discriminate against them. You can certainly argue my stance is irrational (I would disagree, as you reject my system of rationality), but you can hardly argue I am afraid of homosexuals/homosexuality or that I discriminate against them. I have no fear of homosexuality/homosexuals, and I don't discriminate against them, either in policy (ie. I oppose gay marriage, but only because I think government should not define marriage) or in practice (ie. I treat everyone on this site equally, and I don't confront or discuss with anyone what they do in their bedroom). Thus your entire argument is unfounded and wrong.
No, it requires an "irrational fear of", an "aversion to", or "discrimination toward" - the 'fear' aspect is not exclusive to the last two parts of the definition. Though I misunderstood your stance about policy, if one was to mislike someone because they were homosexual, that would make them homophobic. If someone discriminates against homosexuals without "fearing" them, they are homophobic.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby