Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Welcome to BZPower!

Hi there, while we hope you enjoy browsing through the site, there's a lot more you can do if you register. The process is easy and you can use your Google, Facebook, or Twitter account to make it even faster. Some perks of joining include:
  • Create your own topics, participate in existing discussions, and vote in polls
  • Show off your creations, stories, art, music, and movies and play member and staff-run games
  • Enter contests to win free LEGO sets and other prizes, and vote to decide the winners
  • Participate in raffles, including exclusive raffles for new members, and win free LEGO sets
  • Send private messages to other members
  • Organize with other members to attend or send your MOCs to LEGO fan events all over the world
  • Much, much more!
Enjoy your visit!





Photo

I am ashamed of who I am.

Posted by Seth Rollins , Sep 15 2012 · 3,610 views

My name is Gato, and I am ashamed of my bisexuality.

From a very young age I was taught by my parents that homosexuality was something of a great evil. Bad people were homosexuals, and they were bad people because of their homosexuality. While I wasn't taught explicitly to view homosexuals as as being inferior of me, the implication was always there that I was better than them. I was better than them just solely based off the fact that my sexuality was different than theirs. Since my parents never believed and still don't believe in bisexuality, that was never approached. However it still followed that bisexuals were in the same boat as the homosexuals.

This of course was flipped on its head when I realized that I was bisexual three years ago.

I probably would have realized it sooner had I grown up in a different environment than the one that espoused homophobia. Even one that was ambigulously neutral on the subject would have caused the realization much, much earlier. I would be lying if I were to say that it's easy. Even years later it's not an easy thing to be something when you've spent the past two decades having it engrained in you that what you are is something disgusting and evil. It's three years since I've realized I was a bisexual and even now images of gay couples make me uncomfortable. I know that it shouldn't, but even something as simple as two guys holding hands illicits an "Ick!" reaction from me despite the fact that they are representing something that I am. And this is just dealing with something that was on a personal level from my parents. I could go on about dealing with a culture that is by and large homophobic.

So please, people, don't be homophobic. Often you're doing more damage than you even realize.

  • 0



being anti-homosexuality makes as much sense as being anti-short or anti-brunette or anti-any-other-way-some-people-naturally-are


Yes and no. To some people it does make sense, to others it doesn't. Really, it all depends on your viewpoint-and that is a thought that can be applied to many other things.

For an example: Person A supports the death penalty/homosexuality/etc. His arguments make cogent, logical sense to listeners.

Person B, however, has a different viewpoint, and is influenced by his viewpoint to ignore a lot of what Person A says. Therefor, what Person A says makes no sense to him. At the same, he presents cogent, logical arguments as well, as to why he disagrees with the subject.

Person A, following his bias, thinks that Person B makes so sense. Then, a never-ending cycle is made.
    • 0
Photo
farmstink buttlass
Sep 16 2012 03:32 PM
"Disagreeing" with something like this really isn't so simple. The idea is still "You're still a sinner, what you're doing is still bad, and you're headed for nothing good." That's just the tenets of that line of thinking.

You can say that you can be okay with a person while hating something that is a fundamental part of them, but I find such claims highly suspect. What's the difference between hating something someone does and not the people who do it? That kind of thinking implies that you want the person to stop doing whatever it is you hate, that they can still be redeemed--in this case, stop being homosexuals. And that isn't going to happen.

Like Gato said, it's too complex an issue to talk about in broad strokes, but the idea is still the same. Simply "disagreeing" with this issue just isn't something that makes sense separately from homophobia.
    • 0
Well, maybe it would be less hating that fundamental part of them, and instead hating the actions they take, no? But still, I see what you're getting at, and I say again: It really depends on your viewpoint.

As well: Yes, some people hate homosexuals because of their homosexuality. Other people don't-yes, I know it isn't simple. There's a lot left to be explained. The simple part, though, is that you don't have to hate the person just because of their beliefs. The good part is that people are learning that, accepting that.

