I am certain that your friends and your family member are deeply touched by your understanding of their relationships’ value. I hope they return that same level of valuation vis a vis your relationship(s). Ain’t love grand!
Coming from you, Rhapsody that’s kinda like smacking someone in the head repeatedly, and then accusing them of getting all defensive.
Nice “fact” there. Do you have the design schematics, perhaps? Can you give us a clue as to who designed it, and when they let you in on their plans?
Meanwhile, can you give us a brief explanation of why the prostate gland is a major erogenous center, which can be most effectively stimulated through anal penetration? Why was it designed like that?
Oh, and I’m still curious as to how much of your morality is dictated by animal behavior. Just because animals do something, or not, does that mean that humans have to behave similarly?
As refreshing as it is to hearken back to the 1950s mindset, would you mind explaining why gay people can’t make FAMILIES? (You might want to note in your answer that modern science has revealed such things as adoption, surrogate mothering, and the fact that some gay people have children from prior relationships. Also note that some straight couples don’t reproduce; should they be stripped of the right to marry as well?)
Yeah, but the Stoics didn’t believe you should do a thing because it felt good. For them, that was being ruled by desire, and made man into animals. The thing that seperates man from the animals, said the Stoics, is that he’s able to use reason instead of impulse.
excuse me but i believe the OP had to do with the origins of gay prejudice which i think i stated quite clearly and quite correctly.
So, either what you’re posting isn’t your own opinion, or you’re refusing to back up statements you’ve made.
This is Great Debates, you know. It’s not Great Opinions That Don’t Bear Discussion. It’s standard practice to be prepared to defend, explain, or back up any perspective you express here, sometimes ad nauseum.
Or, if you can’t or won’t do so, you could feel free to take it all back, or even apologize.
—Sex and the equipment for sex were designed/evolved (depending on your beliefs) for procreation.—
Uh, so what, in either case? Unless someone has declared the genetic fallacy sensible, there’s nothing even inherently strange about using something in multiple or new ways, regardless of what it might have been used for in the past. This especially the case in evolution, where exaption is commonplace.
—Anyway, the point is and always has been that the penis was designed for the vagina for the purpose of procreation.—
Uh, so what? Where’s the arguement here? Why is using something in a different place, with different outcomes, wrong? Why would it bother anyone?
I also notice that the “evolved” part of the equation dissappears in you second stipulation, thus sneaking in the unsuported conclusion that penis-in-vagina is an intented combination by some being.
—but neither do I think homosexuality should held up as some kind of normal behavior that should be presented as some kind of lifestyle choice.—
You’re playing fast and loose here. Do you mean normal as in: “not the statistical majority usage” or normal as in: “unacceptable.”
And why isn’t having a homosexual relationship a valid part of ones life, regardless of whether it is or is not a choice?
—I do not think either that homosexuals should be given the social benefits of marriage (most of which always were intended to make it easier to have FAMILIES, not to make it easier to live in a partnership.).—
You can’t have it both ways. Either marriage is available to childless couples who wish to live as a couple for tax reasons and medical benefits and such, or it is not. But even if not, plenty of homosexuals want to have (and ALREADY have!) families, including children of their own. It’s ridiculous to pretend that these families are any less deserving of the benefits and obligations of ordinary married couples.
No, penises are a minor concern.
What is focussed on is keeping things separate. No sowing your fields with two kinds of seed, no wearing cloth with two kinds of fiber, as well as “a man shall not wear anything pertaining to a woman”. Part of that is, no doubt, the idea of keeping Israel separate from the pagan cultures surrounding them, but part of it was the idea that whatever it was that creates fertility - often identified as blood - has to be handled carefully, because it is mighty potent stuff.
I only mentioned the Old Testament because it is one of the ancient cultures with which I am most familiar. Other cultures had other ideas of what were the important things.
But Old Testament Judaism went into New Testament Christianity, and therefore into the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages in Europe and down to the present day. Therefore it was seminal in our understanding of why, in modern society, homosexuality is still a taboo.
Would it be possible to have a discussion on this topic without trolls? Probably not.
We are not, at this point, arguing whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Go away, Rhapsody, or at least stick to the point.
