Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Homophobia and gender Watch

  • View Poll Results: Are you homophobic?
    No and I'm female
    139
    41.12%
    No and I'm male
    157
    46.45%
    Yes and I'm female
    13
    3.85%
    Yes and I'm male
    29
    8.58%

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MancStudent098)
    Indeed. The ancient Greeks bloody loved a bit of ****. Seen the movie Troy? Put it this way, before the Americans *******ised the story Patroclus wasn't Achilles' cousin.
    Been meaning to see it, though I never treat films like these as total gospel for the reason you mentioned. Last film I saw was 300, and before that, Hannibal: Rome's Worst Enemy.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MancStudent098)
    It's utterly meaningless. Sure the biological purpose of sex is passing on your genes, the biological purpose of all characteristics in all species is passing on your genes.
    Therefore anything else is a corruption and is false. The purpose of altruism is passing on your genes, does that mean I shouldn't help a little old lady across the road because it's unlikely to further my procreation aims.
    Since when did I say you cant do that? :rolleyes: Clearly not. In thousands of years of human society most of us have thankfully risen above the idea that basic evolutionary impulses are the best way to structure society. Seemingly not you.
    The nuclear family (dad, mother, kids) is the basis of a healthy society. Children from stable homes are much more likely to do better at school and contribute well to society than those from broken homes. Statistics have proven this time and time again. The nuclear family is entirely natural - it came about because of our biology (females are naturally monogamous).

    This applies equally to gays and straights. Newsflash: When I **** my girlfriend a combination of a little white tablet and a piece of latex make it (hopefully) pretty unlikely that any sprogs are going to result. This is not some kind of abomination against the 'duality of nature', it's progress.

    Progress towards what exactly? A sex addicted society that cannot produce children. Birth rate is now at 1.6.

    What tradition of marriage? Do you mean the Hindu tradition of marriage, the Roman tradition of marriage, the Buddhist tradition of marriage? Oh wait, no, you mean your personal marriage tradition which you think we should all adhere to. Well as a matter of fact I've got my own tradition of marriage and it includes gay people. So why don't you go off and have your marriage tradition and I and the rest of the 21st century will have ours. Does that work for you.

    Marriage is about uniting the man and the woman not about man and man or woman and woman. If you want to do that you have civil partnerships! It's always been about that, that is the purpose of marriage in this country for thousands of years.

    You've just told us that you consider homosexuality a mental illness and now you're trying to tell me that discrimination doesn't exist. As long as homophobic little tossers like you get to sit on juries and get to elect people there will be some kind of discrimination. End of.

    You just haven't read anything I've said have you. Homophobia is a buzz word with no meaning - a tool to destroy reasoned debate. The psychological community treated it as a mental illness until very recently because of pressure from the gay rights agenda. Not because of anything based upon science!

    The last line shows how intollerant homosexuals can be. So you think I should be deprived of my right to vote because I disagree with you? :rolleyes:
    Answers in bold again. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snoogy)
    So if we're not making babies we don't have the right to love? Should we be shooting old people?

    Huh!? Whats shooting old people got to do with anything? Did I say that? :rolleyes:

    We need a guy to get pregnant (or that new awesome fake sperm that looks utterly awesome) but babies don't always come out of a loving, or sometimes any, relationship at all. That doesn't make it right does it? Sperm donors, one night stands, accidents, the fact that one guy could probably provide a whole town of women with babies makes your point a little silly.
    Again just because there are one night stands and all that - doesn't make it right and doesn't prove anything. There's so many ways around 'the natural order of things' that the natural order of things becomes redundant. Give me love and science any day over a miserable existance playing straight.
    My theory is based upon science. I never said you could not be homosexual though just stop promoting it everywhere as if it is normal because it is not!

    Civil partnerships create a system that's "one thing for us, another thing for you" and it creates another difference. I have seen some awful, awful people get married and divorced within a year so if you folks can ruin marriage so well, give us a go at it too. Dont get me started on all the reasons why/how marriage has been destroyed by the state and society - I dont have all day! Marriage was working just fine until second wave feminism and the sexual revolution - sponsored by the elite upper class in order to destroy the middle classes. That or make all relationships 'unmarriage' unless religion needs marriage. Give everyone civil partnerships. Make everything equal.
    No. You have your civil partnerships which are entirely the same in all but name - so be happy with that! :rolleyes: No, you want to attack heterosexuality by destroying its symbol - marriage.

    And those people were hurt for being gay. Straight people weren't hurt for being straight. Doesn't change anything you can still sue them and put them in prison you still have the same rights as anyone else does. That's the difference. They were stabbed, shot, beaten and had all manner of other things done to them because of who they loved. Not for anything else but for who they were. And the argument of gay panic still works. Claiming that the gay person scared you enough to send you into a blind rage still works and can be used as an excuse for killing or hurting somebody. Since when is that a good enough excuse? If I screamed straight panic, I'd be laughed out of court! Equality doesn't exist. We're moving towards it but it still doesn't exist. Citation please for this 'law'?
    Answers in bold.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by God of War)
    Answers in bold again. :rolleyes:
    For someone with such an incoherent life philosophy you really do overuse the rolleyes emoticon. I'm not going to answer piece by piece because it's probably a waste of my time, but I will briefly take issue with what seems to be your main point.

