Homophobia: valid opinion or mindless prejudice? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#161
Report 14 years ago
#161
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
Don't you find such behaviour disgusting?
No; I love lezzi sex!
0
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#162
Report 14 years ago
#162
(Original post by piemonster411)
no i dont, do you think i should?
May be not. Unsure about Gentilhomme though.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#163
Report 14 years ago
#163
(Original post by Zarathustra)
Lmao this thread has become hilarious since I last read!!

Piemonster - accept that Howard is not contradicting himself, you're making yourself look ridiculous...

A summary of the last two pages, showing your lunacy:
Gentilhomme said "the whole essence of sex is to procreate"; Howard (and I) pointed out that many (non-homosexual) sexual acts do not procreate; so Gentilhomme changed his definition of "procreation" to "two opposite-sex people having sex" (post 130), which is far from equivalent. Howard then gave the correct definition of procreation.

Re: your post (146) - there was no contradiction. Procreation does not mean sex, it is the possible result of some sexual acts.

Re: your post (151) - your argument works (provided you count artificial insemination etc as 'conception but not procreation')but the conclusion ("so if you are procreating then you must be having sex") does not prove Howard wrong...to do that you would have to achieve the much more difficult task of proving that "if you are having sex then you must be procreating", which is what Howard was denying.

Anyway, I believe Gentilhomme is yet to reappear and confirm that he is willing to define the sole aim of sex to be procreation and thus accept the consequences outlined in posts 128 (&129? from memory...). Because if he's relying on the 'fun' argument then that really doesn't rule out homosexual sex.

ZarathustraX

(Apologies to Howard if I have accidentally misrepresented you in the above).

EDIT: NDGAARONDI, I was wondering that too :rolleyes:
Excellent analysis. I admire you for your patience and diligence! Have some rep!
0
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#164
Report 14 years ago
#164
(Original post by Howard)
No; I love lezzi sex!
As did Henry VIII.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#165
Report 14 years ago
#165
(Original post by piemonster411)
is that because you cant argue or write effectively and so have to resort to such low level language to get your point across?
That must be why I was UKL debator of the year 2004. I won the award exclusively for my propensity to and skill in the art of cussing.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#166
Report 14 years ago
#166
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
As did Henry VIII.
Did he indeed? Wouldn't surprise me; saucy bugger wasn't he?
0
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#167
Report 14 years ago
#167
(Original post by Howard)
Did he indeed?
Yep. Whilst being ironic in the sense that he tried to kill off homosexual men whilst becoming titilated at seeing homosexual women exchange spit and everything else they did in those days.
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#168
Report 14 years ago
#168
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
Yep. Whilst being ironic in the sense that he tried to kill off homosexual men whilst becoming titilated at seeing homosexual women exchange spit and everything else they did in those days.
inconsistency. what hatred i feel.
0
piemonster411
Badges: 0
#169
Report 14 years ago
#169
(Original post by Howard)
That must be why I was UKL debator of the year 2004. I won the award exclusively for my propensity to and skill in the art of cussing.
i c - so people on here value your use of curse in argument?
0
Zarathustra
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#170
Report 14 years ago
#170
(Original post by Howard)
Excellent analysis. I admire you for your patience and diligence! Have some rep!
Thankee Howard

Now, what's all this about Henry VIII :eek:? Some serious elaboration is required!!

ZarathustraX
0
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#171
Report 14 years ago
#171
(Original post by Zarathustra)
Now, what's all this about Henry VIII :eek:?
He was anti-gay with men only because he enjoyed lesbians getting off one another.
0
kiaora
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#172
Report 14 years ago
#172
the thread title is slightly ambiguous. objection to homosexuality on moral grounds, is a perfectly valid line of thought. even though it may offend, people must always have the right of free speech to express their views, even if they are offensive to some people.

homophobia is different, and totally unacceptable. it goes far beyond simply objecting to homosexuality (physical assault, intimidation, demonisation etc.), and should never be acceptable.
0
Waldo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#173
Report 14 years ago
#173
I have a problem with the original question:
Is homophobia a mindless prejudice - YES (usually at least)
Is it a valid opinion - YES (is there such a thing as an invalid opinion? Views that challenge our most dearly-held orthodoxies are the most important)
Am i entitled to hate homophobia - YES (of course you are just as one may hate all sorts of ideologies/points of view without asserting that they are invalid)


Why is anybody still bothering with arguments about what is 'natural' or 'the purpose of sex'. Aside from the obvious lack of consistency which Zarathustra has already pointed out, the underlying assumption that any action not consistent with the evolutionary/god-given (take your pick) purpose of a body-part is immoral seems slightly bizarre. Feet were surely not *intended* for playing football. Is football therefore wrong?

