I'm Different TRANSLATION: I like men

[T3km4n]

You guys, I'm unique. I shop at Hot Topic and I got this sweet shirt saying "You laugh because I'm different. I laugh because you're all the same." I don't wear low socks because I'm better than that and wear high socks. I don't play sports, and I use safety pins a lot and like to wear tight pants because I'm different.

TRANSLATION:
Hello, I like men. I am mindless and couldn't think of anything to do but to let some stupid store shovel shit down my throat. I have a shirt that should say, "I don't understand the meaning of mass production." I couldn't think of anything else to be stupid about, so I chose to judge people on what socks they wear. I am in horrible physical condition, and I like to dress and act like a girl because I like men.





Seriously, people need to figure out they aren't so special.

[dirka dirka]

uhh k, waste of a thread and a life

[T3km4n]

Sure.

[Cavour]

Emo kids... -_-

Icky... -_-

[T3km4n]

See? At least me and Cav know we are right.

[Jeffery]

Tek sounds like he's at that confused stage of life again.

[laser y]

ur funny :p lol

[T3km4n]

LoL!!111 ROTFLAAMO

No really, I just get mad at people.


What started this was seeing someone wearing one of those stupid shirts.

[Cavour]

Laser Y's recent posts, especially in the tag thread, have officially made him my hero. Thank you for your time.

[Cavour]

LoL!!111 ROTFLAAMO

No really, I just get mad at people.


What started this was seeing someone wearing one of those stupid shirts.
It's not even the shirts that aggrevate me so much as the Emoesque pants. Just by seeing some guy wearing those pants, you can automatically come to the conclusion that he either isn't a "he" at all, or that he wanted to wear his sisters pants so bad that he decided to minimize his webbos to the point of fitting into those pants. Then again, I guess the second reason could pretty much be the first..

[Jeffery]

Nope.

Ugh boots with mini skirts.

[truffleshfl]

I get the band shirts at Hot Topic, other than that I stay away from the place.

[Godmic18]

I went into Hot Topic once and laughed. I wasn't laughing because of the way kids in there were dressed or because I saw a funny shirt. I was laughing because about 2% of the people in there realize that Hot Topic is owned by either The Gap or Old Navy. I can't remember which and don't, honestly give a rat's ass. They shop there thinking they're different and we're all corporate whores, but in reality their just supporting the corporate machine they are so against. I'm also entertained by the fact that I can atatch a leash to just about any item of clothing in there. Just imagine the fun you could have leashing kids to trees!

[falco88887]

Am i the only one who completely relates to t3k's statement? I get the feeling you people aren't cool enough for hot topic and tight pants.

[ArcPaladinZero]

I'm sad so I wear girl pants. Boo hoo. Little emo bitches piss me off. Don't even get me started or I'll be so fired up I'll end up emo hunting again.

[falco88887]

you guys are hurting my feelings. Leave Simple Plan and me to cry over the milk i spilled on my 40 dollar shorts today.

[FryLock]

Am I the only one really confused by this?

T3k likes men? Nothing wrong with that. AT ALL.

But somehow I think that's not the meaning of the post? What is "emo"? I think I'm just a few years too old to have seen this trend.

This is an honest question...I'm really not trying to be a jerk (for once) by asking this. :confused:

[Duffman]

Let me help Fry with a post by post breakdown:

T3k: Damn guys wearing shirts!!! I love a bare-chested man

Dirka: Oh great... Another thread I couldn't think of

T3k: Take of your shirt and you can have it

Cav: I agree man. Fabrics chafe me.

T3k: See? Me and Cav know what looks good on guys

Jeff: For the last time T3k, the shirt stays on!

Laser Y: Awww i'm emo... Noone loves me :(

T3k: "What started this was seeing someone wearing one of those stupid shirts." I just realy hate shirts!

Cav: "It's not even the shirts that aggrevate me so much as the pants."

Jeff: I'm the straightest guy here

Truff: Go banned shirts!

Godmic: Leashes, Leashes, Leashes!

Falco: Everyone get naked!!!

APZ: Noone ever asks me to take my pants off :mad:

[T3km4n]

Let me help Fry with a post by post breakdown:

T3k: Damn guys wearing shirts!!! I love a bare-chested man

Dirka: Oh great... Another thread I couldn't think of

T3k: Take of your shirt and you can have it

Cav: I agree man. Fabrics chafe me.

T3k: See? Me and Cav know what looks good on guys

Jeff: For the last time T3k, the shirt stays on!

Laser Y: Awww i'm emo... Noone loves me :(

T3k: "What started this was seeing someone wearing one of those stupid shirts." I just realy hate shirts!

Cav: "It's not even the shirts that aggrevate me so much as the pants."

Jeff: I'm the straightest guy here

Truff: Go banned shirts!

Godmic: Leashes, Leashes, Leashes!

Falco: Everyone get naked!!!

APZ: Noone ever asks me to take my pants off :mad:

HAHAHAHHAHA.

I'll explain it better to you Frylock. Emo is a sort of music, but turned into a lifestyle like Punk. But instead of hating the government, they hate everything except for the girl they supposedly "love." Their songs incorporate tons of crying and whining and annoy the shit out of me. The kids draw tears under their eyes and are sort of gothicy, but wear tight clothes instead of loose. All in all, it's just another stupid group for people to wander in and feel false welcome.

[dirka dirka]

except, not at all

[S_K_O_F]

LoL!!111 ROTFLAAMO

No really, I just get mad at people.


What started this was seeing someone wearing one of those stupid shirts.

oh...i thought you were coming out of the closet

um...well then

[dirka dirka]

He was, he is just trying to hide it.

[Ignition]

Which there is noting wrong with...

[dirka dirka]

In my opinion, there is alot wrong with it. However I can't go much further without breaking the rules of the forums.

[FryLock]

In my opinion, there is alot wrong with it.

Ohhh nononononono!

This isn't the place to get into a full-on discussion of this...but "it" is not a choice that one consciously makes. Gay people are NOT deviants or moral black holes or anything else. I would bet, dirka, that one of your real life friends or one of the people you like and respect here on TAO is gay, and simply hasn't come out. They are still the exact same person. Sense of humor, personality, compassion, whatever you like about them, it is STILL THE SAME.

I am not gay, but I have several friends who are, and I respect the HELL out of them for dealing with attitudes that perhaps resemble yours. Being gay is like being Black or White or something in-between. You don't choose it. But it is who you are. Ever hear of Civil Rights? Thank God we've made some strides towards non-discrimination against African Americans and other minorities. Let's not have a homophobic fear set us back a whole half-century.

[dirka dirka]

Yea, I don't think they aren't moral, or anything. I just don't want to be around them, they can keep it to them self, if I know about it, I ain't getting close to them. If they keep it to them self, then I don't mind them being anywhere I go, school, forums. However its when they admit to it, and therefore I consciencely know about it, I am afraid of them. I guess you could say I am a homophobe.

Edit: and this "is not a choice that one consciously makes." I just am a homophobe, I can't help it.

[Jeffery]

Yea, I don't think they aren't moral, or anything. I just don't want to be around them, they can keep it to them self, if I know about it, I ain't getting close to them. If they keep it to them self, then I don't mind them being anywhere I go, school, forums. However its when they admit to it, and therefore I consciencely know about it, I am afraid of them. I guess you could say I am a homophobe.

Edit: and this "is not a choice that one consciously makes." I just am a homophobe, I can't help it.
Why would you be afraid of them?
1) gay guys will never steal your girlfirends
2) gay roomates keep the place clean as heck

Are you afraid they might turn you gay? I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure gayness is not contagious.

[dirka dirka]

Why would you be afraid of them?
1) gay guys will never steal your girlfirends
2) gay roomates keep the place clean as heck

Are you afraid they might turn you gay? I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure gayness is not contagious.

Not even that, I can't explain my fear any more then someone can explain how they are gay.

Gay people, are just attracted to the same sex.
Homophobes, are just afraid of gay people...

If I had an answer I would tell you, but they truly do scare me.



Edit: "I respectfully disagree. It is not a choice. It is who they are. --Fry"

Fry, thanx for signing it. However, I never said it wasn't a choice, and I understand its who they are. That is just who I am, a homophobe.

[Amaroth]

Emo kids! It's shankin' time!

[doubledown]

In anthropology, my prof said homosexuals makes up about 10% of the population and its pervasive in every culture existing, and historical documents point to homosexuality as being as old as human history. Homosexuality is in nature and so the conclusion is that its a natural occurence. To be afraid of homosexuals is on par with being afraid of blonde hair.

[dirka dirka]

To be afraid of homosexuals is on par with being afraid of blonde hair.

Not at all... I don't think many people fear blonde hair, when I know alot of people who fear homosexuals. They arn't just saying they do, they actually do.

[Realist]

Its actually more on par with fearing black people.

[doubledown]

Its actually more on par with fearing black people.

Very true. That is a much better analogy. But it basically comes down to the fact you are afraid because the only information you have of homosexuals has led you to create a very false and negative stereotype about them. As in the case of racism, if you ever spent time learning and getting more information to base things on, you will see there is no rational for your fears.

[dirka dirka]

Very true. That is a much better analogy. But it basically comes down to the fact you are afraid because the only information you have of homosexuals has led you to create a very false and negative stereotype about them. As in the case of racism, if you ever spent time learning and getting more information to base things on, you will see there is no rational for your fears.

See, you think you know what people who are homophobes are thinking. You don't. It isn't like racism, it isn't like a fear of black people, however the numbers may be par.

The fear is more of a I don't wana know about it, I don't want to be involved with people that are gay. They can be gay, more power to them, however I don't want to be acquainted with someone like this. It is the same as the fact that I don't like cops. Sure, some cops are cool, but I don't like the majority, and they have to prove to me they are worth being friends with.

[Realist]

Your argument is the exact argument that people have used for around a century (since racial tolerance became the accepted norm in many places) for their hatred/fear/whatever of other races/ethnicities/etc.

I'm not saying you don't actually feel that way, just that white people really did (and do) feel exactly that way about black people in many parts of this country.

[dirka dirka]

Your argument is the exact argument that people have used for around a century (since racial tolerance became the accepted norm in many places) for their hatred/fear/whatever of other races/ethnicities/etc.

I'm not saying you don't actually feel that way, just that white people really did (and do) feel exactly that way about black people in many parts of this country.

Its not like that at all. Its not a hate, I just don't want to be around them. What they do isn't natural, and I just can't stand them.

However yea, I can't change the way i feel.

[Realist]

Most whites didn't really "hate" blacks either. How can you hate someone you don't even know?