    Why the hell does it matter if heterosexual relationships can make babies and homosexual ones can't? You're obsessed with this one utterly trivial piece of information.

    If two people love each other then that's fine by me. But you can't be happy about that, they have to conform to your neat little rules. As Hume would point out you're confusing is with ought. Just because reproduction is the basis for sex in nature doesn't mean our society ought to be a particular way. We have progressed in a number of ways from nature and not having some dissasociation between sex and making babies is one of them. You seem to think that a low fertility rate is a bad thing. Look at societies where people have 6 or 7 kids to a family, I wouldn't want to live in most of them.

    You utterly ignored what I said about altruism, if you dislike things that aren't 'natural' what is your view on other non natural societal phenomena, I would like to know. Is charity morally reprehensible in your eyes?

    Citation please for this 'law'?
    I might as well answer this. Gay panic is more of an American thing. It isn't a common defence nowadays and it's generally not successful, however sometimes it can be. There were at least two cases this year alone where it's worked. The article here is interesting.

    The last line shows how intollerant homosexuals can be.
    Oh and I'm straight. If you'd actually read what I'd said you would have put the combination of girlfriend and the fact I'm a guy together. Seems you were too busy going on about sexual duality like some kind of stuck record to pay any attention.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MancStudent098)
    For someone with such an incoherent life philosophy you really do overuse the rolleyes emoticon. I'm not going to answer piece by piece because it's probably a waste of my time, but I will briefly take issue with what seems to be your main point.

    Why the hell does it matter if heterosexual relationships can make babies and homosexual ones can't? You're obsessed with this one utterly trivial piece of information.
    Yes because this trivial piece of information destroys any homosexual argument.

    If two people love each other then that's fine by me. But you can't be happy about that, they have to conform to your neat little rules. Without rules there would be chaos.As Hume would point out you're confusing is with ought. Just because reproduction is the basis for sex in nature doesn't mean our society ought to be a particular way. Ought is highly subective as to be completly without meaning in this debate. We have progressed in a number of ways from nature and not having some dissasociation between sex and making babies is one of them. You seem to think that a low fertility rate is a bad thing. It is but I can't be bothered to go through all the details this is a debate about homosexuality not demographics and all that. Look at societies where people have 6 or 7 kids to a family, I wouldn't want to live in most of them.

    You utterly ignored what I said about altruism, if you dislike things that aren't 'natural' what is your view on other non natural societal phenomena, I would like to know. Give me some examples and I'll comment on them. Is charity morally reprehensible in your eyes? What on earth has charity got to do with anything? I'm actually all for charity and helping out people who need it. :confused:
    Answers in bold again.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by God of War)
    Answers in bold again.
    The answers in bold thing makes it a pain in the arse to quote so I won't bother.

    Some people are gay. That's just a fact. You seem to think that this is in some way morally wrong. Your sole argument for this is 'the purpose' of sex is babies. There needs to be a bit in the middle where you explain why one leads to the other. Reiterating the fact that you think being gay is unnatural, doesn't cut it.


    As for charity it's really quite simple. Here's your argument.

    -Homosexual sex doesn't make babies.
    -The 'purpose of sex is to make babies'
    -Being gay is wrong

    Here's an analogous argument.

    -The purpose (from an evolutionary perspective) of altruism is to further the survival of those in your immediate genetic circle ie family and hence ensure gene transmission.
    -Charity in the modern world is a misfiring of this, I don't benefit my genepool by giving money to starving african kids. It's just a vestigial evolutionary impulse.
    - Charity is wrong

    I would like to see why you think argument two is not correct because it may shed some light on the problem with your own argument.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    i have no problems with gays, as long as they dont try and speak to me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Saw oral sex taking place outside a train station near the taxi rank between a heterosexual couple I was with, along with a few others, after drinking at the pub. Personally I'd shoot her (and him) with my Makarov imitation airgun in the knees, IRA style.

    Yh i've never seen that but if I did I think I would kill them too,


    It was tolerated in Druidism, Britain's most ancient and indigenous religion. It might be tolerated in Buddhism as well.
    I've lost interest in this debate, yesterday I was a bit agitated hence my responses.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by God of War[/quote)
    Marriage is about uniting the man and the woman not about man and man or woman and woman. If you want to do that you have civil partnerships! It's always been about that, that is the purpose of marriage in this country for thousands of years.
    Since johnny foreigners took over this island you mean? If the Celts had gay marriage what would you say to that? You adhere to a tradition from third world countries all of a sudden? Marriage, if anything, should only be for the religious anyway.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MancStudent098)
    You utterly ignored what I said about altruism, if you dislike things that aren't 'natural' what is your view on other non natural societal phenomena, I would like to know. Is charity morally reprehensible in your eyes?
    Even better, to those who preach the unnatural argument need not seek medical help. If you've been diagnosed of cancer then tough ****. Survival of the fittest eh? Oh, wait....
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MancStudent098)
    The answers in bold thing makes it a pain in the arse to quote so I won't bother.