Regards,
Shodan
—No, penises are a minor concern.—
I disagree. They are THE concern when it comes to sexual cleaniness and morality. It’s all about where and when you insert your doodle. Not to mention ritually preparing the penis at birth. I don’t disagree with the importance of your metaphor for obsessive compulsive-level separation, but I don’t see how it can be denied that the precious penis is the be all and end all of sexual morality.
glad to see you have SOME clue as to what this thread is about. :rolleyes:
Now if you will go back to the original post and read what is being asked you will see that the question is what are the root causes of gay prejudice. I posted the ROOT CAUSES very clearly and so far no one seems capable of showing those causes to be in error. People who are not gay simply have a problem empathizing with a feeling that to them IS UNNATURAL. SAffection is understandable. Friendship is understandable, wanting to shove your dick up some guys ass is a very big stretch and seems very wrong for the exact reasons I mentioned before.
LIKE THEM OR NOT.
how much weight to grant each of those perceptions is a choice all of us make for ourselves. I understand a lot of the dynamics of homosexuality, If I felt the same kind of attraction for my same sex that I now feel for the opposite sex, I am sure I would have a hard time not pursuing those feelings. That does not mean though that I would consider them to be “correct” feelings. I would understand that something is not quite right with me and would seek out others like myself for companionship. I would not however expect the rest of the world to consider what is so obviously NOT a normal evolutionary, or creationist, intended activity, to be somehow normal. It isn’t. Recognize that and move on.
I have said from the beginning that no one should be victimized for being homosexual, I would not accept such treatment of my family or anyone else.
It does amaze me how some people ARE truly homophobic. My wife was talking to a friend of hers who said her husband got very upset at the realization that a going away party was for a homosexual man. He was vey outraged at the idea of homosexuality and called it a sin. What is interesting about this is that this mans wife has also told my wife that he gets on some adult meeting sites and sets up “dates” with other men to exchange blow jobs. He truly sees nothing homosexual about that behavior and does not conside himself in anyway homosexual becasue he has not had anal sex with a man :rolleyes: now there is one screwed up person.
Anyway back to my rambling, my first response to this thread was directly from the gut there was no editing or intentions towards anyone, just a simple answer to the original question. You guys act like a bunch of juvenile prats who really have done nothing but throw insults with nothing to say to refute my original statements. Why? Because I am absolutly right about where gay prejudice originates and maybe you are right and that prejudice exists in me, I find what “unacceptable” feelings you seem to think I have as being the results of simple concepts that are irrefutable regardless of whether or not I or YOU can attempt to intellectualize it away or reduce its significance. Why do you think so many homophobes as you seem to like to call them are often so militant in their beliefs? You like to think it is because they fear their own possible homo/bi sexuality when in fact it is the simple but powerful feeling of wrongness that many people have the whole issue. Right or wrong that feeling exists and exists in many people who are fully aware of their own homosexuality. It is in large part these feelings and not “social pressures” that lead to homosexual suicides and mental traumas.
Rhapsody, you’ve made your point.
Esprix
It’s completely normal to have reactions of disgust, fear, and/or repulsion to groups of people you don’t understand, or have had limited exposure to. Human history is replete with examples of wars, persecutions, executions, all based on the simple fear of or anger at the unknown. But it doesn’t have to be like that.
Human beings are capable of acting civilized toward each other, even when their feelings tell them not to. In some cases, your gut reaction isn’t the reaction to go with; that’s why we have minds. Our minds can override the first, animalistic reactions we might have, and help us to act, well, like human beings toward each other.
That feeling you’re describing, Rhapsody? That’s prejudice. Pure and simple; you’ve even admitted it to be so. Pre-judging an entire population based on inexplicable, unfounded repulsion. It’s not something that’s easy to overcome, but you can rise above it. You could learn that, even though gay sex isn’t something you want to come near, that for gay people it feels just as good, just as right, just as natural as straight sex feels for you. Can you try to get your head around that concept? I’ve been with women; it felt wrong, completely, totally wrong for me. With men, specifically with my boyfriend, it feels like everything in the whole world conspired to bring us together.
That doesn’t mean I think any less of straight sex; it’s just not for me. Gay sex isn’t for you. Why do you think less of me for doing it?
You’ve avoided answering any questions, and have ignored any challenges to your viewpoint given so far in this thread. I submit to you the possibility, and I’d really like you to think about this one, that if you can’t rationally defend your position on an issue, your position needs to be re-examined in the light of rationality.