Yes, they can feel that that means the person can be redeemed...so what? Again, so long as they don't go overboard on it, and be so terribly overbearing like many people can, what's the matter? People can learn to accept things, or they can learn to shut up about their disagreements-like they are doing, finally.

There's one big, other problem, though: As some people shut up, other people get more vocal. The problems continue. It doesn't matter what the problem is-racism, sexism, homosexuality, the death sentence, anything. That's just the cycle. These arguments we have can be applied to just about every issue around, in our time and in times past. Maybe the problem is that people argue, instead of accepting?
    • 0
Photo
Seth Rollins
Sep 16 2012 04:07 PM
The problematic thing with you essentially comparing sexuality to the issue of racism is that you are essentially ceding the point. Nobody will ever try to argue that racism is a good thing. It should follow that nobody will try to argue that homophobia is a good thing. It just doesn't work.

It is also worth noting that death penalty doesn't really apply. Death penalty certainly is something that you can logicall argue both for and against. It's hard to do the same with the various sexualities. When you argue against something, you are arguing against it because it is wrong. If you argue against the death penalty you argue against it because you find it wrong. When you argue against a certain sexuality you argue againest it because you find it wrong.

The issue breaks down in that the death penalty is an action. Sexuality is a part of who you are. It makes up the very fibre of your being. When you argue against a certain sexuality, you are arguing that that something that makes up their very person is wrong. That is an incredibly dangerous line of thought, and one that nobody should ever take seriously.
    • 0
I'm sorry if I confused you, Gato, but you've missed the point: I'm just saying that similar arguments, in how things make sense to some people and don't to others, can apply to nearly any issue. That's just what I'm saying-no, they obviously aren't that close in truth, but that's one thing they share in common.

I say again: Person A may agree with subject, but Person B, who doesn't agree, finds that Person A's arguments, however cogent or logical, make no sense due to a pre-existing Bias. Person A will feel the same about Person B.

People argue, and they refuse to accept other people's arguments. Some people become less vocal, others become more vocal, the arguments continue. It's a cycle that lasts with nearly every issue possible-religion, politics, sexuality, you name it.

Yes, people argue against things because they find them wrong-that's the only reason people argue. If we argued against something we felt right, we'd either A] Have trouble because we were arguing with ourselves, or B] We most likely would have been lying to ourselves about whether or not we felt it right. Again, that's a gross oversimplification, and that's not always the case...but you get my point.

The arguments we're having can apply nearly everywhere, to nearly every issue. And it's that fact that has kept Humans arguing throughout the years...leading to any number of things. One common thing these disagreements lead to is war.

So, I say again: Maybe the problem is that people argue, instead of accepting? And when I say this, it applies to both sides of every argument.
    • 0
@Kal Grochi
The problem, in my view, with the argument of "love the sinner, hate the sin" is that the person still thinks that wholeheartedly loving someone and wanting to spend your life with them is a sin.
    • 0
True, but it's the best I thing I could think of at the moment. You don't necessarily have to treat it as sin, but that just flowed better than anything I could have thought of.

Basically, while you may disagree with the actions, somewhat, you still love the person. Like I and the others have said, it's not that simple, but that's what it'll boil down to.
    • 0
Photo
Seth Rollins
Sep 16 2012 04:42 PM
I'm failing to see your point. You have proved your point as to why people argue and the isseus of vocality, but you haven't proved to me just how the person arguing for homophobia isn't wrong. It doesn't matter if they're doing it politely or screaming at the top of their lungs, the moment you start arguing against a sexuality you have already lost because you have taken up a position that is essentially indefensible.

I am now realizing my spell check isn't working for BZP because I am pretty sure that is not how you spell indfensible but whatever.

And I'm going to take issue with that last statement you made. The problem isn't that both sides of the field are arguing and not accepting each other. The issue is that the side arguing against a certain sexuality is wrong. I absolutely refuse to accept another view point that belittles who I am and makes me less of a human being. It might be egotistical and arrogant of me to say this, but they are absolutely wrong and my viewpoint is the right one. I'm not going to accept it nor should I be expected to. It doesn't make me a mean, hateful person to do so. The implication that I should accept the other sides viewpoint as having at least some sort of merit just isn't wrong; it's horrifically offensive.