    Some people are gay. That's just a fact. You seem to think that this is in some way morally wrong. Your sole argument for this is 'the purpose' of sex is babies. There needs to be a bit in the middle where you explain why one leads to the other. Reiterating the fact that you think being gay is unnatural, doesn't cut it.


    As for charity it's really quite simple. Here's your argument.

    -Homosexual sex doesn't make babies.
    -The 'purpose of sex is to make babies'
    -Being gay is wrong

    Here's an analogous argument.

    -The purpose (from an evolutionary perspective) of altruism is to further the survival of those in your immediate genetic circle ie family and hence ensure gene transmission.
    -Charity in the modern world is a misfiring of this, I don't benefit my genepool by giving money to starving african kids. It's just a vestigial evolutionary impulse.
    - Charity is wrong

    I would like to see why you think argument two is not correct because it may shed some light on the problem with your own argument.
    This is easy. You are interpreting my argument the wrong way. The purpose of sex is to make babies. The purpose of charity is to give to the poor/or whatever cause. Charity fulfills the spiritual needs of people - a desire for a purpose to life (such as giving money to help poor african people.)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by God of War)
    This is easy. You are interpreting my argument the wrong way. The purpose of sex is to make babies. The purpose of charity is to give to the poor/or whatever cause. Charity fulfills the spiritual needs of people - a desire for a purpose to life (such as giving money to help poor african people.)
    Hang on - we were once having a discussion, in which you stated that sex before marriage is wrong, because sex is meant to be an expression of love. You didn't mention anything about babies being the purpose of sex in that debate.

    Gay people can love each other too, and have civil partnerships (which you have already pointed out are the same as marriage in everything but the name), so why are they so bad?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spanghew)
    Hang on - we were once having a discussion, in which you stated that sex before marriage is wrong, because sex is meant to be an expression of love. You didn't mention anything about babies being the purpose of sex in that debate.

    Gay people can love each other too, and have civil partnerships (which you have already pointed out are the same as marriage in everything but the name), so why are they so bad?
    I'am explaining it on very basic terms. As an evolutionary trait - the purpose of sex is to make babies. Sex though is more complex than that and involves a joining of the minds and the body - an expression of love, yes it is.

    Homosexuality is a corruption of the natural order of things. I have a problem with it being promoted onto the rest of the population as if it was normal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    who are people to say what is normal?

    this really winds me up, because maybe hetero's aren't the 'Normal' ones.
    Marriage is somethingthat was brought into a country. you say its religious however religions have broke off and created different views etc. this is exactly the same for marriage. gay couples should be allowed their right to a marriage, to say they wont love someone is stupid, to say that it isnt right is stupid.

    All these people preaching about god and how its a sin blah blah, you probably go out drinking, have sex before marriage and the rest of it. so you really have no legs to stand on.

    gay people are humans, exactly the same as straight people.
    im female and no
    Offline

    1
    Not homophobic... would be weird if I hated myself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't really understand how anyone can hate someone because of their sexuality.. its just the way they are.

    I never get how some people say its a 'choice' that they made... If its a choice then that would seem to imply that we can all choose our sexuality.. I don't know about anyone else but i'm straight and I've never had to make a choice whether to be gay or to straight, Its automatic.
    I really think that a lot of homophobes are trying to cover up some gay desires they have.


    I also just want to say something else which is probably going to get me negged but...
    some of the worst homophobia comes from black communities(particuarly carribean) which is so sad because due to their history should know that discrimination is unacceptable, but its like they are too ignorant to see the parallels. There is a really great documentary on 40D by comedian stephen k amos(who is black and gay) about it- its called batty man.
    Offline

    1
    Do people here actually stick to what they mean? They say they are not homophobic, but inside they may be! The poll here isn't so accurate, I think.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    some are just stupidly patriotic.
    bigots however i don't agree that homophobes are uneducated, because a lot of them are, and in places of power. this is why we struggle for rights
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    not homophobic at all.

    I find males are homophobic to gays and women homophobic to lesbians. Maybe because they put themselves in their shoes being their gender and that has something to do with it or the possibility of them being considered gay or lesbian so go on the defensive in a negative way. I didn't really think it was much of a problem these day and mainly a male problem because they're immature generally when late teens and early 20's, but after going to college again recently, the girls are just as bad, I do hope they grow out of it because they're nice people.
    Offline

    1
    I wonder if a better question is whether people are phobic of homosexual behaviour.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.