They just thought they were "naturally" (yes, I'm using the same word you used because its the exact same idea) different and therefore did not want to associate with them. It was and still is very common for many people in this country to think like this about blacks.

The comparison is sound.

[Excaliber]

The only time i have ever gone into Hot Topic looking for any kind of apparel was with my friends when we had a spirit day at school and you were supposed to dressed as twins with someone and we went in to try to find some tough guys wear pink shirts.... needless to say when we didn't find them we high tailed i out of there!

[Serge]

This thread's only funny because even the emo kids hate emo kids.

[Terps rock]

Sorry couldn't resist but i saw hot topic and there was this guy who was dressed just like Snape from Harry Potter, and then these mexicans walked in there with their hair greased and i thougth it was funny ok sorry

[T3km4n]

This thread's only funny because even the emo kids hate emo kids.

Are you calling me emo?

[Blexican]

Its actually more on par with fearing black people.

Rawr? I mean really why are most white people afraid of us? I mean im more white than the ass of jonspen , but people are still afraid of me?

[Jeffery]

Racism and Homophobia have roots in the same areas of the brain. It is a learned response. As a child, you are taught to believe certain things, even to the point that you may not KNOW why you believe a vertain way, but just do.
It is those you were around growing up that taught you those responses.

Why is Homosexuality wrong?
Because it is "unnatural"? Seems to me many animals in nature also exibit homosexual behavior. (if needed I can post studies). An easy example are dogs, who often have sex with other male animals.
Because God said so? The Bible condemmed many things that are mainstream today. Homosexuality is NOT one of the Ten Commandments, the most High on high of the laws of god.

[Blexican]

Im not really afraid of "The People (that like men)" but I like REALLY hate them. I dont know why but it makes me go off , If I meet one or something, its really wierd.

[Godmic18]

Im not really afraid of "The People (that like men)" but I like REALLY hate them. I dont know why but it makes me go off , If I meet one or something, its really wierd.

No you don't. Don't fool yourself. Not all gay men are flaming and you would never be able to tell the difference. You probably just get freaked out around people like Jack from Will & Grace.

[Wayfaerer]

No you don't. Don't fool yourself. Not all gay men are flaming and you would never be able to tell the difference. You probably just get freaked out around people like Jack from Will & Grace.

But then you see him on that other crappy sitcom and it gets confusing :confused:

[Godmic18]

But then you see him on that other crappy sitcom and it gets confusing :confused:

Naw. I don't watch TV anymore. I have better things to do with my time. My life IS a reality TV show.

[Serge]

Are you calling me emo?

Nope. Just saying, my friend is emo, and even she makes fun of herself and the other emo kids.

[T3km4n]

Nope. Just saying, my friend is emo, and even she makes fun of herself and the other emo kids.

That's because she is emo and hates herself. You should tell her that suicide ain't so bad. For good ways to end it all, check here (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=manly_suicide).

[Jeffery]

Tek knows from experience, he's tried most of them. ;)

[T3km4n]

No, or else I would have been man enough to finish it off.

[Serge]

No, or else I would have been man enough to finish it off.
Prove it.

[dirka dirka]

Racism and Homophobia have roots in the same areas of the brain. It is a learned response. As a child, you are taught to believe certain things, even to the point that you may not KNOW why you believe a vertain way, but just do.
It is those you were around growing up that taught you those responses.

Why is Homosexuality wrong?
Because it is "unnatural"? Seems to me many animals in nature also exibit homosexual behavior. (if needed I can post studies). An easy example are dogs, who often have sex with other male animals.
Because God said so? The Bible condemmed many things that are mainstream today. Homosexuality is NOT one of the Ten Commandments, the most High on high of the laws of god.

You are so wrong I don't even know where to start. Racism is NOTHING like homophibia. The fact that random gay people can be all around me, scares me. I don't want to be near, or associated with gays. This is not a hate, this is a belief that they are immoral. Thats my opinion, and I will stick by it. It is not natural, what they do that is, male dogs having sex with other male dogs ( as you put it) is not natural. It can't be natural if you look at the anatomy behind it. A reproductive organ and an excretion organ?

[Realist]

male dogs having sex with other male dogs ( as you put it) is not natural. It can't be natural if you look at the anatomy behind it.

You're saying that what happens in nature isn't natural? I guess by "natural" what you actually mean is "what makes me comfortable."

[dirka dirka]

You're saying that what happens in nature isn't natural? I guess by "natural" what you actually mean is "what makes me comfortable."

No, by natural, I mean what is suppose to happen. Excretion organ and a Reproductive organ interacting like that is not natural.

[doubledown]

Bonobos (similar to Chimpanzees but found only is a restricted area in Africa) practice genital-to-genital rubbing as a means of reconciliation after a quarrel. This is found between two males or two females and is common practice throughout the whole species. This is just ONE example of how this practice is not immoral or wrong. It is nature. Homosexuality is found as common in the wild as it is in humans. It is instinct. Just as its naturally instinctive for heterosexual men to be attrative to women, its naturally instinctive for homosexuals to be attracted to the same sex. They are not choosing to be homosexual any more than you chose to be white (or whatever race you claim to be....race is another issue of contention because there is no such thing, its biologically false to lump people into false races)

[dirka dirka]

Bonobos (similar to Chimpanzees but found only is a restricted area in Africa) practice genital-to-genital rubbing as a means of reconciliation after a quarrel. This is found between two males or two females and is common practice throughout the whole species. This is just ONE example of how this practice is not immoral or wrong. It is nature. Homosexuality is found as common in the wild as it is in humans. It is instinct. Just as its naturally instinctive for heterosexual men to be attrative to women, its naturally instinctive for homosexuals to be attracted to the same sex. They are not choosing to be homosexual any more than you chose to be white (or whatever race you claim to be....race is another issue of contention because there is no such thing, its biologically false to lump people into false races)

This "practice" isn't homosexuality though?

I am not saying being gay is something they can change or choose, or its not instinct. I am just saying it is not natural.

[Realist]

No, by natural, I mean what is suppose to happen. Excretion organ and a Reproductive organ interacting like that is not natural.

I still don't get it.

Something happens in nature (i.e, lots of different animals do it even with no human intervention). But its not natural?

"What is suppose to happen." And how do you determine that? Give me a general rule.

[dirka dirka]

I still don't get it.

Something happens in nature (i.e, lots of different animals do it even with no human intervention). But its not natural?

"What is suppose to happen." And how do you determine that? Give me a general rule.

The general rule is reproductive organs are not suppose to interact with excretion organs.

[Realist]

I understand that, what I don't get is what you mean by "supposed." What determines what is "supposed" to happen?

By "general rule", I mean, beyond sex. Tell me what is "supposed" to happen, what is natural, why we should act natural, and so on. I'm asking this because you seem to be coming out of nowhere and making statements with nothing substantive behind them and I'm wondering if you've actually thought out your ideas in full or just acting on emotional instincts.

[S_K_O_F]

The general rule is reproductive organs are not suppose to interact with excretion organs.

well...actually...in nature, the general rule is that the reproductive organs are for reproducing

according to my vet, who i consulted after watching my female dog hump my roommates male dog, most animals use "humping" as a sign of dominance on the animal being humped...it has nothing to do with sexuality or the actual reproductive organs...it is simply one animal showing dominance to the other

when two male dogs hump, according to my vet, penetration is not a common occurance.

[Realist]

Yes, and by the way, its not only homosexual pairs who interact their excretive and reproductive organs; nor do all homosexual pairs do such.

[dirka dirka]

I understand that, what I don't get what you mean by "supposed." What determines "supposed."

By "general rule", I mean, beyond sex. Tell me what is "supposed" to happen, what is natural, why we should act natural, and so on. I'm asking this because you seem to be coming out of nowhere and making statements with nothing substantive behind them and I'm wondering if you've actually thought out your ideas in full or just acting on emotional instincts.

I think that if they didn't have that unnatural sex, then they would not be unnatural. They can exist in nature, however when they mix things that arn't logically and anatomically correct...

[dirka dirka]

well...actually...in nature, the general rule is that the reproductive organs are for reproducing

according to my vet, who i consulted after watching my female dog hump my roommates male dog, most animals use "humping" as a sign of dominance on the animal being humped...it has nothing to do with sexuality or the actual reproductive organs...it is simply one animal showing dominance to the other

when two male dogs hump, according to my vet, penetration is not a common occurance.

so thats not homosexuality then, thats dominance

[Realist]

I think that if they didn't have that unnatural sex, then they would not be unnatural. They can exist in nature, however when they mix things that arn't logically and anatomically correct...

So, your definition of "natural" has nothing to do with "nature?" I suggest you choose a different word. "Immoral" would be better maybe, though that opens up a whole bunch more questions.

[S_K_O_F]

so thats not homosexuality then, thats dominance

exactly...people cannot actually use the term "homosexual" on an animal because the animals are not driven by pleasure for the sex...it actually isnt even considered sex

using the argument that animals have sex with the same sex is absurd...ive seen my friends dog hump a cat before. does that mean his dog is in to beastiality??

[dirka dirka]

So, your definition of "natural" has nothing to do with "nature?" I suggest you choose a different word. "Immoral" would be better maybe, though that opens up a whole bunch more questions.

Natural has everything to do with it though. In nature, it is not natural for reproductive organs to interact with other non-reproductive organs. Your natural is of a mental standpoint, mentally it happens, they like men. This creates a physical attraction, however once they start going into the immoral, it is not natural, because what they do does not happen in nature.

[Realist]

exactly...people cannot actually use the term "homosexual" on an animal because the animals are not driven by pleasure for the sex...it actually isnt even considered sex

Its arguable whether any animals are actually driven by pleasure...at least any besides dolphins and the most intelligent of the primates.

Nevertheless, if male on male sexual action, for whatever purpose, occurs in nature, does it not signify that male on male sexual action is natural?

[dirka dirka]

Nevertheless, if male on male sexual action, for whatever purpose, occurs in nature, does it not signify that male on male sexual action is natural?

It is, however when reproductive organs interact with excretion organs it is no longer natural.

By your standpoint, everything is natural. If a country got nuked, this would be natural, because it happened.

[Realist]

Natural has everything to do with it though. In nature, it is not natural for reproductive organs to interact with other non-reproductive organs.

You say this without basis. In nature, reproductive organs [b]do[/i] interact with non-reproductive organs. In other words, you are factually incorrect here.

And, one other thing, which part is the unnatural one? The reproductive organs interacting with non-reproductive, or the sex of the participants? Is identical male/female action equally unnatural?

[dirka dirka]

You say this without basis. In nature, reproductive organs [b]do[/i] interact with non-reproductive organs. In other words, you are factually incorrect here.