That’s just an awful, terrible, horrible way to say the same thing. Rhapsody reverses cause and effect by willfully ignoring the obvious question why people feel that way and what expression these thoughts take. Scores of suicide letters left behind by sorely missed sons, daughters, brothers and sisters who just couldn’t take the social pressure resulting from not being allowed to be the way they felt to be normal, because society doesn’t accept “that” tell a different tale than Rhapsody’s.
In evidence Rhapsody seems to have access to some clues to a lot of people’s minds. How about asking around instead of just supposing and assuming offensive and hurtful crap like that? Some of the sources are sitting behind screens at computers and posting in this very thread. I can most assuredly tell you that any answer will describe inner dialogues of various severity and length that go somewhat as follows;
“Wait a minute! I felt that I wanted to kiss and cuddle with him in what way?¿? Good grief! No, no, no can’t be! That is abnormal… I mean they say so… Gee though, doesn’t really feel that abnormal you know. Whwahawhat? Of course it is, I mean they all say so. Hmm maybe I should ask mom about that… Oh that’s right she always talks about ‘the day when I’ll get married to nice girl and have kids of my own’… I’ll ask da… Wowa buddy what are you thinking there? Remember what he called that really cute colleague of his the other day? ‘Goddamned faggot whining little bastard. I bet you he is a gay little cocksucker and likes it, fucking pervert.’ Wasn’t that it? Yep! OK… Strike dad… How about Joe Thesportsstud? Ask my best friend?¿? You’re kidding, right? Yeah, yeah, you’re right he hates people like that. People like that = me No not me! Yes me… STOP… OK what about ‘the guy’ himself? What? Asking him? No, no, no, then he’ll never let me kiss him. In any case he probably doesn’t want to, I mean who kisses other guys? See, conclusion: it’s not normal, I’m imagining things and letting my fantasy get away with me! Forget about him. Don’t think that way. I said NO! Think of girls, only girls…tits… Ass… Ehhh… Ohhhh, but he is sooooo cute. This isn’t working it must be normal if it feels this natural. Wait a minute… If it feels this normal for me and it is abnormal… Then I am abnormal. OK concentrate! Think ‘good’ thoughts. Only ‘good’ thoughts. Oh bother… This isn’t working… I’m a freak…”
Many years later Joe Theprortsstud is having ‘one of those moments’ with his boyfriend, shedding a tear about the fact that he and his best buddy couldn’t just have talked about it, so that his best buddy might still be alive…
Sparc
Did you even read my post? :rolleyes:
Just because you disagree with something doesn’t make it irrational. I also did not say I think less of you. I don’t even know you. You have not challenged my viewpoint at all other than to call it irrational. I disagree. Bite me.
Your arguements are without doubt irrational. They attempt to draw an objective characterization directly out of your subjective one.
However, I do feel that people are sort of missing the point: they asked where the prejeduce came from. I agree that your reasoning is irrational: but that doesn’t make it a poor answer to the original question. Are people thinking that they’ll find a rational justification for a prejeduce? Or are they so interested in refuting irrationality that they forgot the original question? Or was the question simply bait to draw people like Rhapsody in for a haraunge?
Some questions I have asked you in this thread, Rhapsody, which you still have not answered:
Of course it’s no challenge if you ignore the questions that have been put to you.
Or perhaps you’d like to restate your opinions yet again? I’m sure there are a number of ways left in which to phrase them.
I’m somewhat surprised that people find the ORIGIN of antigay prejudice so unidentifiable and mysterious.
If you desire something, that “something” seems to you a Good Thing in some reasonable sense of those words. Not just “good to myself,” mind you, but–Good. Really damn Good. And not just Good in the sense of “pleasing/pleasurable,” but all the other modes of Good as well: morally, aesthetically, socially, etc. Even medically.
Now it seems that most human beings are so constituted as to find matters relating to sex and sexuality a central concern. Awareness of gender differences in others–differential responses–shows up in newborns, I recall reading. Orgasm is the veritable epitome of “what the sensation of pleasure is like.” Most people, at least in the years “nature” seems to consider best for procreation, find amatory attraction and falling-in-love to be overwhelming experiences that intimate a higher significance (perhaps falsely…).
