Why are People Homophobic?

[Gauthier]

All he has to do is vote Republican in 2012 and if one gets into the White House, they'll be sure to establish a Gaystapo in short order.

Ha! They don' t have the guts to make any real changes of any sort. Cute though.

But you do wish they set up a Gaystapo. Noted. You might find Uganda to your liking though.

[Pauper Kings]

Ha! They don' t have the guts to make any real changes of any sort. Cute though.

But you do wish they set up a Gaystapo. Noted. You might find Uganda to your liking though.

Actually I wish homosexuals would be ignored finally, all that's necessary.

[Patoma]

I find it very very hard to understand why as human we are encouraging people to feel uncomfortable with whom they are; frankly it is no longer cool to hate them for who they are, neither should it be something acceptable. We consider our self a modern liberal society, but we act in such ignorant manner. It use to be fun and funny to call someone fagot, but it is not any more. Why should it be anyone else's business whom they have affection for? In as much as it does not infringe on my right or any one else's right, I frankly don't get what is wrong with it.

The problem is as human being we expect that things will always be the same for now and forever. Why are we so apprehensive to change? We grossly exaggerate so many things in todays society and I think we need to enlighten each other.

[-St George]

Nope. Anything the Supreme Court says is law across the nation. Its the reason you cannot deny a straight person a state marriage.

Strange how many states are refusing the other definition. States' rights are in play one way or the other.

States shouldn't have rights.

[Gauthier]

I find it very very hard to understand why as human we are encouraging people to feel uncomfortable with whom they are; frankly it is no longer cool to hate them for who they are, neither should it be something acceptable. We consider our self a modern liberal society, but we act in such ignorant manner. It use to be fun and funny to call someone fagot, but it is not any more. Why should it be anyone else's business whom they have affection for? In as much as it does not infringe on my right or any one else's right, I frankly don't get what is wrong with it.

The problem is as human being we expect that things will always be the same for now and forever. Why are we so apprehensive to change? We grossly exaggerate so many things in todays society and I think we need to enlighten each other.

And as the list of Gay Sex Scandals shows, shaming individuals towards certain natural behaviors won't stop it at all. If anything it encourages them to do it in secret, while trying to present an image of someone vehemently opposed to said behavior.

[Pauper Kings]

In no sense does that support your assertions.

You chose pink, when the "femin" color is pink. This shows that femininity is merely a product of society, as with masculinity. You broke away from these behavior patterns.

....No. Not when my general behavior pattern stayed the same, and what felt the most true to me, whether I was surrounded by all this social engineering or not.

The thing that was my default pattern of gender behaviors was essentially unchanged no matter what else may have been there to 'influence' me. That's the point.

[Pauper Kings]

Strange how many states are refusing the other definition. States' rights are in play one way or the other.

States shouldn't have rights.

That's not your call. Now is it.

[Galla-]

60 years ago it was the opposite. Pink is a very masculine color. It denotes virility, being red, and strength. Blue is feminine, because it is associated with the Virgin Mary.

Congrats. This only serves to emphasize my point. It's society.

No, actually. Nowadays, boys are raised like women and girls are raised like men, being bombarded with pink and blue, a reversal of the traditional gender roles. Stay-at-home dads and working-class mums are becoming so much more common these days that they affect the average American on a level never before seen.

Ha! They don' t have the guts to make any real changes of any sort. Cute though.

But you do wish they set up a Gaystapo. Noted. You might find Uganda to your liking though.

Uganda is a bit far.

Jamaica is just as foreign, and politically in-line with PK's views. It's also cheaper fare.

[Sovereign Oppression]

Congrats. This only serves to emphasize my point. It's society.

No, actually. Nowadays, boys are raised like women and girls are raised like men, being bombarded with pink and blue, a reversal of the traditional gender roles. Stay-at-home dads and working-class mums are becoming so much more common these days that they affect the average American on a level never before seen.[quote]

All you are saying is that the roles have reversed...which is a prime example that roles are not biology. If they were biology, they would not reverse.

[Sovereign Oppression]

You chose pink, when the "femin" color is pink. This shows that femininity is merely a product of society, as with masculinity. You broke away from these behavior patterns.

....No. Not when my general behavior pattern stayed the same, and what felt the most true to me, whether I was surrounded by all this social engineering or not.

The thing that was my default pattern of gender behaviors was essentially unchanged no matter what else may have been there to 'influence' me. That's the point.

So you did not break away in all areas. What's your point? It's still social engineering. The fact that you only broke away in some areas does not change anything. You also need to be looking, not at just your own culture, but the cultures of the world. Every culture has different values, different beliefs on "masculinity" and "femininity". It's society, not biology. If it was biology, everything would be the same to an incredibly large degree.

[Galla-]

You chose pink, when the "femin" color is pink. This shows that femininity is merely a product of society, as with masculinity. You broke away from these behavior patterns.

....No. Not when my general behavior pattern stayed the same, and what felt the most true to me, whether I was surrounded by all this social engineering or not.