And, one other thing, which part is the unnatural one? The reproductive organs interacting with non-reproductive, or the sex of the participants? Is identical male/female action equally unnatural?

So if it happens, its natural? No, if it was suppose to happen that way in nature, it is natural.

and yes, that would be unnatural if a males reproductive organ interacted with the females excretion organ that a male has...

[Realist]

It is, however when reproductive organs interact with excretion organs it is no longer natural.

By your standpoint, everything is natural. If a country got nuked, this would be natural, because it happened.

If "Reproductive organs interact with excretion organs" in nature among instinctive animals, and I can prove this, would you accept that it happening among humans is natural as well?

[Realist]

So if it happens, its natural? No, if it was suppose to happen that way in nature, it is natural.

And who or what determines what is supposed to happen in nature? You must answer this clearly and completely, if you do not, it is clear that you are simply talking without basis.

[dirka dirka]

If "Reproductive organs interact with excretion organs" in nature among instinctive animals, and I can prove this, would you accept that it happening among humans is natural as well?

Just cause it happens in nature, doesn't mean its natural.

[dirka dirka]

And who or what determines what is supposed to happen in nature? You must answer this clearly and completely, if you do not, it is clear that you are simply talking without basis.

Anatomy.

[Realist]

Anatomy.

Explain.

Define "natural" in a general sense (without referencing sex).

[dirka dirka]

Explain.

Define "natural" in a general sense (without referencing sex).

"Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death."
The usual course of nature is not reproductive organs and excretion organs interacting, according to anatomy.

"Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce."
Altering the use of the organs...

[Realist]

"Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death."
The usual course of nature is not reproductive organs and excretion organs interacting, according to anatomy.

Says who? If even animals interact their reproductive and excretion organs, perhaps you simply misunderstand the use of the anatomy.

You seem pretty knowledgable in science, which is why I'm sort of surprised you're taking up this position. Nature is pretty random, evolution isn't very direct. The brain can evolve seperate from other anatomy and give new purposes to old body parts.

The purpose of feet is to walk, naturally. Yet today we use them in driving cars as well. Are you against this? Isn't cardriving an unnatural use of hands and feet?

[dirka dirka]

Says who? If even animals interact their reproductive and excretion organs, perhaps you simply misunderstand the use of the anatomy.

You seem pretty knowledgable in science, which is why I'm sort of surprised you're taking up this position. Nature is pretty random, evolution isn't very direct. The brain can evolve seperate from other anatomy and give new purposes to old body parts.

The purpose of feet is to walk, naturally. Yet today we use them in driving cars as well. Are you against this? Isn't cardriving an unnatural use of hands and feet?

No, I understand what you mean. They are physically and mentally attracted to men. This I can accept. However using "old" parts for different reason I can't. This isn't a evolutionary thing, this is a mental thing.

They need to not redefine what organs are used for, doing what they do is pointless set aside pleasure, if it does pleasure them.

[Realist]

No, I understand what you mean. They are physically and mentally attracted to men. This I can accept. However using "old" parts for different reason I can't. This isn't a evolutionary thing, this is a mental thing.

Our brains evolved for whatever reason they did. The mind is part of the evolution of the brain.

Your problem is that your argument has no rational basis. You have to explain yourself if you want to claim to have a valid argument. Since you haven't answered a lot of important questions when put in paragraph form, I'm willing to list a few as a numbered list so any avoidance of them will be clear and obvious.

1. Define "natural" in a general sense, without referencing this specific situation.
2. You haven't answered my car example. Is driving immoral because it is unnatural?
3. Tell me why natural is good.


They need to not redefine what organs are used for, doing what they do is pointless set aside pleasure, if it does pleasure them.

Hmm...I thought the purpose of everything was pleasure. (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12818&highlight=selfish)

[dirka dirka]

Our brains evolved for whatever reason they did. The mind is part of the evolution of the brain.

Your problem is that your argument has no rational basis. You have to explain yourself if you want to claim to have a valid argument. Since you haven't answered a lot of important questions when put in paragraph form, I'm willing to list a few as a numbered list so any avoidance of them will be clear and obvious.

1. Define "natural" in a general sense, without referencing this specific situation.
2. You haven't answered my car example. Is driving immoral because it is unnatural?
3. Tell me why natural is good.



Hmm...I thought the purpose of everything was pleasure. (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12818&highlight=selfish)
That thread of mine says people do everything for their own reason, not just pleasure.

My problem is you don't understand what I am getting at. It is not anatomically correct, excretion organs and reproduction organs are not made to be used like that. You can argue that gay people are just a evolution where they use them like that, however that is pure theory. My statement is fact, excretion organs and reproduction organs are not made to be used like that.

[Realist]

That thread of mine says people do everything for their own reason, not just pleasure.

My problem is you don't understand what I am getting at.

I completely understand what you are getting at. However, you aren't responding at all to any of my entirely valid critisisms which completely destory your argument. I suspect this isn't because you are too stupid to, because you aren't stupid. I hate repeating myself though, so if you fail to respond to my correct pointing out of the flaws in your argument I will cease to continue posting to you on this thread.

It is not anatomically correct, excretion organs and reproduction organs are not made to be used like that.

Yes, you said that. And I said that feet are not meant to be used to accelerate cars. Driving is obviously anatomically incorrect, no? Now tell me if car driving is unnatural and wrong, and if not, why homosexuality is any different.

My statement is fact, excretion organs and reproduction organs are not made to be used like that

No, its not fact. Our organs aren't "made" for any purpose whatsoever, they evolved based on unthinking evolutionary principles.

[Serge]

That thread of mine says people do everything for their own reason, not just pleasure.

My problem is you don't understand what I am getting at. It is not anatomically correct, excretion organs and reproduction organs are not made to be used like that. You can argue that gay people are just a evolution where they use them like that, however that is pure theory. My statement is fact, excretion organs and reproduction organs are not made to be used like that.

Uh, dirka, I don't know if you've taken Sex Ed. or anything, but both the male and female reproductive organs double as liquid waste excretion organs.

[dirka dirka]

Yes, you said that. And I said that feet are not meant to be used to accelerate cars. Driving is obviously anatomically incorrect, no? Now tell me if car driving is unnatural and wrong, and if not, why homosexuality is any different.
Adapting to use tools or devices is alot different then changing the way we use our organs.


No, its not fact. Our organs aren't "made" for any purpose whatsoever, they evolved based on unthinking evolutionary principles.
This may be true, however they have a purpose. The purpose is set, and things that they do can even harm this purpose threw disease( not a considerable argument considering thats true with most anything ).

[Realist]

Adapting to use tools or devices is alot different then changing the way we use our organs.

Explain why. You gave an example of something our anatomy was not "made" to do, and I gave another example of something our anatomy was not "made" to do. Explain the difference and why this difference is significant.

This may be true, however they have a purpose. The purpose is set

Set by what?? Not evolution. Evolution doesn't think. Who then? God? Society?

[dirka dirka]

Explain why. You gave an example of something our anatomy was not "made" to do, and I gave another example of something our anatomy was not "made" to do. Explain the difference and why this difference is significant.
Adapting your foot to hit the gas is alot different then adapting an organ for pleasure / whatever. Your foot has muscles and an endoskeletal system, locomotion and movement is the purpose of this. The male reproductive organ has a purpose also. I am learning about it in bio right now, everything has a set purpose, and that is what it regularly carries out.

Set by what?? Not evolution. Evolution doesn't think. Who then? God? Society?
Set by their required functions. What must happen for us to survive. To carry on our species really.

[Northwind]

Just cause it happens in nature, doesn't mean its natural.Talk about painting yourself into a corner! :eek:

Part of me thinks that much of this discussion is missing the point. Let's pretend for a second that homosexuality is unnatural (as long as we're pretending, I'm gonna pretend I'm a pony :)). Why therefore, does it follow that it is then necessary to "be afraid" of it?

"Unnatural" things that dirka must also be afraid of:
cars
buildings
people who are "double-jointed"
computers
cosmetic surgery
barbie dolls
etc., etc., etc.

If it is "immorality" that dirka is afraid of, them I'm sure that he is also afraid of:
heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex
adulterers (talk about scary -- I think Wes Craven is making a new horror film called "Cuckold!")
people who take God's name in vain
etc., etc., etc.


So dirka,

Do you "fear" these things? If not, then your whole justification for "fearing" gay people is nothing more than ignorance disguised as opinion. You are certainly welcome to your ignorance, but please don't pretend that there is "reason" behind it.

[T3km4n]

I have a question.

Are you afraid of anyone who has practiced masturbation or anal sex or oral sex? Those parts weren't meant for that, but it happens to just about everyone besides probably you.

[dirka dirka]

Talk about painting yourself into a corner! :eek:
Not at all, what happens in nature and what is natural are two different things.

Part of me thinks that much of this discussion is missing the point. Let's pretend for a second that homosexuality is unnatural (as long as we're pretending, I'm gonna pretend I'm a pony :)). Why therefore, does it follow that it is then necessary to "be afraid" of it?
Its not the fear you are thinking, its a fear of not understanding, and truly not wanting to understand. However I am being as open as I can in this thread so far.

"Unnatural" things that dirka must also be afraid of:
cars
buildings
people who are "double-jointed"
computers
cosmetic surgery
barbie dolls
etc., etc., etc.
These are all natural uses of our limps, organs, and other things.

If it is "immorality" that dirka is afraid of, them I'm sure that he is also afraid of:
heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex
adulterers (talk about scary -- I think Wes Craven is making a new horror film called "Cuckold!")
people who take God's name in vain
etc., etc., etc.
Heterosexuals engaging in anal sex is immoral.
Adulterers is immoral.
I don't believe in god, or atleast, the christion god.


So dirka,

Do you "fear" these things? If not, then your whole justification for "fearing" gay people is nothing more than ignorance disguised as opinion. You are certainly welcome to your ignorance, but please don't pretend that there is "reason" behind it.

It isn't ignorant at all, I fully understand that they can't change who they are ect ect. There is reason behind it, I find many things immoral for many reasons. I fear what I don't understand and don't want to understand.

[Realist]

Adapting your foot to hit the gas is alot different then adapting an organ for pleasure / whatever.

First of all, its not really "adapting", since both heterosexuals and homosexuals have been doing it for millenia.

Your foot has muscles and an endoskeletal system, locomotion and movement is the purpose of this. The male reproductive organ has a purpose also.

My point wasn't that my example was directly comparable to the topic at hand, but that humans today don't do all that much that is "natural." I'm wondering why you only care about one specific thing being unnatural when so little is these days.