I'm pretty sure that's the wrong use of a semicolon too. Smeag will probably berate at me for it later. Silly English majors.

But let's take it a step back. Let's say that you didn't mean accepting. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words or maybe I'm misconstructing what you're saying. You might have meant to use 'understanding' instead. If that was the case, I still vehemently disagree with you. I shouldn't be expected to understand something that doesn't make sense. An argument against any sort of sexuality isn't just wrong. It is also highly illogical. The underlying precepts and assumptions are not just flawed. They're wrong. Therefore any argument stemming from those precepts and assumptions will be wrong as well.

But let's take it another step back. We're doing some Inception level stuff over here. Maybe I'm not meant to accept. Maybe I'm not meant to understand. Maybe I'm meant to respect. Once again, the overwhelming response I have is no. No I should not be expected to respect the right of other people's right to free speech to demean, belittle, and otherwise spout hate towards a specific group of people. The impact of anti sexual rhetoric in the world is one that is hard to overstate. While the wounds left by such words do heal over time, the scars both I and other people bear will last us a lifetime. Even if my parents were to come up to me today and apologize for what they've said and how they support me in my sexuality, ten years from now I will still have to deal with the emotional trauma that came with lying in my bed every night and knowing that just a few rooms over there were two people sleeping together in the same bed that absolutely despised the idea of me sleeping in the same bed with another man. It is a burden I have to bear every night, and every night I have to deal with it the wound becomes larger.

Please, please stop for a second and think about what you're saying before you respond again.
    • 0
@Kal Grochi
However, I find disagreement with a lifestyle/actions also odd. It (again in my view) would seem hard to disagree with someone about their personal relationships (unless you're in a sitcom).
    • 0

However, I find disagreement with a lifestyle/actions also odd. It (again in my view) would seem hard to disagree with someone about their personal relationships (unless you're in a sitcom).


Paleo: Relieving tension since 2012. But yeah, it is odd...People still do, though.

Gato: You've missed my point again. I'm saying that everything is right/wrong from a certain point of view. I honestly don't care if I'm quoting Obi-Wan here.

Yes, you and I would agree that homophobes are wrong. Other homophobes would say they're right. Points of view.

But you've really missed the point in this: I'm not arguing about homophobia being right or wrong, here. I'm arguing about those who think that homosexual acts are wrong. Does that make them homophobic? No! They just have a polite disagreement.

Homophobes take everything too far, and that can be considered a fact. Arguing against it in support of your views, that's fine. Generally. Yes, they may attempt to belittle you and make you less of a human being...in their eyes only. That's their opinion.

But still, from a certain point of view, one that is, obviously, not yours, your argument as well would have no merit. I'm not saying you have to accept their arguments, not at all: You just have to accept that they have a different viewpoint, and leave it be. Nobody's viewpoint is explicitly right except to them, and that's all their is to it.

It might be egotistical and arrogant of me to say this, but they are absolutely wrong and my viewpoint is the right one.

This is the exact problem. We're too unwilling to accept that they have a different viewpoint and leave it be-we have to constantly argue that they're completely wrong and we're completely right. I won't say that that doesn't apply to them either, it does.

It's the depth of Humanity's ability not to understand these things that leads to the problems they have. Is it too hard to understand that they have a different viewpoint? To accept that their viewpoint is different, and that's it? Too hard to respect them for standing up for their own beliefs?

Like it or not, you're doing the same thing they are. Refusing to even bring into mind whatever they say. They make no sense-not because they don't make sense, because you don't want them to make sense, because you're already biased against them, just as I was saying.

Before you say anything, yes, I've thought long and hard on this, now and in the past in other arguments. Am I anti-homosexuality? No. Am I homophobic? No. On the same side, am I explicitly for the opposite? Yes and no. I'm inclined, just as is everybody else, to follow only what I say and to disregard what others say. That's what I'm getting at.