The thing that was my default pattern of gender behaviors was essentially unchanged no matter what else may have been there to 'influence' me. That's the point.

A t-shirt colour is decided by genes, obv.

[Sovereign Oppression]

....No. Not when my general behavior pattern stayed the same, and what felt the most true to me, whether I was surrounded by all this social engineering or not.

The thing that was my default pattern of gender behaviors was essentially unchanged no matter what else may have been there to 'influence' me. That's the point.

A t-shirt colour is decided by genes, obv.

I'm saying it isn't.

[Dyakovo]

Gay marriage can't be defined as free speech.

It can be defined as a right.

And, in fact, is so defined in the US...

[Dyakovo]

The Supreme Court, however, defined marriage as a "fundamental right of man", without defining it as a solely heterosexual item. Ergo, by refusing me my right to marry the consenting person that I wish, they are denying me a fundamental right of man.

Obviously all the states are not bound by that. They left it open to interpretation; they must have.

Except they are.
The USSC decisions are binding throughout the US.

[New England and The Maritimes]

It can be defined as a right.

And, in fact, is so defined in the US...

You're behind the times, we're talking about how genes make boys climb trees and girls play with easy bake ovens.

[Dyakovo]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

There is the ruling. It defines marriage as a fundamental right of man. However, it fails to specify the legality of certain marriages. Only that marriage is a fundamental right, and that they find it silly to not allow marriage between people of different races. Homosexuals do not have this right to marriage violated. They can marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex.


I'm afraid homosexual marriage is currently not defined in any way as a right. Which puts it up for debate legally.

If marriage is a fundamental right of man, then by the constitution it is illegal to discriminate against anyone's access to said right.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

There is the ruling. It defines marriage as a fundamental right of man. However, it fails to specify the legality of certain marriages. Only that marriage is a fundamental right, and that they find it silly to not allow marriage between people of different races. Homosexuals do not have this right to marriage violated. They can marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex.


I'm afraid homosexual marriage is currently not defined in any way as a right. Which puts it up for debate legally.

If marriage is a fundamental right of man, then by the constitution it is illegal to discriminate against anyone's access to said right.

Even the GOP aren't stupid enough to violate that. It's why they tried to weasel around it by "defining marriage" so they could have it their way. Thankfully courts that take the issue are smashing it to pieces pretty hilariously, even if they're 18 years late.

[Dyakovo]

I disagree.



No one says you have to be genderless. There should simply be no special significance in being male or female, outside of biological functions.

Wow.

So any feelings of masculinity I have are false? They are unnatural? I don't believe in the being taught masculinity meme/crap.

Not false so much as an artificial construct.

[Dyakovo]

Anything other than sex and biology is socially engineered. You may not believe it, but it's true.

Oh God a blank slate nutter. Guess what science genius, your brain is part of your biology!

I bet you don't believe homosexuality is a choice though, even though that's basically the same

If sexuality is a choice when did you decide to stop wanting to fuck men?

[Vitius]

Why are people anthrophobic? Why are people androphobic? Why are people ereuthrophobic?

Everyone has their own phobias, as stupid as they may be at times. I can't see why someone would be afraid of homosexuals, but then again, some can't see why I'm afraid of spiders.

I also think that the term 'homophobia' is used far too much. People are entitled to their own opinions, as idiotic as they may be. And disliking homosexuals or not liking being around them is not homophobic.

That is, of course, using the definition of 'phobia' as 'fear'.

[Dyakovo]

Strange how many states are refusing the other definition. States' rights are in play one way or the other.

States shouldn't have rights.

And they don't. They, like the federal government, have powers.

[Dyakovo]

And, in fact, is so defined in the US...

You're behind the times, we're talking about how genes make boys climb trees and girls play with easy bake ovens.

Sue me... I'm playing catch-up...

[Ethel mermania]

Semen+bunghole=no baby

Because only teh gheys do anal amirite?

Using that logic every man who gets a blowjob is a defect.

well blow jobs are not a defect, but a sin. The sin of Onan if i remeber correctly. and it seems that god is punishing for that sin . . . .

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i80M66TPHXMnQmOKUlpcpu_gNOuQ?docId=CNG.2fa97f53bfcdc1875eb8f281d95222b2.781

[Ethel mermania]

It can be defined as a right.

And, in fact, is so defined in the US...

Doma says fairly clearly Gay Marriage is not a federal right.

Yet des-bal is correct, gay marriage can be statutorily defined as a right. It would take an amendment to the constitution to define it as a constitutional right.

[Genivaria]

Because only teh gheys do anal amirite?

Using that logic every man who gets a blowjob is a defect.

well blow jobs are not a defect, but a sin. The sin of Onan if i remeber correctly. and it seems that god is punishing for that sin . . . .

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i80M66TPHXMnQmOKUlpcpu_gNOuQ?docId=CNG.2fa97f53bfcdc1875eb8f281d95222b2.781

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!