So: sexual desire, with all the trimmings, is prime desire. Thus it becomes for oneself the implicit but unchallengeable Good-of-Goods.
For solid biological/evolutionary reasons (at least we agree on that, Rhap), many more human beings discover that heterosexual desire within themselves is dominant, than discover homosexual desire to be dominant. There’s no need to play a numbers game: “many more” will do.
Now we have 1/2 the source of antigay prejudice. In a word, people like what they like, and don’t like what they don’t like. And: sexuality being so central, the liking/not liking CONTRAST is correspondingly central–overvalued, so to speak.
And then, the second half, which I will give as “2a” and “2b”.
(2a) Given alternatives S and G (mutually exclusive and exhaustive of the range), where S is correlated with some strong sensation of pleasure and G is NOT correlated with some strong sensation of pleasure, G will evoke, not merely some lesser pleasure or mere disinterest, but feelings of revulsive displeasure that are roughly as “bad” as the S-pleasure is “good.” Perhaps a “folk” way to think of it is that the straight man (responsive to situation S) has a hair-trigger reaction to the very idea of situation G: as if he were being compelled to imagine himself participating in that situation. (Ie, some straight guys react as they do because way down deep their imaginations are reacting to fantasies of homosexual rape that they would find, in the event, awful-disgusting-humiliating-repellent-shaming.)
(2b) Something of a further elaboration: nature doesn’t seem to like “middle-grounds” on matters of importance, and nature finds propagation VERY important. Hence, in some fashion, revulsion toward the “other” sexuality and its expression may very well be selected for and hardwired in.
…None of which logically implies that gayness is morally wrong, sick, or “abnormal” in the pejorative sense; nor that education and antidiscrimination laws are useless; nor that people can’t learn not to act out their revulsions.
But if I am right, a degree of antigay prejudice will always be with us to deal with. It’s a brain-in-body thing.
Rhapsody makes a completely un-argued and lousy case for biological predisposition.** Scott** makes a better argument by adding possible inherent bias towards one’s own orientation.
But I still do not think that it resolves the question the OP poses.
The lack of anti-gay prejudice in some of the city-states in Ancient Greece, Zoroastrian Persia some of the pre-Islamic Arabic cultures and several current tribal societies in the Amazon and in Africa, are a few of several cultures that speak against a ‘natural prejudice’. Given the human culture has at times evolved into societies that accept homosexuality, even celebrate it and see it as normative, I think the answer has to be sought elsewhere, namely culture.
I think that Scott has a point in saying that prejudice is within normalcy. The question is just why has it become the normative in most of modern society when it didn’t in many others at various points in history?
It’s a hard one to crack. I sure have to think more about it before I give an answer that is not a question.
Oh and Apos, don’t we always tear down arguments based on moronic ignorance, independent of the subject matter? Sure, when it gets all and well off the topic; open another thread. Do we really need another gay thread at the moment? For that matter Rhapsody has been dedicated a thread all to his lonely self in the Pit, but that’s not where he is posting the offensive, arguably debatable stuff he does, is it? Further, his Pit thread got terminally hijacked…
Sparc
—Rhapsody makes a completely un-argued and lousy case for biological predisposition.—
But that’s sort of my point. The fact that an position is unargued and lousy doesn’t preclude it from being the primary reason behind anti-gay prejedice! I mean, for goodness sakes, were you expecting to find a rational basis for prejedice?
—Oh and Apos, don’t we always tear down arguments based on moronic ignorance, independent of the subject matter?—
Well, that’s what I mean. The thread asks for the origins of anti-gay prejedice. When a prejediced person explains where their prejedice comes from, suddenly we forget the whole purpose of the thread and pile on debating the basis their prejedice (which is a subject pretty well covered, and there are unlikely to be any surprises here for anyone about how THAT arguement goes).
Wow, I can’t believe I spelled the same word wrong in so many ways…
His answer is as I said a valid possibility. Although I differ based on the evidence I tentatively started to explore in my last post. His founding argument for a biological basis for this prejudice is however nothing but an attempt at rationalization in defense of the same. As such it is obviously irrational and fails to answer the question in a convincing way.
I think it might well be beyond what one could even hope was intentionally being forwarded, but I think that an attempt at an argument for biological determinism is being made, as I said though it isn’t being forwarded by said poster in a very effective manner - to say the least.
Sparc