Page 2 of 17 [ 272 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

22 Mar 2010, 5:15 am

Descartes wrote:
I don't understand how someone can be nonreligious and opposed to homosexuality. There's really no secular reason to be opposed to it.


I know it sounds crazy, but to some people the "ick factor" is a very real motivator. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I've known a few secular homophobes myself and that seems to actually be their reason. There also used to be a member of this forum that would vote against gay rights because he objected to what he saw as coercive tactics being used by them in his home state (California), I don't know if that's a common reason but it is secular.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Descartes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,288
Location: Texas, unfortunately

22 Mar 2010, 5:35 am

Dox47 wrote:
Descartes wrote:
I don't understand how someone can be nonreligious and opposed to homosexuality. There's really no secular reason to be opposed to it.


I know it sounds crazy, but to some people the "ick factor" is a very real motivator. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I've known a few secular homophobes myself and that seems to actually be their reason. There also used to be a member of this forum that would vote against gay rights because he objected to what he saw as coercive tactics being used by them in his home state (California), I don't know if that's a common reason but it is secular.


If you don't like gay sex then don't partake in it. That's really no good reason to dislike homosexuals anyway. I personally don't care for corn but that doesn't mean I'm going to hate and discriminate against people who do enjoy it.

What did this person mean by coercive tactics? Was he feeling pressured by gay rights groups to vote in their favor?


_________________
What fresh hell is this?


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Mar 2010, 5:59 am

Descartes wrote:

I don't understand how someone can be nonreligious and opposed to homosexuality. There's really no secular reason to be opposed to it.


An objection might be aesthetic rather than ethical. There is the yucchhh factor at work.

ruveyn



ValMikeSmith
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 977
Location: Stranger in a strange land

22 Mar 2010, 7:03 am

Secular opposition to homosexuality is a desperate self-loathing hypocrisy.
It is only done so vitriolically and violently to those who desperately want
to "prove" that they are "straight" to their peers when their pants are on fire.
That usually ends badly when their misguided attempts to play straight
fail and they get caught in an explosion of lust.

Christians do not without hypocrisy or misguidance persecute gay men.

Catholics are extraordinarily hypocritical about homosexuality.
The Pope once visited America to address the issue of Sexual Abuse by priests
that had taken vows of celibacy. Who named "Glory Holes"?

Sodomy is literally and biblically about abusing strangers and applies more to
the concept of "illegal immigration" and xenophobia than it could possibly apply
to homosexuals. Sodom was destroyed after demanding to know the guests
of the most kind and hospitable man there. Proud hatred for the poor is mentioned
as the sin of Sodom. Who defined it in sexual terms?

Onan hated his brother who died and left him a wife, but would intentionally
ejaculate before having sex with her, so that she might not become pregnant.

In the books of Samuel, David and Jonathan exchanged vows, bound their souls
together, exchanged clothing and affection and ejaculation, and loved each other
more than women.

Leviticus is for Jews, and they are apparently not homophobic about it.

The problem with religions is that they don't read their own holy books.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,555
Location: the island of defective toy santas

22 Mar 2010, 7:04 am

Vince wrote:
Homophobia is totally gay.
Right-wing Christians are totally homophobic.
Most Republicans are right-wing Christians.
Therefore, most Republicans are totally gay.


thank you for that :lol:



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,021
Location: Houston, Texas

22 Mar 2010, 7:27 am

There is a group of gay Republicans, they're called the Log Cabin Republicans.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

22 Mar 2010, 7:30 am

Tim_Tex wrote:
There is a group of gay Republicans, they're called the Log Cabin Republicans.


I wonder where that name comes from?



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

22 Mar 2010, 7:31 am

Also, notice from the comments above, when you bring up the topic of homosexuality, conservatives react by becoming totally defensive.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

22 Mar 2010, 8:31 am

Dox47 wrote:
Descartes wrote:
I don't understand how someone can be nonreligious and opposed to homosexuality. There's really no secular reason to be opposed to it.


I know it sounds crazy, but to some people the "ick factor" is a very real motivator. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I've known a few secular homophobes myself and that seems to actually be their reason. There also used to be a member of this forum that would vote against gay rights because he objected to what he saw as coercive tactics being used by them in his home state (California), I don't know if that's a common reason but it is secular.

I think the "ick factor" really is the predominant motive, even among the religious. After all, how many of these right-wing evangelicals promoting a literal interpretation of Leviticus are clean-shaven and eat bacon for breakfast? There is little Scriptural support for singling out this one particular Levitican law while discarding all the rest. They just use the Bible as a cover for their bigotry so they don't have to own up to it.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Vince
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 688
Location: Sweden

22 Mar 2010, 8:45 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Even if the third point were true (I simply think you live in the wrong country to know enough Republicans) you'd be saying that three out of four gays have chosen to oppress themselves and those who are openly gay, that's saying something quite negative about a distinct majority of gay people. I'd be curious to know what you think happened differently in the development of the maybe 20-25% who came out about it rather than covering it up?