As for people talking about 'homophobia' meaning fear of homosexuals, there is no point in taking this line. A word's usage is not and never has been determined by its etymology (anyway if it were homophobia would mean 'fear of the same', whatever that is, maybe some sort of insecurity regarding twins....). It is like people claiming not to be antisemtic because they dont hate
0
Elainawilliams
Badges: 0
#174
Report 14 years ago
#174
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
The amount of people who advocate this view but crave to have anal sex with the opposite sex in quite ironic.
I have been out with men who didn't want to go there. Think what comes out of that hole ,it's a one way street. Personally anyone can do what they want to each other. It's not everyone's taste, at least heterosexuals have a choice of which hole to use. Gay men don't.


I Think homophobia is so outdated. It's time we all learned that we should be with who we want to be regardless of which sex we chose.
0
TIMAAAAAAAAAAAY
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#175
Report 14 years ago
#175
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
The amount of people who advocate this view but crave to have anal sex with the opposite sex in quite ironic.
what about men who advocate kissing women and not men, is that also ironic?
0
Tyler Durden
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#176
Report 14 years ago
#176
(Original post by TIMAAAAAAAAAAAY)
what about men who advocate kissing women and not men, is that also ironic?
That would be heterosexual.

Unless of course you mean men advocating women kissing each other in which case the issue has been covered quite substantially.
0
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#177
Report 14 years ago
#177
(Original post by TIMAAAAAAAAAAAY)
what about men who advocate kissing women and not men, is that also ironic?
it is if they say yuck kissing is so digusting and unatural, which is what people can say about anal sex.
0
maniacmartin
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#178
Report 14 years ago
#178
Personally, I find it shocking that you are now on the 10th forum page and still bickering and resorting to defining every single word. I know you're going to pick up laods of discrepencies in what I am writing, but this is how i write so tough. Sorry about the lack of structure here...

Whether people "have the right" to hate something is, in my opinion, irrelevant. People have opinions on things, good or bad. Feelings, after all, only effect you.

But homophobia is another matter. I might well hate ethnic minorities (which, as it happens, is not the case), but that doesn't mean i go around causing trouble, treating people bad etc.

How someone can base their actions towards someone just on their sexuality is stupid. If person X is gay that does not effect you in any noticealbe way, they have the right to do what they [I wish the english language had a word meaning singular he/she] like behind closed doors.

Sidenote for you to consider: Some studies have shown that homophobia (un-called for hatrid towards homosexuals) is a sign of suppressed homosexual feelings.

As for the person talking about an all-gay world, this is so unlikely to happen it is a ridiculous point to argue with. In any case, all species come and go in time. Look at dinosaurs. If you want to argue silly points, then the world is an overpopulated place, so by your logic maybe we're doing good.

"It's unnatural" - This is about as valid an arguement as saying "If God wanted us to fly he'd have given us wings". Yet many people travel by plane.
No-ones forcing you to visualise it. But how many guys look as lesbian porn? I personally find straight sex quite disgusting but I don't hate straight people for it, and I certainly don't look down on them for their orientation.

If you are wary that gay people might fancy you, then think: Do you fancy every person of the opposite sex that you meet? Anyway, you can always say that you're not interested. And if you can't take a joke, then thats your problem.

If you are heterosexual, lets imagine that it is "the norm" to be gay. You could try pretty hard to be gay, but in the end your heterosexual feelings wouldn't go away. You wouldn't be living as yourself, you would be suppressed. Now if we turn this around it might be easier to see if you are gay you can't just switch. I didnt wake up one morning and think - "I know, I think I'll be gay."
It is one of those things that is chosen for you. Yes, there are some people who act as if theyre gay for attention, but then any population of a resonable size has people like this.

Many gay people don't follow the camp stereotypical image that seems to spring to everyone's mind (not that theres anything wrong with being camp)

I find it appalling that society is such that non-hetero people are treated differently. For example, if someone makes a racist remark, then you can be assured that it wil be dealt with swiftly, but if it is a remark on one's sexuality, it will most likely be forgotten about.

Many gay people, across the whole spectrum of ages and professions are pressured to feel the need to live a facade in order for society to accept them without judgement on their sexual orientation. Should these people be demoralised, have to not be theirself, have to live behind a shield - live a lie? Hopefully one day they will not.

It is not homosexuality that is the problem, but the attitude of society (espcially the press) towards homosexuals. We can't change who we are, and deserve the right to a life, to some fun , to equal treatment, to not feel rejected. What we think and do doesn't effect other people in any way. You have no idea how much pain you cause, because you have never been in this position.

martin
0
Noel
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#179
Report 14 years ago
#179
I have no problem with homosexuals. Just think the mans G-stop is up there, so maybe its suppost to be used? :confused:
0
TIMAAAAAAAAAAAY
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#180
Report 14 years ago
#180
(Original post by englishstudent)
That would be heterosexual.

Unless of course you mean men advocating women kissing each other in which case the issue has been covered quite substantially.
but isn't it ironic that you shag women and not men?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (65)
23.3%
No (214)
76.7%

Watched Threads

View All