Set by their required functions. What must happen for us to survive. To carry on our species really.

We've survived with homosexuality so far. I mean, its not like we have too few people in the world today to carry on our species.

[dirka dirka]

I have a question.

Are you afraid of anyone who has practiced masturbation or anal sex or oral sex? Those parts weren't meant for that, but it happens to just about everyone besides probably you.

leading me to the conclusion that people by nature are immoral

[T3km4n]

Nevermind, dirka just admitted he has a phobia for himself.

[Realist]

I have a question.

Are you afraid of anyone who has practiced masturbation or anal sex or oral sex? Those parts weren't meant for that, but it happens to just about everyone besides probably you.

The thing is, of course they were meant for that as well. Thats why we do them and people forever have been doing them. Driving, living in an industrial society, that is much less natural than oral/anal sex.

[Northwind]

leading me to the conclusion that people by nature are immoralOr that your definition of "immoral" is immoral and unnatural.

[dirka dirka]

First of all, its not really "adapting", since both heterosexuals and homosexuals have been doing it for millenia.
Correct, and considering its not adapting, its not really evolutionary.

My point wasn't that my example was directly comparable to the topic at hand, but that humans today don't do all that much that is "natural." I'm wondering why you only care about one specific thing being unnatural when so little is these days.
I don't see many things as natural, however I can understand most of them. I don't fear what I understand. I don't understand gay people, therefore i am a homophopic. Maybe based in ignorance, however...
Racism and Homophobia have roots in the same areas of the brain. It is a learned response.
this is not true.

We've survived with homosexuality so far. I mean, its not like we have too few people in the world today to carry on our species.
Nope, but if we had a 2 guys and 2 chicks... Those guys decided to be gay, what happens now.

[Realist]

I don't see many things as natural, however I can understand most of them.

I don't fear what I understand. I don't understand gay people, therefore i am a homophopic. Maybe based in ignorance


Ahh!! Now we get to the root of the problem.

Nope, but if we had a 2 guys and 2 chicks... Those guys decided to be gay, what happens now.

We'll never have to worry about that.

[dirka dirka]

Yea, but what I was trying to prove was that is is not a learned response. It truly is a fear, and Jeffery said it wasn't. I fear what I don't understand, and what I don't understand 90% of the time I view as immoral, as far as actions go.

[Realist]

Yea, but what I was trying to prove was that is is not a learned response. It truly is a fear, and Jeffery said it wasn't. I fear what I don't understand, and what I don't understand 90% of the time I view as immoral, as far as actions go.

And you're proud of this?

Racism truly is a fear too. Its possibly the same fear that tribes had of other tribes millenia ago. That doesn't make it any better.

[dirka dirka]

And you're proud of this?

Racism truly is a fear too. Its possibly the same fear that tribes had of other tribes millenia ago. That doesn't make it any better.

I'm not proud, nor am I ashamed, its more of a personal fact. I don't think racism is a fear, because what is there to fear about other races?

[Foundation]

heh heh heh...

please countinue !

*the gay people !

[Realist]

I'm not proud, nor am I ashamed, its more of a personal fact. I don't think racism is a fear, because what is there to fear about other races?

What is there to fear about homosexuals? Nothing, unless you are ignorant, as you basically admitted yourself. Its the same for racism. Ignorance allows fear. Whites who are ignorant about blacks might very well fear or despise them, especailly if they are taught to by their society.

[Zeratul]

what about them?

[dirka dirka]

What is there to fear about homosexuals? Nothing, unless you are ignorant, as you basically admitted yourself. Its the same for racism. Ignorance allows fear. Whites who are ignorant about blacks might very well fear or despise them, especailly if they are taught to by their society.

ey, maybe. However I think there is less to not understand about other races. However you do have a point.

[Realist]

ey, maybe. However I think there is less to not understand about other races. However you do have a point.

For you there is, because you are less ignorant about other races.

[dirka dirka]

For you there is, because you are less ignorant about other races.
True true, I guess I do see your point.

[Zeratul]

GO TO THE ARGUEMENT THREAD NOW!!!! ah just kidding it's good to see users that can fight, but not get all angry and defenceive with each other.

[dirka dirka]

I think thats called a debate.

[T3km4n]

What I don't understand is why you aren't afraid of yourself. You keep changing your argument. First it was Anatomy, then fear then all this other stuff. You said before, indirectly, that you have a phobia for all humans.

[dirka dirka]

What I don't understand is why you aren't afraid of yourself. You keep changing your argument. First it was Anatomy, then fear then all this other stuff. You said before, indirectly, that you have a phobia for all humans.

I didn't change my argument at all. Go back and read threw it. It still is anatomy, I don't understand how they manipulate the use of organs and other things I don't understand. I never said, ever, that I had a phobia for all humans, post where I would have indirectly said that.

[T3km4n]

Natural has everything to do with it though. In nature, it is not natural for reproductive organs to interact with other non-reproductive organs. Your natural is of a mental standpoint, mentally it happens, they like men. This creates a physical attraction, however once they start going into the immoral

You say you have a phobia for them because they do something immoral. I say that everyone does that, and you say this.

leading me to the concusion that people by nature are immoral

Theorem of Transitivity. You fear gays for doing the same thing most everyone on this planet does.

[dirka dirka]

I don't see many things as natural, however I can understand most of them. I don't fear what I understand. I don't understand gay people, therefore i am a homophopic. Maybe based in ignorance, however...


Read the whole thread before posting dude.

[T3km4n]

Well use common sense. You don't understand gays having anal sex for pleasure, but you DO understand heterosexuals for having anal sex. I don't understand the logic here.

[dirka dirka]

Well use common sense. You don't understand gays having anal sex for pleasure, but you DO understand heterosexuals for having anal sex. I don't understand the logic here.

Actually. I don't understand heterosexuals having anal sex, and I did say it was immoral.

Heterosexuals engaging in anal sex is immoral.

[T3km4n]

Read your own post idiot.

I don't see many things as natural, however I can understand most of them. I don't fear what I understand. I don't understand gay people, therefore i am a homophopic. Maybe based in ignorance, however...

[dirka dirka]

Read your own post idiot.
Read it, now what? Pushups? That has nothing to do with anything. The fact remains you didn't read the entire post or you are an idiot.

[T3km4n]

Let me dumb this down a bit for you.

I don't understand gay people, therefore i am a homophopic.
I don't understand heterosexuals having anal sex

Therefore you are heterophobic.

[dirka dirka]

Let me dumb this down a bit for you.

Therefore you are heterophobic.

Uhm... no, I am homophobic. Heterosexuals having sex is moral and natural to me... Not anal sex, however not many couples do that in my opinion. Even if most couples do, I said I don't understand it, that does not make me heterophobic one bit. If you are trying to conclude that I said things I don't understand I fear, let me point out I did say most. That is one that heterosexual couples can do but I don't want to hear about, and I won't go around fearing all heterosexual people. On the other hand, all gays engaging in gay sex, must be doing it, and I fear all of them.

[T3km4n]

Whatever, you can back your way out of this one, dirka, but it doesn't change the fact that you are still a rascist nazi.

[dirka dirka]

I didn't back my way out of it at all. In fact, you backed out of it. You accused me of many things so far. Contradicting myself, when I didn't. Being an idiot, when obviously thats you. Also being a "rascist nazi" when we established I am not racist, therefore not a nazi.

[T3km4n]

We already established homophobia and rascism had the same roots. You are the one that did contradict yourself and change your argument whenever you were proved wrong. You are the idiot nazi.

[dirka dirka]

We already established homophobia and rascism had the same roots. You are the one that did contradict yourself and change your argument whenever you were proved wrong. You are the idiot nazi.
'No, we established they are based on the same misunderstanding, the roots are very different.
They don't have the same roots in history at all, however this still does not matter.

You are wrong here:

You are the one that did contradict yourself and change your argument whenever you were proved wrong.
Whatever, you can back your way out of this one, dirka, but it doesn't change the fact that you are still a rascist nazi.
Therefore you are heterophobic.
Well use common sense. You don't understand gays having anal sex for pleasure, but you DO understand heterosexuals for having anal sex. I don't understand the logic here.
You say you have a phobia for them because they do something immoral. I say that everyone does that, and you say this.
Theorem of Transitivity. You fear gays for doing the same thing most everyone on this planet does.

Most of what you said was wrong because obviously you weren't following me and realist. Realist was trying to lead me to the conclusion that they are both because of fear. This may be true, however, I am not racist. I am homophobic. My point, the entire time, was that being homophobic isn't just something people make up or a learned response, as jeffery and others said it was.

Edit: Oh, and BTW. Before you starting intimately posting here this thread was a good debate. Now it has turned into an argument on your side because you are calling names, ect. You are wrong about what you thought I was saying, so just cut down on the insults and debate if you wish.

[T3km4n]

Well I was joking about the rascist nazi thing, and this thread was a good thread that was MINE before you brought your homophobia in here.

Also, when you said anatomy, you were trying to explain why you were homophobic. You said you didn't understand their use of the reproductive and excretive organs. I said that most everyone uses their reproductive and some other organ like the mouth or hand or anus, and you wimped out of it with a "well that's different, something I'm not afraid of that I don't understand." You are an ignorant homophobic.

Back to MY topic. I think emo people should just go through with all of their suicide threats. Wouldn't that be cool?

[S_K_O_F]

We already established homophobia and rascism had the same roots. You are the one that did contradict yourself and change your argument whenever you were proved wrong. You are the idiot nazi.

actually...this has not been established at all

it was stated at one point...but no proof was provided to back it up

[dirka dirka]

Well I was joking about the rascist nazi thing, and this thread was a good thread that was MINE before you brought your homophobia in here.

I don't even think I brought the homophobia thing here. However it doesn't matter, it is a valid debate while discussing gays.

Also, when you said anatomy, you were trying to explain why you were homophobic. You said you didn't understand their use of the reproductive and excretive organs. I said that most everyone uses their reproductive and some other organ like the mouth or hand or anus, and you wimped out of it with a "well that's different, something I'm not afraid of that I don't understand." You are an ignorant homophobic.

I said I am an ignorant homophobic, and I will remain that way, because understanding is not something I want to do in this case. I never said I understood the use of stuff like mouth and hand or anus like this. In fact I don't, however this is not something I fear, this is something that I can accept happens sometimes, not alot.

Back to MY topic. I think emo people should just go through with all of their suicide threats. Wouldn't that be cool?

Now who is stereotyping? I think it is in your ignorance.



On another note, the quote S_K_O_F had there. He is exactly correct. Jeffery said that homophobia is something we learn. This is not true, because I am homophobic and I did not 'learn' it, in fact not learning is the reason I am homophobic. However my moral and ethical views make it so I don't want to understand at this point, and most likely any point in time.

