Where do we draw the line with the term homophobia ?

Sorry, but in all honesty I was not trying to be pedantic. I mean, I do not get how one can "disagree" with one being ginger; with one being a woman or man; with one being interested in chemistry; or with one being straight/bi/gay...

You can disagree with a statement as "I think chemistry is interesting". How can you disagree with homosexuality? Honestly, I do not get it. My impression is that there two possibilities: you either mean "dislike" or you disagree with gay rights (but here it is an interpretation from what you meant in your post, so I can be totally wrong and, in case, I apologize). If what you mean (not you personally) is "dislike" I tend to see an inherent discrimination (and hence homophobia). Why your liking should be based on someone's sexual orientation? Can you base your "not liking" on sexual orientation if you do not attach negative connotations to it? But if you attach negative connotations, why can't I say you are homophobic? In the other case, as I previously said, I see no reasons why one should disagree with gay rights (since they do not affect straight people or even gay people not willing to use those rights, since, for instance, if gay people can marry it doesn't mean they have to). And to be honest I do not get why people shows such resistance in understanding that being against an entire group's rights is incredibly strong statement.

PS I repeat this again. Nobody expects straight people to like the picturing of gay people doing sex. But between not being into that (which is normal, if your sexual orientation is different) and "feeling sick to the stomach" there is a huge gap. And again, much of the conversation (surely in my case) was not dealing (at least not only) with that statement of OP's post.

Sorry, but in all honesty I was not trying to be pedantic. I mean, I do not get how one can "disagree" with one being ginger; with one being a woman or man; with one being interested in chemistry; or with one being straight/bi/gay...

You can disagree with a statement as "I think chemistry is interesting". How can you disagree with homosexuality? Honestly, I do not get it. My impression is that there two possibilities: you either mean "dislike" or you disagree with gay rights (but here it is an interpretation from what you meant in your post, so I can be totally wrong and, in case, I apologize). If what you mean (not you personally) is "dislike" I tend to see an inherent discrimination (and hence homophobia). Why your liking should be based on someone's sexual orientation? Can you base your "not liking" on sexual orientation if you do not attach negative connotations to it? But if you attach negative connotations, why can't I say you are homophobic? In the other case, as I previously said, I see no reasons why one should disagree with gay rights (since they do not affect straight people or even gay people not willing to use those rights, since, for instance, if gay people can marry it doesn't mean they have to). And to be honest I do not get why people shows such resistance in understanding that being against an entire group's rights is incredibly strong statement.

PS I repeat this again. Nobody expects straight people to like the picturing of gay people doing sex. But between not being into that (which is normal, if your sexual orientation is different) and "feeling sick to the stomach" there is a huge gap. And again, much of the conversation (surely in my case) was not dealing (at least not only) with that statement of OP's post.

See that's why I don't say I "dislike" gay people, because I really don't. I know a couple and have no issue with it. I just disagree with the concept of it all. Maybe there are only subtle nuances, but when I say I disagree with it, I mean it not in a discriminatory sense like I view them as the scourge of the earth. I suppose I can't find the word for it.

Personally, I think that they can do what they want just as I can, so yes I do believe that being against their rights is wrong - they aren't subhuman. Maybe I'm not so knowledgeable on this, so inform me if otherwise, but I just disagree with churches being forced to accommodate same-sex marriages even if they don't want to due to their religious purposes.

And I think feeling sick to his stomach is a pretty strong statement, but it's just an analogy of sorts.

Maybe I'm not so knowledgeable on this, so inform me if otherwise, but I just disagree with churches being forced to accommodate same-sex marriages even if they don't want to due to their religious purposes.

I'm talking about the hard-line Saudi clerics' ideology. Do I really need to spell out just what my objections are to it? It is puritanical and tyrannical, and does not belong in the modern world.

that aint true
firstly Wahabis arent wat extremists are labelled as its jus pretty much all muslims in the gulf are wahabies cos of this guy called 'Abdul Wahab' who fought againsts tyranny and stuff and freed the gulf from the foreighners commiting disgusting acts against islam, the muslims in the area's he freed from then on were called wahabies

and hard-line Saudi clerics really?
what is they say that fears u i mean wen it comes to wat wud affect u they tell us to respect u's and treat all well as required from us which is stated in the Quran

ps:- tbh i kinda understand y u think like this i mean i kinda did too but not to that extend untill i studied the religon and undrstood it via quran and hadiths

