Is Homophobia The Most Misused Term On The Face Of This Planet Used By The People?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Bone75

 

Define "natural".

reply to post by FlyersFan

 

I take offense that so many people are taking offense!

Natural meaning Gay men/women have been part of human history from the beginning. Natural doesn't necessarily mean something good or positive. Its neither. Get it?

reply to post by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Natural doesn't necessarily mean something good or positive. Its neither. Get it?

It's not necessarily good or positive. Neither is it bad or negative... I was replying to this person, who says being gay is NOT natural:

reply to post by Bone75

Originally posted by Bone75
Just because someone was born gay doesn't mean it's natural.

I think being gay is quite natural and I'm glad you agree. Not good OR bad, but certainly natural.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Is being gay natural or unnatural.... I don't know but neither do you

Is being hetero natural or unnatural?
I don't know but neither do you

We can't speak with facts here
That goes for everyone on either side of the fence

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I think being gay is quite natural and I'm glad you agree. Not good OR bad, but certainly natural.

You're totally avoiding my point with these circular arguments over terminology.
Yes I 100% agree that all gay or bisexual people are born that way. But like it or not, there is evidence to support that it is a condition caused by a genetic defect. Are genetic defects natural? Sure they are, but I don't think anyone should be labeled as having a phobia for wanting to correct the problem.

Homophobia, like a lot of other words are definitely used 'out of context', and inappropriately to describe preferences, that then become adversorial labels...oftentimes, not by the 'preferencee'...

Slap them together with 'media grabs', which are always taken out of context, and there's your 'story' to run with...

Men can be soooo stoopid...'being undressed' (or the feeling of being undressed) by a gay man is in a lot of ways, a signal that more likely than not, you are attractive to the opposite sex...a compliment...

Get over it idiots...

akushla

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by GiodanoBruno

 

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Natural doesn't necessarily mean something good or positive. Its neither. Get it?

It's not necessarily good or positive. Neither is it bad or negative...

I was replying to this person, who says being gay is NOT natural:

reply to post by Bone75

 

Originally posted by Bone75
Just because someone was born gay doesn't mean it's natural.

I think being gay is quite natural and I'm glad you agree. Not good OR bad, but certainly natural.

My bad.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Is being gay natural or unnatural.... I don't know but neither do you

Is being hetero natural or unnatural?
I don't know but neither do you

We can't speak with facts here
That goes for everyone on either side of the fence

No,,,,, its natural. Our entire history is filled with it. You just haven't noticed.

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I think being gay is quite natural and I'm glad you agree. Not good OR bad, but certainly natural.

You're totally avoiding my point with these circular arguments over terminology.
Yes I 100% agree that all gay or bisexual people are born that way. But like it or not, there is evidence to support that it is a condition caused by a genetic defect. Are genetic defects natural? Sure they are, but I don't think anyone should be labeled as having a phobia for wanting to correct the problem.

There's no such thing as bisexual. Whether gay or strait and how curious (or confused) one is they will always end up back to there original "sexual" preference. What do you think happened in Hellenistic times?

So it's completely impossible for some kinds of specific people to like both boys and girls?

I'll never understand why homosexuals want people to be accepting of them but not so accepting of bisexuals.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
So it's completely impossible for some kinds of specific people to like both boys and girls?

I'll never understand why homosexuals want people to be accepting of them but not so accepting of bisexuals.

I think they are bisexualphobic.lol.
Dirty mind tactics used to silence the weaker minds.

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Is being gay natural or unnatural.... I don't know but neither do you

We most certainly DO know. We have the definition of natural and we know that homosexuality IS naturally occurring. It's indisputable. Now, whether or not that's a "good" or "bad" thing is up for opinion and discussion.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Bone75

Originally posted by Bone75
But like it or not, there is evidence to support that it is a condition caused by a genetic defect. Are genetic defects natural? Sure they are, but I don't think anyone should be labeled as having a phobia for wanting to correct the problem.

"Genetic defect" is defined as: a disease or disorder that is inherited genetically.

Gay people do not have gay children. Straight people have gay children. So, I'm not all sure about your science. But let's explore further... Baldness is a "genetic defect". So are blue eyes and left-handedness. Are you crusading to correct these "genetic defects"?

My opinion: If you're going to label homosexuals as a "genetically defective","diseased" and "unnatural", then you should man up, quit whining and take it like a big boy when someone labels you as "homophobic".

On another note, my dogs have a genetic defect. They have a long haired gene. They are not allowed to show in the US because of the recessive gene they carry. I picked my dogs BECAUSE of this genetic defect. My dogs are not diseased or disordered. They are beautiful and perfect - clearly exceptional creations of nature:



I apologize to those who are sick of seeing my diseased dogs. My point is that even if being gay IS a "genetic defect" there's nothing "wrong" with it. And it's really none of your business.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We most certainly DO know. We have the definition of natural and we know that homosexuality IS naturally occurring. It's indisputable. Now, whether or not that's a "good" or "bad" thing is up for opinion and discussion.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We don't know if it's natural to be honest
The link you provided said 'no artificiality"

Did you know the water we drink now has estrogen in it?
Sometimes testotorone?