[Jeffery]

The proof is the fact that they are both learned responses, and not something a person is born with. You learn to be racist, and you learn to be homophobic.

[dirka dirka]

The proof is the fact that they are both learned responses, and not something a person is born with. You learn to be racist, and you learn to be homophobic.

People don't always learn to be racist, or homophobic. It may be that way for some. However it is not for all, and that fact that you aren't born with it does not mean you have to learn it. You learn stuff around that subject matter, don't like it and don't understand it, therefore don't want to learn more. You are then homophobic, this can happen with racism also. It may be an ignorance, therefore its not learning. Considering we established its an ignorance in my case... The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. Therefore it can not be a learned response, in my case. Then concluding its not in all cases a learned response.

[Realist]

The proof is the fact that they are both learned responses, and not something a person is born with. You learn to be racist, and you learn to be homophobic.

I'm wondering what your evidence is for this. I think it might be the opposite, that tolerance is a learned behaviour that must be taught to stop certain hatreds of people outside your accepted society. In any case, I think its a lot more complicated than you are making it out to be--if racism is based on being taught to be racist, who taught the first racist?

[Jeffery]

You place two children, one white one black, next to each other (and I mean YOUNG children) and they will not discriminate against each other based on their skin colors. As they grow older, the culture and community they live in TEACH then to discriminate.

There is no "racist gene that we must over come.

And yes, there have been studies on this, many of them, is this is what has been confirmed. "Fearing" another because of their color is the learned response.

And if you want to whine and say "where did the first person learn it?" then i put to you, where would the first person have learned to hate the other?

[dirka dirka]

Jeffery, still no facts there. You didn't respond to my post, because I am correct.

[Realist]

You place two children, one white one black, next to each other (and I mean YOUNG children) and they will not discriminate against each other based on their skin colors.

This isn't a natural situation though...not really.

Think of the prehistoric, preneolithic world in which humans evolved for many millenia. People assembled themselves in tribes; they stayed in those tribes and generally didn't associate themselves with other tribes except to conflict and fight. Is this "racism"? Not in the modern sense, in which all the tribes of a certain place would be together considered a single race. But there are enough similarities to racism to connect the two.

Were the members of all these tribes "taught" to discriminate? I can think of a better explanation--in the hunter-gatherer world, large groups in small places is a bad thing--not enough food. Small economic-social units make sense, separating these units by way of small, exclusive tribal societies is the economically intelligent thing to do. Unique social identity (i.e, culture) was profitable then because it provides a good means to separate one tribe from another. I think its that same unique social identity which forms the basis of racism, nationalism, homophobia, etc. Culture is inherently exlusivist and inherently supremisist, and this is what seems to me to cause all of the above, even when the culture is not explicitely racist.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, now that I think about it. I'm just complicating it.

[dirka dirka]

Jeffery, you still need to respond to my point. It has a valid conclusion to it.

[Jeffery]

It doesn;t complicate it bacause you are discussing issues that have NOTHING to do with how racism is founded in children today. And we should change racism to discrimination, for that is truly what it is. Racism is not always white man stomping on the black man. it is when ANYONE of ANY race discriminates against another based on their race.

And how is having a white child and a black child growing up together unnatural? Are you saying that blacks and whites should never mix, because they are from seperate areas?

[dirka dirka]

Discrimination is not even viewed as bad in todays society! Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice. For instance, some people hate cats.

Jeff, respond to this, or you acknowledge I am right.

People don't always learn to be racist, or homophobic. It may be that way for some. However it is not for all, and that fact that you aren't born with it does not mean you have to learn it. You learn stuff around that subject matter, don't like it and don't understand it, therefore don't want to learn more. You are then homophobic, this can happen with racism also. It may be an ignorance, therefore its not learning. Considering we established its an ignorance in my case... The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. Therefore it can not be a learned response, in my case. Then concluding its not in all cases a learned response.

[Realist]

It doesn;t complicate it bacause you are discussing issues that have NOTHING to do with how racism is founded in children today.

Well...my implication is that racism makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, and has existed in all times in human history, which makes saying that its just something we teach as a particular society seem somewhat simplistic. It seems racism is inherent to human society, which would suggest that it isn't merely something that some cultures happen to teach.


And how is having a white child and a black child growing up together unnatural? Are you saying that blacks and whites should never mix, because they are from seperate areas?

No, I'm actually against racism.

By "unnatural" I mean it doesn't take things like personal identities into consideration. If you take a person before they've formed their own identity, its unlikely that they will disciminate based on someone else's identity.

[S_K_O_F]

ok ok ok

now to remerge these topics

If a homosexual is born homosexual, then why is it not possible that a racist person cannot be born racist?

perhaps their is a chemical imbalance that causes racism, that hasn't been discovered yet
just food for thought

[dirka dirka]

SKOF brings up an interesting point. Saying someone is naturally gay is the same as saying they are naturally homophobic. Offer me some evidence for either one it should apply to the other.

[Realist]

perhaps their is a chemical imbalance that causes racism, that hasn't been discovered yet
just food for thought

Why call it an "imbalance"? I don't understand the use of that word. All emotions are chemically based, are they not? What makes something an imbalance? That it produces emotions which aren't socially acceptable?

[S_K_O_F]

Why call it an "imbalance"? I don't understand the use of that word. All emotions are chemically based, are they not? What makes something an imbalance? That it produces emotions which aren't socially acceptable?

ok...well with this line of thinking, then apparently i am less evolved than my homosexual counterparts, because they are receiving a chemical that i am not

or maybe the penis and vagina weren't actually meant for reproduction...maybe their sole purpose is pleasure...and homosexuals have figured this out way before heterosexuals

[Realist]

I'm not even talking about homosexuals...I'm talking about racism. You seemed to imply that racism could have been caused by a chemical imbalance and I'm wondering, truthfully, why its called an imbalance.

[Jeffery]

And how do you think a person FORMS their identity? It is formed by the culture and social environment they are raised in.
And yes, being racist or homophobic is part of the identity each person developes.

(oh god, wait for this)
using the Dave Chapell show as an example (don;t shoot me yet) he once did a skit on a KKK leader who was black, but also blind. Since he had never seen a person, he was simply taught that blacks were evil and blah blah blah. No one ever told him he was black.

Beleive it or not, i truly believe that such a situation would be possible. Because people are taught to discriminate.

However, i do also concede that people are taught to tolerate others as well. For our culture is so engrained with discrimination, that it then takes effort to pull away from it.

[dirka dirka]

And how do you think a person FORMS their identity? It is formed by the culture and social environment they are raised in.
And yes, being racist or homophobic is part of the identity each person developes.

Then being gay is not natural, it is identity! If being gay is natural, so is being homophobic.

[theburning]

I think I'm about 5 years old because for some reason I laughed at the 2 words S_K_O_F used in his post.

[Northwind]

We learn how to interact with other humans. Sexual attraction is not learned. Imagine, that you were raised in a commune with a significant number of homosexuals. You lived, played, and worked alongside these people from a young age. Do you truly believe that you would still be homophobic in that situation? If not, what is the difference? The difference is that you learned a different way of interacting and thus were not able to hide behind your shield of ignorance.

Ignorance is a condition of not knowing. It can be corrected. If you truly learned and understood what it was like to be gay and still disagreed with it, I would at least have some level of respect for that position (though, frankly, I think that anyone truly understanding what it was like to be gay would not disapprove of it). To admit to being ignorant and to willingly stay ignorant is to revel in stupidity.

To further my point, imagine that you grew up on this same commune. Do you think that this would make you homosexual? No? Then interactions are learned and sexual attraction is innate.

We all have the capacity to decent, caring people. Don’t let ignorance get in your way.

[dirka dirka]

Sexual attraction is not learned.

Offer some evidence, and if it is not learned. Prove being homophobic isn't learned.

However I do believe sexual attraction is learned, people formulate their views on what other people thing alot of the time. The hottest person may not be all that hot to someone out.

[Realist]

And how do you think a person FORMS their identity? It is formed by the culture and social environment they are raised in.

True. But I would say that asserting that ones particular identity is greater than everyone elses identity is intrinsic to culture itself; not to something taught in specific cultures. This would explain the universality of racism. If racism is a learned behaviour, why does every culture seem to teach it?

[Jeffery]

Because it is not something always intentionally taught. (although it is in some cultures/families)

But racism is also NOT a biological function.

[S_K_O_F]

I'm not even talking about homosexuals...I'm talking about racism. You seemed to imply that racism could have been caused by a chemical imbalance and I'm wondering, truthfully, why its called an imbalance.

but i was trying to compare the "learned" response of racism to the naturally occuring resonse of homosexuality

(i am going to attempt to choose my wording very carefully)

I will come out and say that i believe that both are a learned response.

but anyway...I only used the term chemical imbalance because that is the term that psychologists always seem to use for emotional discrepancies. would you not consider that 2 different people: a racist and a tolerater; or a homosexual and a heterosexual; or whatever...would you say that they definately have some emotional discrepancies?

so, if chemicals are the direct cause of our emotions, and our emotions tell us our mood, our eccentricities, our likes and dislikes, our sexual preferences, etc. then in keeping with a common wording used to describe certain accepted emotional discrepancies, all emotional discrepancies are caused by too much of one chemical, or not enough of a chemical. which is exactly what "chemical balance and imbalance" describes

[dirka dirka]

Because it is not something always intentionally taught. (although it is in some cultures/families)

But racism is also NOT a biological function.

Neither is being gay! Its not something there at birth, if you are going to argue racism isn't, therefore homphopicism isn't, therefore being gay isn't prevelant at birth.

The fact that you don't respond to my posts, when I have a legit point, proves I am right. Just because you don't post, doesn't make you anymore wrong.

[Northwind]

Neither is being gay! Its not something there at birth, if you are going to argue racism isn't, therefore homphopicism isn't, therefore being gay isn't prevelant at birth.

The fact that you don't respond to my posts, when I have a legit point, proves I am right. Just because you don't post, doesn't make you anymore wrong.
Dirka, haven't you already admitted to not understanding gay people? And now you are saying you know whether gay people are gay by nature or nurture? Can you really not see the inherent contradictions in your points? If you don't know about gay people, then you don't get to weigh in on what may make someone attracted to members of the same sex. Simple as that.

[dirka dirka]

Dirka, haven't you already admitted to not understanding gay people? And now you are saying you know whether gay people are gay by nature or nurture? Can you really not see the inherent contradictions in your points? If you don't know about gay people, then you don't get to weigh in on what may make someone attracted to members of the same sex. Simple as that.