The problem isn't that people are wrong, or right, or anything like that. Nobody is. It's all shades of grey. The problem is that we don't respect what their opinions, their viewpoints, we're too busy arguing to accept that, inevitably, they will be different, and every last human being is too stuck up to understand what the other person is saying. If we don't want something to make sense to us, it won't, and that's that.

But, at the same time, am I saying not to argue? No. Stand by your beliefs. Otherwise you'll just be opening others to continue doing what they do. But at the same time, don't be so quick do just as they do, don't be so quick to judge. Try to view things from both sides, alright? Try to put yourself in the other person's shoes. Old, old advice, I know, and yet it's helped over time to resolve more differences than constant arguing and fighting.

Yes, I know you're hurt and angered and a million other things by people's actions towards you. No, they don't have the right to judge you the way they do, to just say things that will automatically hurt you just because they want to. But does that give you the right to do the same things back? No. All you're doing is taking the low road that everybody does, and making the problem worse.

The least you could do, instead of arguing back and continuing the problem, is ignore them. Eventually they'll realize there's no point in continuing their arguments, and you can at least leave each other happily alone.

Maybe they'll run out of things to say, arguments to make, because they'll be coming too close to violating their own beliefs...such as the position I am in. I have played the position of devil's advocate, one that needed to be played. I have made arguments where the point behind them has been missed completely-they may as well have been completely disregarded, by now. Once I am put in that position, I will finish my statements and make my leave.

Gato, you've said in here that you're ashamed of who you are, it's in the title. Don't be. While I know it isn't so simple as saying "I'm not ashamed of myself anymore," you'll probably come to the point that you can say that. Don't let the others belittle you, as I think you must feel that I have. In all, I'm not in the least bit ashamed of what I've said-I'm ashamed that I feel that my arguments may have harmed you, ashamed that I may have done that to somebody I don't even know.

I'm deeply sorry if I've offended you, Gato. Many apologies.
    • 0
even though people who dont like homosexuality have a different and potentially extremely harmful viewpoint, you still absolutely have to respect that even though what theyre saying could be very toxic to the progression of society as a whole! if you dont like it then just ignore them because that has always worked 100% of the time in the past!!

youre pretty much making points from the position of someone who has had the privilege of having never had to experience such vitriol against yourself.

i dunno about gato, but i understand completely their viewpoints, and i know that they are simply wrong, because it leads to things like discrimination, psychological damage, and even outright violence and sometimes suicide. its a viewpoint that, rather than just being like "ok whatever", we should work hard to try and change to make the world a better place for everyone.

ps: im pretty sure the role of ~devils advocate~ wasnt really necessary here
    • 0
@Gato Well said, I honestly couldn't have said any of that better myself.

Honestly, one of the things I believe is that the whole arguement that it is a sin is really old thinking. In this day and age to say you love the person but hate the sin, is still hating the person. As someone who identifies as a homosexual and has a transgender boyfriend who identifies as pansexual, this train of thought is still really hurtful whether you like it or not. Trying to hide behind words such as those is rather cowardly and it is still VERY homophobic.

@Kal Grochi Believing that someone is in the wrong because of something that they cannot change about themselves is nothing short of wrong in itself. A viewpoint can be changed, a part of your very identity cannot. Therefore there is definitely a decided 'wrong' and 'right' in this arguement. It's like trying to say 'I don't like African American people as a broad generalizing rule but that doesn't make me racist' when that's exactly what it makes you. And attempting to say that people should just not argue over it and that those who are being oppressed should just be quiet about their oppression because maybe someday the oppressors will get bored of being oppressing. It doesn't work like that. It just doesn't. If you don't stand up and fight for the right to be who you are, free of discrimination, oppression, and general foul things, you can't expect things to change.


That said, this type of arguement is getting close to religious territory and I really don't want to have to close this entry. However, if anyone wants to discuss this topic with me or any topic regarding homosexuality/transgender/other topics please send me an IM. Any discussions will be confidential and I am literally willing to talk about any topic on this, I'm not shy.