I was using hyperbole, but it's not hard to see that there are a lot of self-denying homosexuals in the world, especially in cultures where it is frowned upon. That's just how it goes. Persons who are raised in the belief that homosexuality is evil are less likely to accept their own homosexuality. What I think "happened differently in the development" of the people who are raised in the belief that homosexuality is evil yet still choose to come out, is they at some point come to the realization that their parents were wrong, and that it is okay to be gay. Perhaps through meeting the right people later in life, or through thinking rationally about what makes a concept "evil" and realizing that homosexuality in and of itself doesn't harm anyone. It can be a number of factors. People don't live the exact same lives.


_________________
I'm Vince. I make the music. And puppet.
http://www.swenglish.nu


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 Mar 2010, 9:35 am

Orwell wrote:
I think the "ick factor" really is the predominant motive, even among the religious. After all, how many of these right-wing evangelicals promoting a literal interpretation of Leviticus are clean-shaven and eat bacon for breakfast? There is little Scriptural support for singling out this one particular Levitican law while discarding all the rest. They just use the Bible as a cover for their bigotry so they don't have to own up to it.

Well, their interpretation of the Bible likely considers homosexuality to be one of those ongoing bads.

1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1Ti 1:10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

The same cannot be said about bacon.

Mar 7:19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Probably shaving, as even though I can't find a verse now, I know that beardedness was actually promoted by members of the early Christian Church and continued to be by the Eastern Orthodox Church.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

22 Mar 2010, 9:41 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

The same cannot be said about bacon.

Mar 7:19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)


The same could be said for cum.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

22 Mar 2010, 9:50 am

Tim_Tex wrote:
There is a group of gay Republicans, they're called the Log Cabin Republicans.


Well, here is the sordid truth about the so-called "Log Cabin Republicans"

http://www.conservapedia.com/Log_Cabin_Republicans

Quote:
The Log Cabin Republicans is a political organization in the United States given prominence by the media that exceeds its actual membership. The group consists of homosexuals who claim to support the Republican Party but are actually dedicated to advancing portions of the homosexual agenda and opposing conservatives within the party.


Quote:
There is virtually no difference between the Log Cabin Republicans' assault on Christian values within the GOP and that of the ACLU or any number of other anti-christian groups in America. From promoting gay marriage to participating in pornographic gay pride parades, the Log Cabin Republicans defy every moral concept articulated in Christian Conservative circles. Why do the Log Cabin Republicans even maintain membership within the Republican Party? Look to the termite and the answer is clear. Like the termite, the Log Cabin Republicans have targeted an already existing structure, built by human hands, from which they can feed their political appetite and agenda. The aftermath, much like the resulting effect on a house after termites have had their way, is a destroyed conservative Republican Party. In effect, the Log Cabin Republicans are the best friends that socialist Democrats like liberal Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Ted Kennedy have ever had. Truly, the Log Cabin Republicans have earned the well-deserved title of being named America's Political Termites.


So, there you have it. Log Cabin Republicans are no better than termites.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 Mar 2010, 10:26 am

pandabear wrote:

The same could be said for cum.

I think the real area of question is the sexual activity expelling the cum, but not the consumption of cum.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

22 Mar 2010, 10:46 am

Conservatives used to fixate upon keeping the Aryan race pure, and expanding privileges associated with having Northern European heritage and descent. A major issue was inter-marriage between Whites and Colored people of whatever hue.

Today, I think that David Duke is the only prominent conservative who is overtly vocal about racist views.

Conservatives today really like to fixate themselves on homosexuality. There is no topic that fascinates them more, most likely because they've been told all their lives that homosexuality is an evil, aberrant abomination. Which ends up increasing its attractiveness for them.

There is an old joke that if you are thinking about inviting a Baptist neighbor to go fishing, then you had better be sure to invite two Baptists, because if you bring along only one, he will drink all of your beer. But, if you bring along another Baptist, then he won't drink any of your beer.

We see a very similar situation at play with so many, many prominent Conservatives being outed as homosexuals.

It might help if Conservatives wouldn't spend so much time and effort fuming and fussing about homosexuality.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

22 Mar 2010, 10:47 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
pandabear wrote:

The same could be said for cum.

I think the real area of question is the sexual activity expelling the cum, but not the consumption of cum.


So, there we have it. Consuming cum is fine.