The fact that I don't understand them has nothing to do with this. I am saying that you can only argue one point actually.

Either
Gays are natural, and so are homophobics.
or
Gays are unnatural, and so are homophobics.

If you argue against those points, then you are obviously wrong because if you say one trait is natural while another is not...

[Rescorlian]

Both are unnatural. Homophobic comes from the dislike of osmeone (same with racism, fear of the dark, huderites, feminism)

All of which are unnatural and are products of our society. I do know gay people, and it's nurture. A person is not born gay (otherwise it wouldn't happen during puberty it would happen when very young, instead of teesting the girls, they'd tease the guys)

HAve you guys ever heard of heteronormative? It's word that was used describing a person who feels that the traditional way of relationships (male and female) is the right way. It's the natuiral way, otherwise jill wouldn't have slot At that fits john's slot B.

I personally am totally against gay marriage, beyond that tho who cares what they do behind closed doors. I'll admit that they annoy the heck out of me (you don't see me needing to express my heteronormatism with a parade)

[Jeffery]

Dirka, haven't you already admitted to not understanding gay people? And now you are saying you know whether gay people are gay by nature or nurture? Can you really not see the inherent contradictions in your points? If you don't know about gay people, then you don't get to weigh in on what may make someone attracted to members of the same sex. Simple as that.
Also, there are a lot of scientists on both sides arguing for/against nature vs nurture. There is "scientific" evidence of both apparently.

But while some scientissts have found genes they ay might be part of the cause of homosexuality, not a single one has ever found evidense that homophobia is genetic.

Homophobia is learned from those around you.

[Northwind]

The fact that I don't understand them has nothing to do with this. I am saying that you can only argue one point actually.

Either
Gays are natural, and so are homophobics.
or
Gays are unnatural, and so are homophobics.

If you argue against those points, then you are obviously wrong because if you say one trait is natural while another is not...
dirka,

Seriously, what sort of logic is this? Not any that I'm familiar with. If A is natural, then B is natural? What if A and B are completely separate entities (as they are here)? How can you say I am wrong when you are not being remotely logical in your arguments? As an example, if brown hair is natural and I don't like people with brown hair, then my dislike must also be "natural." I will say this very slowly so that I will not be misunderstood.

How . . . does . . . that . . . argument . . . remotely . . . hold . . . water?

[S_K_O_F]

I would also like to point out that I am not necessarily backing up dirka here

while dirka and I may share the same views about the morality of homosexuality, I am not homophobic and interact with homosexuals just like heterosexuals. just because I believe that homosexuality is wrong, does not mean that I hate homosexuals. I have hada couple different homosexual friends in the past and they have known of my views of homosexuality, but we were able to get by our differences and be friends because i will not condemn a person for an act i view as immoral...i will only condemn the act

[Jeffery]

Both are unnatural. Homophobic comes from the dislike of osmeone (same with racism, fear of the dark, huderites, feminism)

All of which are unnatural and are products of our society. I do know gay people, and it's nurture. A person is not born gay (otherwise it wouldn't happen during puberty it would happen when very young, instead of teesting the girls, they'd tease the guys)

HAve you guys ever heard of heteronormative? It's word that was used describing a person who feels that the traditional way of relationships (male and female) is the right way. It's the natuiral way, otherwise jill wouldn't have slot At that fits john's slot B.

I personally am totally against gay marriage, beyond that tho who cares what they do behind closed doors. I'll admit that they annoy the heck out of me (you don't see me needing to express my heteronormatism with a parade)
But there ARE cases of boys who are very young exibiting interest in other boys. There is also the case that in many homosexuals, there is a hormonal imbalance that leads to too much.not enough of the hormones that are considered the building blocks of sexuality.

[dirka dirka]

Both are unnatural. Homophobic comes from the dislike of osmeone (same with racism, fear of the dark, huderites, feminism)

My point exactly. However they will ask who gets to decide what is natural and what isn't. The fact is they are both traits, therefore both natural or both unnatural.

All of which are unnatural and are products of our society. I do know gay people, and it's nurture. A person is not born gay (otherwise it wouldn't happen during puberty it would happen when very young, instead of teesting the girls, they'd tease the guys)
I really fail to see the teasing analogy, considering many hide it at that age especially. Plus guys to tease guys.

HAve you guys ever heard of heteronormative? It's word that was used describing a person who feels that the traditional way of relationships (male and female) is the right way. It's the natuiral way, otherwise jill wouldn't have slot At that fits john's slot B.
Wurd? I'm that also.

I personally am totally against gay marriage, beyond that tho who cares what they do behind closed doors. I'll admit that they annoy the heck out of me (you don't see me needing to express my heteronormatism with a parade)
Stereotyping, however I agree.

[dirka dirka]

dirka,

Seriously, what sort of logic is this? Not any that I'm familiar with. If A is natural, then B is natural? What if A and B are completely separate entities (as they are here)? How can you say I am wrong when you are not being remotely logical in your arguments? As an example, if brown hair is natural and I don't like people with brown hair, then my dislike must also be "natural." I will say this very slowly so that I will not be misunderstood.

How . . . does . . . that . . . argument . . . remotely . . . hold . . . water?

You didn't even read my entire post. THEY ARE BOTH TRAITS, so either they are both natural, or both not.

Edit: and that trait argument isn't even my argument. It was brought up by someone else.

[dirka dirka]

I would also like to point out that I am not necessarily backing up dirka here

while dirka and I may share the same views about the morality of homosexuality, I am not homophobic and interact with homosexuals just like heterosexuals. just because I believe that homosexuality is wrong, does not mean that I hate homosexuals. I have hada couple different homosexual friends in the past and they have known of my views of homosexuality, but we were able to get by our differences and be friends because i will not condemn a person for an act i view as immoral...i will only condemn the act

Now don't get me wrong guys. I don't hate gays, I just don't want to interact with them, and do fear them because of my prediscussed ignorance.

[Rescorlian]

Nnatural is decided by nature, human men and women have been mating for years and years. SO does that not make for narue? It's the way we were meant to be. If not both men and women would be able to reproduce A sexually.

The teasing analogy, you know lil jimmy likes some girl so he pulls her hair. And at that age they don't know it's "wrong" so they wouldn't know better.

Anyone who believes that stereotyping is not a truth of our world is blinded. You think the mods don't lump us all intogether and then takle the exceptions (the current mods being mypoint) Stereotism has it's place in the world. As long a speople realise there are exception to every one.

[dirka dirka]

Nnatural is decided by nature, human men and women have been mating for years and years. SO does that not make for narue? It's the way we were meant to be. If not both men and women would be able to reproduce A sexually.
Okay, homophobics happen in nature, they are natrual.

The teasing analogy, you know lil jimmy likes some girl so he pulls her hair. And at that age they don't know it's "wrong" so they wouldn't know better.
At that age they don't know how they feal about girls.... Cooties?

Anyone who believes that stereotyping is not a truth of our world is blinded. You think the mods don't lump us all intogether and then takle the exceptions (the current mods being mypoint) Stereotism has it's place in the world. As long a speople realise there are exception to every one.
We know its a truth, the question is, is it wrong?

[Jeffery]

Nnatural is decided by nature, human men and women have been mating for years and years. SO does that not make for narue? It's the way we were meant to be. If not both men and women would be able to reproduce A sexually.

The teasing analogy, you know lil jimmy likes some girl so he pulls her hair. And at that age they don't know it's "wrong" so they wouldn't know better.

Anyone who believes that stereotyping is not a truth of our world is blinded. You think the mods don't lump us all intogether and then takle the exceptions (the current mods being mypoint) Stereotism has it's place in the world. As long a speople realise there are exception to every one.
And men have been having sex for as long back as written history goes, so by your definitions, wouldn;t that be natural as well?

[Rescorlian]

Lol, is that sarcasm, nature balances it's self, so then homophobics could be argued tpo be natural. They're not cause homosexuality is not.

Yeah you raise a good point, I said very young, let's shoot at about a grade 3 level (that's about the time I starte anyway's)

No it's not wrong

[doubledown]

Homosexuality has been recorded from the earliest civilizations. So basically, as far back as we can tell, as long as there has been heterosexual couplings, there have also been homosexual couplings. How can you say either one is wrong or unnatural?

[dirka dirka]

Homosexuality has been recorded from the earliest civilizations. So basically, as far back as we can tell, as long as there has been heterosexual couplings, there have also been homosexual couplings. How can you say either one is wrong or unnatural?

However this is not true. Originally there had to be only heterosexuals, because our species needed to survive.

[doubledown]

homosexuality has been reported to be about a constant 10% of the population. So 10% of the earlies populations not being able to reproduce will not stop the continuation of a species.

[dirka dirka]

homosexuality has been reported to be about a constant 10% of the population. So 10% of the earlies populations not being able to reproduce will not stop the continuation of a species.

However 10% of 6 people is 0 people.

[Rescorlian]

Can a man and a man procreate? Same with women?

No.

Thus how can it be considered natural when it has no purpose except for our physical pleasure. It's not naturally what we're meant to do.

[dirka dirka]

Can a man and a man procreate? Same with women?

No.

Thus how can it be considered natural when it has no purpose except for our physical pleasure. It's not naturally what we're meant to do.

and they will argue that how do you know what we are meant to do. What if gays arn't just an evolution.

[Jeffery]

So, anything not meant for procreation is not normal.

So kissing, holding hands, snuggling, anal and oral sex, and dating are all "not normal", as none of them are needed for procreation.

And i again bring up homosexuality as exibited in animals in nature, as well as some species who mate with ONE mate for life, and will not find a new mate once the old one dies as proof that even in nature, procreation is NOT always the driving force.

[Rescorlian]

If they were evlution, they'd be able to reproduce. Men and women would both grow the second set of organs.

Can we reproduce in our own sex?

No.

Thus it was not naturally intended to happen. As were not meant to walk on water (water skiing)

Humans do all sorts of things that aren't natural. Homosexuality is one of them.

[Jeffery]

So, you ignore the homosexuality exibited in nature why?

[dirka dirka]

So, you ignore the homosexuality exibited in nature why?

because homophobia would have to be also, and you said its not


they both happen in nature

[Rescorlian]

Lol you think any of the more primitive of our ancestors did those things? It's just ben in the 20th century that women have been getting to say they don't want them man to have his fun, roll over and sleep with her unsatisfied.

Are they normal? yes, are they natural? no. You want to use the animals as an example, double edged sword. Do they have oral sex? Do they snuggle? No they mate, then part ways.

I also won't eat my young to make my mate go into heat again.