If you want to take me up on this offer my IM addresses are:
AIM: BZPKohaku
YIM: BZPKohaku
MSN: king_masterj@hotmail.com
    • 0

@Kal Grochi Believing that someone is in the wrong because of something that they cannot change about themselves is nothing short of wrong in itself. A viewpoint can be changed, a part of your very identity cannot. Therefore there is definitely a decided 'wrong' and 'right' in this arguement. It's like trying to say 'I don't like African American people as a broad generalizing rule but that doesn't make me racist' when that's exactly what it makes you. And attempting to say that people should just not argue over it and that those who are being oppressed should just be quiet about their oppression because maybe someday the oppressors will get bored of being oppressing. It doesn't work like that. It just doesn't. If you don't stand up and fight for the right to be who you are, free of discrimination, oppression, and general foul things, you can't expect things to change.

This. If people didn't stand up for their rights, we would have a terrible society.
    • 0

So, I say again: Maybe the problem is that people argue, instead of accepting? And when I say this, it applies to both sides of every argument.


The other day, I met this man who opposed integration of schools. I know, it seems like that's an old topic, but that was really his belief. Now, I could have argued with him--said that his views were belittling, pointed to evidence that segregation is a detriment on society, told him to look at it from the perspective of a black child told his worse that whites, and the like--or I could have said, "You're entitled to that opinion." Which would you do? Would you listen as this man claims that there is a correlation between IQ and race, or would you call him on his hateful lies? Oh, he claimed not to be a racist, but it was clear that he was. What other sort of person would deny the rights of a specific group of people to receive an education?

A little further back in time, a friend of mine declared his belief that homosexuality is a "sin" (not his word, one used earlier in this thread) and can be cured. I know, it seems ridiculous, but that really was his belief. Now, I could have argued with him--said that views were belittling, pointed to evidence that homosexuality cannot be changed, told him to see this from the point of view of a man who simply loves another man and can't help it, and the like--or I could have said, "You're entitled to that opinion." Which would you do? Would you accept his claims that a certain sexuality is unnatural, or would you call him on his hateful lies? Oh, he claimed not to be a homophobe, but it was clear that he was. What other sort of person would deny the rights of a specific group of people to find love?

Oh, but maybe these aren't the best examples. Here's one that more directly addresses the notion of seeing acts as evil.

A while back, there were plans to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center--and, moreover, there was a national debate about it. Well, that debate came to a class I was attending on the First Amendment.

The class was pretty quick to break up into two distinct factions. At one point, someone made a particularly audacious claim that still rings in my ears: "If they open up a mosque, they can just train more terrorists."

I stared at the man, shocked. Beside me sat a Muslim woman, who kept silent for the rest of the class period.

He didn't hate Muslims in particular, as he repeatedly announced when confronted on the issue. After all, had you seen him attack or insult the Muslim woman in the class? (Well, no...) And isn't it acceptable to not accept a specific religion? (Well, yes, everyone disagrees with any religion that they don't believe in...) Besides, it's not like there's anything wrong with the people themselves. It's their religion that's wrong, their religion that promotes violence (supposedly).

And I agreed for a moment. The idea that we can disagree with an action or a belief made sense. I mean, how else could anyone have a discussion that wasn't entirely ad hominem attacks? Right?

But then I came back to reality. Sitting across the room from me was a man who had just made a baseless attack on an entire religion by insinuating that its followers supported terrorism. That wasn't right!

No, he didn't hate Muslims (so he said); he hated Islam and the act of practicing it. But his reasoning was completely unfounded in reality. And so is the hatred, "disapproval," or whatever-you'll-call-it-next of homosexuality. Being brought up in a culture that refuses to accept gay people is no excuse for degrading others. Neither is being brought up in a culture that is suspicious of Islam any excuse for saying Muslims are terrorists.


Yes, I know you're hurt and angered and a million other things by people's actions towards you. No, they don't have the right to judge you the way they do, to just say things that will automatically hurt you just because they want to. But does that give you the right to do the same things back? No. All you're doing is taking the low road that everybody does, and making the problem worse.