Do you know some of the things in milk and other everyday substances?

Maybe that affects the birth process

But then we have this:
www.livescience.com...

So.... I don't know, but in my opinion neither do you

My point is that it's not as black and white as your link portrays it to be

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Did you know the water we drink now has estrogen in it?
Sometimes testotorone?

Do you know some of the things in milk and other everyday substances?

This would only matter if being gay was a relatively new thing... It's not. As far back as we can go, gay people have existed. Are you claiming there was estrogen in the water in ancient times?

My point is that it's not as black and white as your link portrays it to be

Right now, my link is doing a lot better than your logic.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Are you claiming there was estrogen in the water in ancient times?

Did you read the link I provided?
Did you read my entire post?

Originally posted by Bone75

You're totally avoiding my point with these circular arguments over terminology.
Yes I 100% agree that all gay or bisexual people are born that way. But like it or not, there is evidence to support that it is a condition caused by a genetic defect.

I agree with this part of the post, even if I do know very well that a lot of people, both GLBT and non-GLBT alike, finds the mere claim very upsetting as it is not considered "Politically Correct" to view it as such, for reasons that, however, would be too lenghty to mention in this post.

I nonetheless must add that Homosexuality is not necessarily caused by a genetic defect as such, as the evidence so far merely points towards the Neurobiological "anomalies" in question being caused by a disturbance in the hormonal "washing" at a certain stage during the fetal development, causing the atypical areas of the Brain to be developed in one direction, while the remaining non-affected areas develops in another. And it is the areas of the brain that is developing atypically, that are also believed to hold the "circuits" responsible for the sexual orientation.
With that being said, it is fully possible that this development in itself is caused by a genetic anomaly, as such a genetic anomaly have recently been found in Male to Female-Transsexuals, for instance.
However, it should not be taken for granted, as it may very well exclusively be caused by the hormonal flow during the fetal development, alone, which would mean that the genes in the person are perfectly "normal".

Are genetic defects natural? Sure they are, but I don't think anyone should be labeled as having a phobia for wanting to correct the problem.

Why would anyone want to correct it? Are you referrig to a futuristic scenario where a couple expecting a child learns that it is going to be homosexual and decides to abort it, alternatively to "cure" it?
If so, I really doubt that such views would still exist at any wider rate in that far future, but probably mostly in minor groups, for instance because of religious reasons.

Or, are you referring to a more Third Reich-like scenario, where homosexuals are rounded up and then treated in some Biotechnological fashion in an attempt to "cure" them?

In either case and whatever scenario, I cannot see any reason at all to "correct" Homosexuality, as the individual in question are fully functional and exactly like anybody else, including being fully able to have biological offspring.
The only difference is that the orientation of the person happens to go "another way" than the mainstream, which, however, do not hurt anyone, especially not in a World overswarmed with close to 7 billion people.
The only reason I would see any benefit at all to try to actually "cure" a sexual orientation, would be with Pedophilia, not any least as such people not seldomly also suffer themselves and wish they did not have that specific orientation.
But homosexuals? Absolutely no reason.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
There's no such thing as bisexual. Whether gay or strait and how curious (or confused) one is they will always end up back to there original "sexual" preference. What do you think happened in Hellenistic times?

While it is true that self proclaimed bisexual individuals not seldomly ends up with the preference for one Sex before the other, the claim of Bisexuality being nonexistent has nevertheless been disproven during the last decade;

Bisexual men: Science says they're real

Plenty of people identify as bisexual, but scientists are still trying to figure out what that means in terms of physiological arousal and attraction. A new study in the journal Biological Psychology claims to have at least shown that some men who say they're bisexual actually get aroused by both men and women. And that's a new result; a controversial 2005 study could not demonstrate bisexuality. This study does find it, perhaps because of the way researchers recruited participants. The new research focuses on self-identified bisexual men who'd had a romantic relationship of at least three months with at least one person of each sex, and at least two sexual partners of each sex - much more specific criteria than previous research used. "The fact that we found it, especially using this kind of methodology, confirms that men with bisexual arousal patterns and bisexual identity definitely exist," said Allen Rosenthal, lead study author and doctoral student at Northwestern University.

More: thechart.blogs.cnn.com...

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Did you read the link I provided?
Did you read my entire post?

Yes. It supports gays being around for many years before there was estrogen in the water.
Yes, I read your entire post. And I stand firm that homosexuality is natural and has been around long before any environmental influences could have an impact on it. Evolution may be playing a part, however.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Is being gay natural or unnatural.... I don't know but neither do you

We most certainly DO know. We have the definition of natural and we know that homosexuality IS naturally occurring. It's indisputable. Now, whether or not that's a "good" or "bad" thing is up for opinion and discussion.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Bone75

 

Originally posted by Bone75
But like it or not, there is evidence to support that it is a condition caused by a genetic defect. Are genetic defects natural? Sure they are, but I don't think anyone should be labeled as having a phobia for wanting to correct the problem.

"Genetic defect" is defined as: a disease or disorder that is inherited genetically.

Gay people do not have gay children. Straight people have gay children. So, I'm not all sure about your science. But let's explore further... Baldness is a "genetic defect". So are blue eyes and left-handedness. Are you crusading to correct these "genetic defects"?