We are not like the other animals, we hold ourselves to a higher standard. And you attempting to compare me to them is insulting.

[Kyir]

a higher standered? ha, do other animals slaugter innocent populations, do other animals start big wars, if anything animals have a better way of life

[Jeffery]

Actually, there RAE animals that dont "mate and part ways"

Many mate for life, and stay with each other even at times when mating is not taking place.

And man IS an animal. Man is just another part of nature. PART of nature, and not seperate from it. man just happens to be what themselves consider the highest of the animal world.

[Rescorlian]

They don't do so cause they're to damn dumb to do it on our scale. You ever seen the nature footage of heiyena packs taking on each other over territory. They fight same as we do, they just do it on a very small scale. And if you think about it, our civilization is getting better as we go along. We are btter than the animals, hel we're so much better we even managed to eliminate survival of the strong. You think a retard could survive in the wild? Not a chance.

[Kyir]

Geese mate for life, and THEY can fly without planes, whos smarter now? huh

[dirka dirka]

You are saying: if it happens in nature, its natural

homophobia happens in nature
homophobia is natural

[Rescorlian]

We are the highest, we are the top of the food chain. Yur right actually on their are other animals that pair bond, but do you see any of them life mating homosexually?

[Jeffery]

We are the highest, we are the top of the food chain. Yur right actually on their are other animals that pair bond, but do you see any of them life mating homosexually?
Life mating meaning pairing up for life?
Yes. Actually on the news recently was a story about a set of penguins that had been engaging in homosexual relations with same partner mates, and PETA was protesting plans to "re-educate" them as cruelty to animals.
Those penguins each had "mated" with another of their own sex, and were staying with their "partner"

[Kyir]

hell yheaz, the 5 pairs of dogs ive had in my life have been, and seeing ive always found/got from the humain socciety as a pair id ssay it is, and dogs seem a shitload happyer then humans

[Rescorlian]

kyir, I'm done responding to you, your not advancing the discussion at all.

Could you back that up jeffery?

[Kyir]

you said no animals mated homosexualy for life and im proving you wrong, that advances the disscussion

[Rescorlian]

Doesn't change the fact I think your a n00b now and this is the last post of yours I'm responding too.

EDIT- welcome to ignore city, population, you

[Kyir]

youve already said you wouldnet respond and just did :D

[dirka dirka]

Rescorlian, Kyir... Shut up.


The rest of you, you say one that things that happen in nature are natural. Then you say homophobia is not natural and being gay is. You are indeed hypocrites, and need to rethink what you are saying.

[meat.eater]

Rescorlian, Kyir... Shut up.


The rest of you, you say one that things that happen in nature are natural. Then you say homophobia is not natural and being gay is. You are indeed hypocrites, and need to rethink what you are saying.

Why do then need to rethink it, it makes sense. Homophobia isnt natural, sexuality is. People cant help they're gay, they just are. Its just how they feel. They know they're the minority, but being who they are is their norm. Homophobia is more of a choice, a poor thought out choice, and sexuality is a feeling. It is a choice to an extent, but for them, there is no alternate. Its how it has to be. You can choose not to be homphobic.

By the way, i really dislike homophobes, if you didnt figure that out already.

[dirka dirka]

People cant help they're gay, they just are. Its just how they feel.

Same with being a homophobe. ITS NOT A CHOICE, as I PROVED BEFORE.

[Realist]

Who cares whether homosexuality is natural or not? It obviously is natural to anyone who doesn't redefine the word "natural" to "not homosexual." But beyond that, since when does natural=immoral? Are computers wrong to use because they are unnatural?

[T3km4n]

This thread was never about homosexuality, you idiot dirka. It was a joke I made when I was angry at people. And no, I'm not stereotyping. I am saying that people who wear those shirts are either wearing them as a stupid joke, or are stereotyping everyone else and being hypocritical.

So anyways, I'd rather this thread be closed because I don't like it anymore.

[dirka dirka]

This thread was never about homosexuality, you idiot dirka. It was a joke I made when I was angry at people. And no, I'm not stereotyping. I am saying that people who wear those shirts are either wearing them as a stupid joke, or are stereotyping everyone else and being hypocritical.

So anyways, I'd rather this thread be closed because I don't like it anymore.

This thread transitioned into homosexuality... obviously or we would not be talked about it. Saying almost anything about the people that are gay is stereotyping.

Right...

[T3km4n]

Did you even read the beginning of this thread? It had nothing to do with homosexuality, and therefore SHOULD NOT have transitioned there. I would rather get on the topic of hating people or get this thread closed.

[meat.eater]

Same with being a homophobe. ITS NOT A CHOICE, as I PROVED BEFORE.

No, you are wrong. People cannot choose whether they agree with homosexuality, maybe, but they can help being a jackass about it. The act of homophobism is vocalizing opposition and inferiorizing the gays. You may disagree, which i have no problem with, i just might not agree with you about. When you get to the point of hurting others, then i have a problem.

[Warcow]

Did you even read the beginning of this thread? It had nothing to do with homosexuality, and therefore SHOULD NOT have transitioned there. I would rather get on the topic of hating people or get this thread closed.
:eek: we all hate you t3kshizzle! Does that count? ;)

[Jeffery]

Warcow is tekophobic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dirka dirka]

Did you even read the beginning of this thread? It had nothing to do with homosexuality, and therefore SHOULD NOT have transitioned there. I would rather get on the topic of hating people or get this thread closed.

However it did, and I'm not even the one that started the transition, indeed you were by the topic name.

No, you are wrong. People cannot choose whether they agree with homosexuality, maybe, but they can help being a jackass about it. The act of homophobism is vocalizing opposition and inferiorizing the gays. You may disagree, which i have no problem with, i just might not agree with you about. When you get to the point of hurting others, then i have a problem.

I am not wrong. People can't choose if they are gay, fine. people also can't choose if they are a homophobic. Being a homophobic has nothing to do with inferiorizing gays. It is a fear of gays. Fear is based in ignorance. Not understanding why they do it.

[Warcow]

Warcow is tekophobic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The hideous truth revealed. I friends, am a t3kist . . . anything that that has to do with a t3k should be abolished! Reclaim our forums!

*Raises an upside down burning counterstrike flag*

THAT THAT YOU T3KIST WHORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jeffery]

And ignorance is defeated by knowledge.

You can LEARN why you are afraid, and learn to not be homophobic. So yes, homophobia IS a choice, because you will remain such until you decide to not be.

[meat.eater]

WordNetNote: click on a word meaning below to see its connections and related words.

The noun homophobia has one meaning:

Meaning #1: prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Directory > Language > WordNet > homophobia

[meat.eater]

Dictionaryho·mo·pho·bi·a (hō'mə-fō'bē-ə )
n.
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.
[HOMO(SEXUAL) + –PHOBIA.]

ho'mo·phobe' n.
ho'mo·pho'bic adj.

[meat.eater]

Wikipediahomophobia
The term homophobia means fear or hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice or discrimination against, people who are homosexual. It is sometimes used to mean any sort of opposition to same-sex romance or sexual activity, though this opposition may more accurately be called anti-gay bias.

Homophobia is not a psychiatric term. There is no such thing as clinical homophobia, though the phenomenon of homophobia continues to be studied by groups like the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. Some studies have linked deep hatred towards homosexuality to repressed homosexual feelings (see "internalised homophobia", below).

[meat.eater]

You are wrong. It is used in the sense of hatred a predjuduce against gays. A "homophobic" remark is a mean remark against a gay, not a scared one.

Wow quadruple post, im such a noob.

[T3km4n]

Meat eater has the right idea. Dirka is just saying that he is choicedly ignorant and wants to hate homosexuals. He hides behind his thought that it isn't his fault. Like that last definition, you could easily be not homophobic, but you are.

[Warcow]

You are wrong. It is used in the sense of hatred a predjuduce against gays. A "homophobic" remark is a mean remark against a gay, not a scared one.

Wow quadruple post, im such a noob.

Yeah, a single post definately would have worked for all four of those :P Especially since they were all on the same train of thought.

[dirka dirka]

Homophobia, means Fear of Gays. Fear comes from ignorance, not knowing. I don't understand what they do, therefore I am a homophobic. If you wan't to debate against if I am a homophobic, argue the point I just made, because it is true to me.

Meat eater has the right idea. Dirka is just saying that he is choicedly ignorant and wants to hate homosexuals. He hides behind his thought that it isn't his fault. Like that last definition, you could easily be not homophobic, but you are.

Hate, NO!!!!!! I don't want to understand them. I do not hate them, that would be wrong.

[Warcow]

Homophobia, means Fear of Gays. Fear comes from ignorance, not knowing. I don't understand what they do, therefore I am a homophobic. If you wan't to debate against if I am a homophobic, argue the point I just made, because it is true to me.

Fear doesn't necessarily come from ignorance, I am fairly afraid of lots of things that I know what will happen to me. I fear putting my hand on a hot burner because I know it will hurt like the dickens, that doesn't come from ignorance, your point is moot.

[T3km4n]

Even if you were right, then you would be proving yourself wrong about tons of other points you made. Such as the not being scared of heterosexuals that do other forms of sexual intercourse.

[dirka dirka]

Fear doesn't necessarily come from ignorance, I am fairly afraid of lots of things that I know what will happen to me. I fear putting my hand on a hot burner because I know it will hurt like the dickens, that doesn't come from ignorance, your point is moot.

My fear comes from ignorance. Just like the saying goes, "Fear what you don't understand."

[meat.eater]

Homophobia, means Fear of Gays. Fear comes from ignorance, not knowing. I don't understand what they do, therefore I am a homophobic. If you wan't to debate against if I am a homophobic, argue the point I just made, because it is true to me.



Hate, NO!!!!!! I don't want to understand them. I do not hate them, that would be wrong.

You have the power to look into and then know, do you not? Aka: it is your choice not to. Hatred and fear can be overcome and changed. Most homophobes dont wish to, because they are afraid. Not afraid of gays, afraid of not hating gays.

[dirka dirka]

Even if you were right, then you would be proving yourself wrong about tons of other points you made. Such as the not being scared of heterosexuals that do other forms of sexual intercourse.

... What does my not being afraid of heterosexuals have to do with anything? I understand how they like the opposite sex. I don't understand how men like the same sex. I can even understand how women like the same sex, because I like that sex also.

[meat.eater]

If you have a fear of gays from ignorance, that is not homophobia. Homophobia involves the blatently cruel attacks that come with the fear. And they know what gays are, they choose not to like them.