If someone told you that black people were inferior to white people, how would you respond? I am absolutely certain that any decent person would say, "That's plain racist and inexcusable." But, apparently, we're supposed to say, "Whatever." Are you willing to respect hate speech? How does this acceptance solve any problem?

And if someone argued against the integration of public schools (say, on the basis that crime rates are higher for black people than white people), would you respect him? Maybe this guy isn't "straight-up racist," maybe he's just "anti-integration." But the fact is, there's no difference--just like there's no difference between "anti-homosexuality" and homophobia.
    • 0

Honestly, one of the things I believe is that the whole arguement that it is a sin is really old thinking. In this day and age to say you love the person but hate the sin, is still hating the person. As someone who identifies as a homosexual and has a transgender boyfriend who identifies as pansexual, this train of thought is still really hurtful whether you like it or not. Trying to hide behind words such as those is rather cowardly and it is still VERY homophobic.


And because something is "old thinking" makes it wrong? I'm sorry Kohaku, but that's simply not true. Hating the sin is not hating the person. I hate sins when I commit them. I don't hate myself. Same thing with other people. I do not hate people, and you cannot say that I do. I'm sorry, but I'm not homophobic. I am not against homosexuals. But my religious beliefs are against homosexual acts. Obviously I'm not going to get into that -- this is BZPower, and I'm surprised this has gone on for so long -- but there is a very big difference between hating a person and hating an act.

Posted Image
    • 0
Did I say not to? Did I go in there, and specifically tell Gato not to do that? No. I told him that he shouldn't just give in and let them walk all over him.

Don't let the others belittle you, as I think you must feel that I have.


Right there, in the beginning. What I'm saying is not to assume that somebody is automatically wrong, as you are doing-nothing is automatically wrong, nor is it automatically right. I hate to go to this, but: Take a look at it from a Biological viewpoint. There, Homosexuality makes no sense and is outright wrong. From another viewpoint, it's perfectly right, and the only option that can be taken.

As well, what I said earlier about sin: Those words are not words I hide behind, because I don't. As well, in this day and age, yes, it must seem so, but not for everybody. I can't help but feel like I was just called homophobic myself, there.

Being against something is not the same as being so afraid of it that you have to constantly fight against it and make it bad. If you're against something, fine. But say, homophobia. It's part of the name. They don't argue against you just because they're against it-it's because they're afraid of it, afraid of the very thought. They're afraid of you for taking that thought and making it your life. Are they afraid because you've brave enough to do that, or because they feel you'll try to make them the same way? I don't know. Read into that what you will, because I feel that's all that has been done.

As well, I will say again: From certain viewpoints, things are wrong that aren't wrong in others. I don't respect racism or anything like that as an idea at all-however, I understand and accept that people have that opinion, and I will respect them for standing with their opinion in the face of such opposition.

I'm sorry, but respect, acceptance, and understanding are the large issues here, as with every argument. And I know that if I have to continue arguing, I'll end up physically ill.

Good day, all of you. I'm done with this. If you act the same as those you hate, so be it. You are who you are, and I can't change that.
    • 0
Photo
Seth Rollins
Sep 16 2012 05:53 PM
Whose right is it anyway. The philosophy where everyone is right and objectivity doesn't matter. That's right. Objectivity matters as much as the feelings of people who are marginalized.

Wait a second...

So let me check to see that I understand you properly. I'm pretty sure that I don't since you're not making any kind of logical sense, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt rather than outright claim that you're wrong. You seem to be obviously confused as to just what sexuality entails, which is okay! Gender and sexuality are very, very confusing subjects and most people are baffled by it.

I'm just going to go ahead and simplify things by addressing homophobia directly rather than saying people who argue against certain sexualities. I want to be clear that I'm not trying to marginalize other sexualities, but rather trying to dance around in a manner where all sexualities are covered under my argument is slightly tiring. You can replace homophobia and homosexuality with any sort of sexuality and the argument still stays the same.