I know several black people too. However, I'd never assume I know their historical experience or question them in such a direct and private way.
Now I understand why you wont engage me in debate. You think you can make headway with another male gay poster since he's been less straight-forward (read more polite) in his distaste for homophobia in all of its presented forms at this thread. I see why now. I make too much sense for you to refute me. Therefore you cower behind the word "obstinate" when you simply fear a homosexual male who has the courage of his convictions, as I can assure you I do. For you to imply what you have in several instances here smacks of a "oh well if I must"- tolerance of male homosexuals. That's unacceptable to any self-respecting gay person. To actually state we're "not subhuman" suggests that you've entertained the notion that we are. Since you're obviously a heterosexual male, I'll repeat what I said in a previous. In order to understand why a religionist's conviction is no reason for an inability to accept gay people on all levels, I'll remind you that religion by its very nature is a matter of choice, where gay orientation is not. Again: The church has no patent on the word marriage. Fortunately, many American Episcopal Churches have seen their way clear to marry those who have an inclination to be married in a church. To those gay men I say "do as you see fit". Why they'd want to may simply be matter of familiarity of ritual. I'm of the firm conviction ( given what I've seen you write here), that your acceptance of male homosexuality is marginal at best. For someone like you to be so unreasonable in the face of gains made in general civil rights for other races than whites, I find it laughable that you would defend the church's right to discriminate with regard to homosexuals when you'd scream bloody murder were they to do so (as the Mormons did, to name but one sect, until the 1970s) if they didn't rank blacks in the same light as they did whites. I now know fully why you don't want a dialogue with me. You see I've read your posts too. I've called you on your feigned acceptance of homosexual males. I'd even go so far as to say you have a differing view toward female homosexuals than you do toward males of the same orientation given the tenor and direction of your questions. A bit of self-scrutiny (or more than a bit) is in order here. You may find me intransigent, but I find your posts thinly-veiled homophobia of an insidious order. The questions you ask of poliscistudent88 have been answered here over and over again by thinking homosexuals who have the very same sense of self and entitlement that you have. To ask them again is, at the very minimum, repetitive, and a bit deeper, insulting. I bet you're immensely in favor of what's erroneously known as "the right kind of threesome"(MFF), truth be known. Just a hunch mind you.

Lol, I'm not even going to bother attempting to retort because you'll come back and try to lynch me with 500 word essays. Seriously, if you want a debate, try and make it concise. Furthermore there's no point engaging in conversation with you seeing as I'm apparently a veiled homophobic yada yada yada, so there's no headway to be made,

Lol, I'm not even going to bother attempting to retort because you'll come back and try to lynch me with 500 word essays. Seriously, if you want a debate, try and make it concise. Furthermore there's no point engaging in conversation with you seeing as I'm apparently a veiled homophobic yada yada yada, so there's no headway to be made,

By which I take you to mean that you have no answer for Frocio's excellent points?

That's how it looks from where I'm sitting.

... It's half 12. I want to watch a good movie, not pick apart each point and answer him on it. Shorter points = increased likelihood of an answer.

Lol, I'm not even going to bother attempting to retort because you'll come back and try to lynch me with 500 word essays. Seriously, if you want a debate, try and make it concise. Furthermore there's no point engaging in conversation with you seeing as I'm apparently a veiled homophobic yada yada yada, so there's no headway to be made,

I crapped up in the voting system I voted to say no I am not homophobic because at first I thought that was the thread in general but know I feel so stupid and cannot vote again. Because obviously it was to vote as to whether the OP was homophobic.

So OP yes you are incredibly homophobic and I am hoping that the people who said no you are not homophobic made the same mistake as me because it is ridiculous.

You said you wouldn't help them unless they were near death now that shows that you are homophobic.

I don't see why he is homophobic though? He doesn't say he would differentiate between heterosexuals and homosexuals being beaten nearly to death. His stance is that he doesn't like to get involved.

Personally Im not a supporter of gay marriage in fact i am totally against it.

Also the thought of two men engaging in sexual acts makes me feel sick to my stomach however i can be respectful to gay people if i see them . If i saw one getting beaten to the point of near death,if i knew they could die i would try jump in and stop it ,not before obviously because i rarely like getting involved in other peoples dramas unless i like them or know them on a level that i can say boom they are my fam . I also try not to say bad things about them as well . Does not supporting gay marriage and being repulsed by the act make me a homophobe ? if so where do we draw the line

Even I can see your more intelligent than this response you write suggests. The OP is basically saying he'd only step in (and that a bit iffy at that) were the gay person (man I assume) about to be killed. He doesn't mention heterosexuals being "beaten to death", only homosexuals. His entire OP is rife with homophobia. Oh, and welcome back ..

Even I can see you're more intelligent than this response you write suggests. The OP is basically saying he'd only step in (and that a bit iffy at that) were the gay person (man I assume) about to be killed. He doesn't mention heterosexuals being "beaten to death", only homosexuals. His entire OP is rife with homophobia. Oh, and welcome back ..

In fairness, he did say "because i rarely like getting involved in other peoples dramas...". Now, I'm hardly commending his attitude, but that in it's own right isn't exactly homophobic.

I see that as a cop out phrase to make him seem less militant in his homophobia as presented in his OP. Hell, he had to do something to make him seem less the bigot. Lest you forget "sick to my stomach" is in there too. I find the very existence and continuing presence of his thread homophobic by its very nature. Were anyone to start a thread of how they find heterosexual acts nauseating, the entire board would be up in arms.