My opinion: If you're going to label homosexuals as a "genetically defective","diseased" and "unnatural", then you should man up, quit whining and take it like a big boy when someone labels you as "homophobic".

On another note, my dogs have a genetic defect. They have a long haired gene. They are not allowed to show in the US because of the recessive gene they carry. I picked my dogs BECAUSE of this genetic defect. My dogs are not diseased or disordered. They are beautiful and perfect - clearly exceptional creations of nature:

I apologize to those who are sick of seeing my diseased dogs.

My point is that even if being gay IS a "genetic defect" there's nothing "wrong" with it. And it's really none of your business.

"Gays people do not have gay children"

Not true... Not always but it has happened, its a bit like a lottery.. Very weird to pin down exactly how it works. But I know families that have gay members and cousins or grand children(depending the amount of children) the gay trait re-occurs. Genetically there is no proof,but its definitely natural. Its no one's fault that medicine is still massively primitive.

Originally posted by Nightchild

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
There's no such thing as bisexual. Whether gay or strait and how curious (or confused) one is they will always end up back to there original "sexual" preference. What do you think happened in Hellenistic times?

While it is true that self proclaimed bisexual individuals not seldomly ends up with the preference for one Sex before the other, the claim of Bisexuality being nonexistent has nevertheless been disproven during the last decade;

Bisexual men: Science says they're real

Plenty of people identify as bisexual, but scientists are still trying to figure out what that means in terms of physiological arousal and attraction. A new study in the journal Biological Psychology claims to have at least shown that some men who say they're bisexual actually get aroused by both men and women. And that's a new result; a controversial 2005 study could not demonstrate bisexuality. This study does find it, perhaps because of the way researchers recruited participants. The new research focuses on self-identified bisexual men who'd had a romantic relationship of at least three months with at least one person of each sex, and at least two sexual partners of each sex - much more specific criteria than previous research used. "The fact that we found it, especially using this kind of methodology, confirms that men with bisexual arousal patterns and bisexual identity definitely exist," said Allen Rosenthal, lead study author and doctoral student at Northwestern University.

More: thechart.blogs.cnn.com...

Again , one could start gay and dabble having sex with women(depending on there surroundings/environment) for a good part of there lives. That person is still gay. Gay as hell in fact.


Its like saying I am strait but for the past 40 years I have been having sex with dead corpses or dogs. Does that make me Bi- beastyality or Bi-necrophilia?


Bisexuality is not some sexuality identity, its a fad or phase.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Again , one could start gay and dabble having sex with women(depending on there surroundings/environment) for a good part of there lives. That person is still gay. Gay as hell in fact.

Sure, one could do that, and, many actually also do; I have seen it myself many times in the GLBT-communities. However, the fallacy you are commiting here, is that you consider a personal and very sweaping opinion to be actual fact, although that opinion have no support from actual studies that have been performed on the matter.
If you want to claim that it is(Fact), then I will have to ask you to supply with sources proving just that, and that ALL individuals that indulge in Bisexual behaviour only do so temporarily and only for a specific amount of time/years during their lives; That is, actual studies and proof, not singular anecdotal cases.

Nonetheless, you actually did touch on an interesting topic when stating that just because you are intimate with someone of a specific Sex, it does not necessarily mean that you actually are attracted to that specific anatomical sex of the person. Meaning that, for instance, a male that claims to be fully heterosexual despite getting the hots for, let's say, Rupaul, or, Kim Petras, may indeed still be perfectly straight, just as such males for the very most also generally claims to be.
Straight as hell, in fact.

For, if going by your reasoning that one can indeed be intimate with someone of the opposite Sex without being anything else but gay, then it also means that you can have sex with someone of the same biological sex without being gay.

That is, aside from those being true bisexuals, ofcourse.

Its like saying I am strait but for the past 40 years I have been having sex with dead corpses or dogs. Does that make me Bi- beastyality or Bi-necrophilia?

It depends on whether you prefer your corpses to be of a specific Sex. If you do, and for instance cannot be attracted to the subject unless it is of the opposite Sex, then you are a heterosexual Necrophile. If not, and the anatomical Sex of the subject in question are of no importance, then you are either Bisexual or Pansexual(Meaning that you simply do not care about the anatomical sex of the subject at all).

As regarding your question on what a 40 year old habit of humping dogs would make you, it would highly depend on whether you are solely attracted to dogs alone, or, dogs and Humans alike. Regardless of which, you would indeed have a Zoophilic leaning.

Bisexuality is not some sexuality identity, its a fad or phase.

Totally wrong, sorry.
Not saying that you belong to the following group, but the only ones I have heard claiming this, are those that consider the thought that someone would actually be able to be attracted to a person of the same sex without being gay, threatening, as that tears down the wall of the "Us" and "Them" mentality.
Nonetheless, you are ofcourse completely and fully entitled to hold that opinion, however if you are attempting to claim it as being an actual fact, then you will, as previously said, have to supply with actual proof in the form of Scientific sources and studies in support of your opinion. If not, then it remains just that, your personal opinion.