[dirka dirka]

You have the power to look into and then know, do you not? Aka: it is your choice not to. Hatred and fear can be overcome and changed. Most homophobes dont wish to, because they are afraid. Not afraid of gays, afraid of not hating gays.

No, my ignorance can't be changed. Once again, ITS NOT A HATRED!!!! However, my ignorance can't be changed because I don't understand how they like men. How could I change that?

If you have a fear of gays from ignorance, that is not homophobia.

Now back that with fact, because I can back the opposite with fact.

[Jeffery]

Ignorance is simply the lack of information and knowledge.

You can choose to not be ignorant on any issue by simply learning more about it.

[dirka dirka]

How can I learn about why men like other men? I thought this was a mental thing? I doubt they could explain it to me.

However the fact remains, I am ignorant right now, I am a homophobe.

[T3km4n]

Alright, this is going to most likely be my last post on the subject. You said you don't understand why gays like eachother, and that you don't understand why heteros have anal or oral sex. You only fear gays because of it. You also said that because you don't understand why gays are gay, you fear them. That means I should fear you for not knowing why you're homophobic, and I should fear computers for not fully understanding how they work.

Your whole point is just moot.

[meat.eater]

No, my ignorance can't be changed. Once again, ITS NOT A HATRED!!!! However, my ignorance can't be changed because I don't understand how they like men. How could I change that?



Now back that with fact, because I can back the opposite with fact.

Edited above post, and:

1Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.

Thats the definition, dirka. "Behavior based on such a feeling" means hatred.

[dirka dirka]

Alright, this is going to most likely be my last post on the subject.

You said you don't understand why gays like eachother, and that you don't understand why heteros have anal or oral sex. You only fear gays because of it.
I did not say I fear gays because of the sex. I said the sex is wrong to my standpoint, because I don't understand. However I fear them because I don't know how they like other men.

You also said that because you don't understand why gays are gay, you fear them.

That means I should fear you for not knowing why you're homophobic, and I should fear computers for not fully understanding how they work.
I know why I am homophobic, and I explained it. Ignorance of gays.
You should fear your computer... Open it up and start touching the wires... Maybe lick the end of one...

Your whole point is just moot.
No.

[dirka dirka]

Edited above post, and:

1Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.

Thats the definition, dirka. "Behavior based on such a feeling" means hatred.

However I don't behave on that feeling. I live as I would live without them. I don't try and pick out who is gay and not associate myself with them. Maybe when I am older, I will understand them. However not now.

[meat.eater]

Usage of the term
People who regard all opposition to homosexuality as irrationally hateful may use the word in the loose sense of "any opposition to homosexuality". For example, gay rights activist Scott Bidstrup states in a personal essay titled Homophobia: The Fear Behind The Hatred:

If you look up homophobia in the dictionary, it will probably tell you that it is the fear of homosexuals. While many would take issue with that definition, it is nevertheless true that in many ways, it really is a fear of homosexuality or at least homosexuals.



Fine, dirka, by definition, you are a homophobe, but the english language has adapted the term to involve the hatred of gays. if you go around saying "Im homophobic" people will think it means you hate gays, rather then are scared of, or scared of becomeing gays. Words are meaningless if nobody interpreates them a certan way. I could say: "To me the word 'fag' means immature." Then i could call a kid a fag. Nobody would take it as if i called the kid immature. Its how the word has interperated. Dont argue with me. Argue with the entire earths acceptance of "homophobes".

[dirka dirka]

Usage of the term
People who regard all opposition to homosexuality as irrationally hateful may use the word in the loose sense of "any opposition to homosexuality". For example, gay rights activist Scott Bidstrup states in a personal essay titled Homophobia: The Fear Behind The Hatred:

If you look up homophobia in the dictionary, it will probably tell you that it is the fear of homosexuals. While many would take issue with that definition, it is nevertheless true that in many ways, it really is a fear of homosexuality or at least homosexuals.

Yeap.



Fine, dirka, by definition, you are a homophobe, but the english language has adapted the term to involve the hatred of gays. if you go around saying "Im homophobic" people will think it means you hate gays, rather then are scared of, or scared of becomeing gays. Words are meaningless if nobody interpreates them a certan way. I could say: "To me the word 'fag' means immature." Then i could call a kid a fag. Nobody would take it as if i called the kid immature. Its how the word has interperated. Dont argue with me. Argue with the entire earths acceptance of "homophobes".

but I don't hate them. I fear them, and thats why I don't go around telling everybody I am a homophobic, unless it comes up. When it comes up, I try to explain myself.


Who knows, maybe years from now I'll be gay. The thing is, right now, I don't understand how they can like men.

[meat.eater]

but I don't hate them. I fear them, and thats why I don't go around telling everybody I am a homophobic, unless it comes up. When it comes up, I try to explain myself.


Who knows, maybe years from now I'll be gay. The thing is, right now, I don't understand how they can like men.

whether you hate them or not, that is what people will think of you if you claim to be homophobic.

[dirka dirka]

whether you hate them or not, that is what people will think of you if you claim to be homophobic.

and that is why I try to explain myself, otherwise I don't say it at all.

[meat.eater]

why not just skip saying your homophobic, and say "im scared of gays.", so you dont have to explain yourself. Because you havent been very seccessful in explaining yourself to us.

or that you dont understand them. or that you are ignorant.

just dont say homophobe because people interperate that a different way.

[dirka dirka]

why not just skip saying your homophobic, and say "im scared of gays.", so you dont have to explain yourself. Because you havent been very seccessful in explaining yourself to us.

or that you dont understand them. or that you are ignorant.

just dont say homophobe because people interperate that a different way.

True, saying "I don't understand gays" would stop alot of arguments and/or misunderstandings. Good point.

[meat.eater]

Glad we're on the same page again dirka. I was worried id have to be mad at you for a while. :);)

[dirka dirka]

Lol, Yeap :)

Still got my 200$ friend here explaining to me all this though.

[T3km4n]

That means I should fear you for not knowing why you're homophobic, and I should fear computers for not fully understanding how they work.

I know why I am homophobic, and I explained it. Ignorance of gays.

Okay, I know why men are homosexual. Not liking women.

[dirka dirka]

Okay, I know why men are homosexual. Not liking women.

Actually... I don't believe that is the reason... I think they are just attracted to men, I'm not sure it has anything to do with women.

[meat.eater]

dirka is right on that one. a close friend of mine is gay. he'd vounch for that.

[T3km4n]

Actually... I don't believe that is the reason... I think they are just attracted to men, I'm not sure it has anything to do with women.

Okay, you just explained homosexuality yourself. They are just attracted to men...

[meat.eater]

It IS a little more complicated then that. It has something to do with the neurological system. After all penis and penis make no fetus.

[dirka dirka]

Okay, you just explained homosexuality yourself. They are just attracted to men...

I fail to see your point... They like men, okay, but WHY?

[T3km4n]

I fail to see your point... They like men, okay, but WHY?

I fail to see YOUR point... You don't understand homosexuality, okay, but WHY?

[dirka dirka]

I fail to see YOUR point... You don't understand homosexuality, okay, but WHY?

Because I don't understand why they like men... for the billionth time.

[T3km4n]

That's just rewording homosexuality.

[T3km4n]

In my opinion, there is alot wrong with it. However I can't go much further without breaking the rules of the forums.

You DID change the topic, asshole! The topic is back to emo-hunting NOW!

[dirka dirka]

That's just rewording homosexuality.

we already established this...

Homophobia = Fear of Gays.
Fear = Not Understanding / Ignorance
I fear what I don't understand.

[dirka dirka]

oh...i thought you were coming out of the closet

um...well then

In my opinion, there is alot wrong with it. However I can't go much further without breaking the rules of the forums.

Which there is noting wrong with...

Those could be considered the first posts about it. However it was in your topic title!!

[T3km4n]

It was not actually meaning homosexual. It was a slang insult.

[dirka dirka]

It was not actually meaning homosexual. It was a slang insult.

... whats a slang insult?

Whats not the meaning of homosexual? Homosexual definitly has a set meaning that all of us on this forum can agree on. For one reason or another, a male is attracted to other males.

[T3km4n]

Holy shit. I thought you were gonna take Bottle's advice.

[dirka dirka]

How did I not? This is a structered debate, however you have no idea what you are talking about...

[T3km4n]

Alright. There is nothing more to get out of you. All you can say is that you are ignorant and you don't care. You don't want to change and it and won't. I don't care about ignorant idiots, and this thread is not even about this debate. So shut up, and go home.

[dirka dirka]

Alright. There is nothing more to get out of you. All you can say is that you are ignorant and you don't care. You don't want to change and it and won't. I don't care about ignorant idiots, and this thread is not even about this debate. So shut up, and go home.

If I didn't care, then I wouldn't be here. My ignorance can't be changed, because I don't understand why they like men.... and now you resort to insults after a structured debate that was concluded, then you came along and started posting totally random stuff... You indeed need to rethink your perspective.

[T3km4n]

I meant that you don't care that you are ignorant. And the point was for you to stop. This is not what this thread is about. Make your own thread trying to explain your homophobia. I don't really care anymore. Leave.

[dirka dirka]

I meant that you don't care that you are ignorant. And the point was for you to stop. This is not what this thread is about.
Its not that I don't care that I am ignorant. I can't change that ignorance by will. My ignorance is that I don't understand how they can like other men. Please explain to me how I can learn this, do I need to go to a class or something?

Make your own thread trying to explain your homophobia. I don't really care anymore. Leave.
My homophobia was already explained, and accepted. We also came to the conclusion that it may not be the best word to use because western society has deemed that word an insult. The debate was over, and then you rekindled it with this post:

http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=335402&postcount=227
Okay, I know why men are homosexual. Not liking women.

...and considering that was totally wrong, I had to respond once again.

[T3km4n]

Why the hell did you have to start a new argument. Leave my thread.

[dirka dirka]

Why the hell did you have to start a new argument. Leave my thread.

I indeed just proved above that it was you that rekindled the DEBATE about this subject. May I add without merit, the debate was over.

[T3km4n]

May I add that you have been attempting to rekindle this debate four times just now? Stop. No one likes you and your arrogant racist ass. Go raise your postcount somewhere else.

[dirka dirka]

May I add that you have been attempting to rekindle this debate four times just now? Stop. No one likes you and your arrogant racist ass. Go raise your postcount somewhere else.

I have not actually, I have been pointing out what was incorrect in your posts.

Nobody likes my "arrogant racist ass"? Here, lets see if this helps:
1.) I'm not racist.
2.) I'm sure somebody likes me.
3.) I'm definitely not arrogant.

Go raise my postcount somewhere else? You restarted the debate in the first place buddy, and it was over. Then you turned it into an insult fest.