You say that people who say that the act of homosexuality is wrong aren't being homophobic. They're just, in your words, having a polite disagreement. Homophobic people aren't people who have polite disagreements. Homophobic people are the vocal ones. Now we could disect and discuss the rest of what you said, and I will talk about other points in your post later, but ultimately this is what I will focus my attention on. This is the crux of your argument. It is the starting point. If I can prove this to be illogical, false, or in so many words wrong than the entire argument that follows is flawed.

To make it even more simpler, it all comes down to what exactly is homosexuality. Think about this one. Can you seperate the act of homosexuality from the state of being a homosexual. It's worth pointing out that this is a totally logical and valid question and I am not saying that it isn't. I would say that you can't. One follows the other. But you say that you can seperate the two, so that's the logical train of thought I will follow.

It's also worth noting that we are really, really simplifying the argument here. When we're saying homosexual, we're implying both a romantic attraction and a physical attraction. It's not that easy, but seperating the terms would make this post, much, much longer and I'm sure you don't want to wade through my wall of text any more than I wanted to wade through yours.

So let's assume that you can seperate the act from the state of being. I'm italicizing these words because they are important and whenever they come up special attention must be brought to them. According to you, if you disagree with the act of being a homosexual then you are not being homophobic. By disagreeing with the act you are saying that it is wrong. There is something reprehensible in the act, whether it be on a moral, ideological, or mental level.

So far so good, but unfortunately a bit of thought reveals there are several troubling implications besides the fact that the act itself is wrong. What about the state of being? If a person is a homosexual, he or she will form loving relationships with another person of the same gender. They will love each other in a romantic way. This implies both an emotional and mental feeling that transcends all others. There is nothing wrong with this.

But what if those two people choose to act on that love? What if they want to hold hands? Hug? Kiss? At that point they are no longer content with being homosexuals. It is not enough for them. They want to act on these feelings. Are the desires to act on being homosexual wrong? Note another divide. They're not acting quite yet, but the desire itself is still there. Is the desire itself wrong?

That's another discussion for another time. Back to the argument at hand.

The issue is that it follow that if the act itself is wrong then the source from which it came, the state of being, is also wrong. You claim that people saying the act of homosexuality is wrong, but so long as you don't say that the state of being is wrong then it's not homophobic. The issue with your argument is that it logically follows that if you say that the act is wrong then the state of being is wrong. The crux of your argument is wrong. It is falwed. It can not be defended as it stands.

I will not lie. I am biased against people spouting homosexual rhetoric. However that does not preclude me from being able to logically argue against them. So long as my logic is sound, then my argument stands. Please, please do not ask me to try to 'understand' an argument that does not make logical sense, let alone one whose flawed principles is the basis for the systematic hate of a group of people.

Also fair warning to everyone else. Don't delve into other issues like race and religion. This is neither the time nor place to let personal experience cloud our judgement This is the place to talk about homosexuality and only homosexuality in the all revealing light of logic. If you are forced to use other issues related to race or religion to prove your point, then I kindly ask you do them elsewhere. I will not stand for them and they will be deleted.

EDIT: As an aside I think I should make a point here about moral relitivism. The issue with some people's opinions is that they can be wrong. Opinions are not this wishy washy thing. Opinions can be objective. By saying that some people can hold an opinion that they find perfectly logical and that's okay is a critical flaw that numerous people need to make. If you can manage to take a viewpoint that belittles other people in a way that makes them feel inferior and somehow manage to parade it around like it is 'right' and 'okay' just because 'well that's just your opinion man' then there is something clearly wrong.
    • 0
@BioGio I love you so much for that.

@Velox We could sit here and argue all day about how your religious beliefs relate to your viewpoints on homosexuality. About how it is your very personality which picks and chooses from a religion in order to have an excuse for hating on another human being. About how your religion in its oldest and most ancient and uncorrupted roots speaks for the acceptance of all people. (A subject which I would gladly discuss further on IM.) But this is not the forum for that. This is not a place for religious arguments. This is a forum for peace and acceptance. This is a place where all people are equal in spirit. This is a place where humanity is valued.

And that being said, having an attraction for those of your same gender is not an act, it is a state of existence. Therefore you cannot say that you hate an act, when the thing in itself is innately so much more than an act. It is a part of the person, therefore to hate the act is to hate the person. And in this place of peace and acceptance, do you really want to be caught out hating a person?

@Kal Grochi "Take a look at it from a Biological viewpoint. There, Homosexuality makes no sense and is outright wrong." Really? You're going to discount and discredit all of the animals in the animal kingdom that have at their core a high percentage of homo- and bi-sexuality? Look at bats. The male bat has the highest rate of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. The giraffe is the most bisexual. Highest rates in the animal kingdom.

Therefore if you want to argue biology, there is a natural basis for this behavior. It's not something that humans just decided one day to try out. Personally in my own back yard there was for a time a pair of male ducks that seemed for all intents and purposes to be a couple. Are you going to tell the ducks that what they are doing is wrong? Would they even understand the concept of right and wrong from a human perspective?

Now some evidence seems to indicate that there is a biological basis for homosexuality outright. Look at the common fruitfly. Scientists have proven that they can turn fruitflies homosexual by changing one gene in their genome. In humans evidence indicates that it is perhaps not so straightforward what with birth-order and various other things. But the possibility of a biological basis is still there. Do you still argue that it makes no sense? Maybe it's a mutation, sure, but it's still perfectly natural.

If you want to argue wording let's bring some definitions into the mix. "Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)." -Wikipedia. "Homophobia - unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality" - Reference Dictionary. Homophobia means so much more than just a phobia. Homophobia is a state of mind. An irrational aversion to something that is often just a part of being a living and sentient creature.
    • 0
Photo
Booker DeWitt
Sep 16 2012 06:19 PM
This conversation is incredibly done. I don't like to dignify intolerance with a response these days, as I just get irritated.

The whole thing is as utterly stupid as saying 'I don't hate short people, but I disagree with being short'. It's a nonsense statement. Fact is, there is no logical argument 'against' homosexuality, just as there is no logical argument 'against' being short.

Also, much love for this:

Also fair warning to everyone else. Don't delve into other issues like race and religion. This is neither the time nor place to let personal experience cloud our judgement This is the place to talk about homosexuality and only homosexuality in the all revealing light of logic. If you are forced to use other issues related to race or religion to prove your point, then I kindly ask you do them elsewhere. I will not stand for them and they will be deleted.


It's all a spectrum anyway. Most people are a little bit gay anyway. It's only because we've constructed these silly straight/bi/gay concepts that people aren't as in touch with it. Kinsey scale and such like.

This whole debate is always pointless. It's thinkers vs non-thinkers. Those who base their views on reality on fact, and those who don't. And it just irritates me that people aren't raised to think - they're so often encouraged not to think.

- Tilius
    • 0
Photo
Seth Rollins
Sep 16 2012 06:26 PM
Tilius I would request that you don't make borderline flames and what could be constructed as trolling. Implying that one side is non thinking and that people are silly for claiming a certain sexuality is pretty crass. It's also against BZP rules.

Also there are numerous problems with the Kinsey scale and not everyone subscribes to it for perfectly valid and logical reasons.
    • 0

About Me

"I have never seen such a cocky and egocentric man (or woman) with such an inflated, festering wound of self entitlement as yourself." - Hothead
 
"He's an easy guy to love, but really hard to respect." - Princess Grace
__________________________

There was BZP information here but the updates borked it and everyone knows BZP doesn't really matter.
_______________

Personal Pronouns: He/She
Age: 24
Height: 6'
Status: Remember.  You're stuck here forever.
Temperament: Fickle
Adores: Hugs
Current goal: To find a new job
Currently learning: How to overcome the pains that addictions bring
Basic interests: Video games, hanging out with friends, writing, reading, role playing, digging myself into holes
Currently shipping: Gato x Ran Sama, Rose x Marie x Clover X Kirsten x  Nixie x Rachel x Alex x Terra x Samantha x Elizabeth x Jessica x Amaranth x ALEX
Currently feeling: Posted Image
Number of avatars in rotation: Remember when this was a thing?
Favorite Salad Dressing: Honey Mustard

Recent Comments

Search My Blog