Jump to content

Why the reasons hating on Gays are dumb and debunked.


Nova
 Share

Recommended Posts

So lets talk about a touchy subject.

The hate towards homosexuals.

I noticed that most of the reasons are often the same and I am here to kinda debunk them and show why they are dumb.

You are free to join and to discuss.

1."We are gonna go extinct because of them"

Hell no, first of all our population grows way to fast for something like that to happen and there are less gay than hetero and second its more likely  that we die of our bitch suicidal sun and meteors rather than because of that 

2."its gross and disgusting and weird"

I dont see anything disgusting here.

I just see two humans being in love and kissing each other, it may be weird bit there is nothing to it. DEAL WITH IT, They never hurt you.

 

3."When my kids see them they could become gay too or when they see something related to them"

Thats bullshit, if that would be, every kid and adult that watches steven universe would be gay. Like most of the world population. Kids don't work like that

4."Because my religion/president told me they are bad and they should be murdered"

Ehhrm you probably didnt really understand what was in your holy book. One word has many meanings. Fuck your president, murdering innocent people is way worse and brutal than having a different sexual orientation.

People throw in many reasons but dont know that they are wrong.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Nova said:

2."its gross and disgusting and weird"

I dont see anything disgusting here.

I just see two humans being in love and kissing each other, it may be weird bit there is nothing to it. DEAL WITH IT, They never hurt you.

I take it you've not seen the crap that goes on in pride parades.

Upset-child.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Toshabi said:

Am I the only one bummed out by the fact that Nova makes defending gay people sound like a really bad thing by the way he explains things?

Nova makes everything sound awful.  Nova could make a post about how starvation is bad which would make you want to throw away all the food in your house and never eat again.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you are preaching to the choir, because few furries hold homophobic views.

I only come across people who hold homophobic views very rarely now, and often they actually hold opinions which are more conspiratorial than those mentioned in the opening post.
For example, rather than simply stating that gay people are gross, someone might allege that, whilst they apparently don't personally dislike gays, that our presumably promiscuous behaviour is responsible for the HIV epidemic.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More or less. I was the target of the categorical imperative (a form of the first) argument once. Although that, and the other arguments actually used by thinking people are generally a lot more nuanced than your example.

For the most part I don't think such arguments are genuine reasons for hatred towards homosexuality. I have read a few times that an innate aversion towards homosexuality is observed in some people, usually males. If that is true, then there is probably going to be some form of conflict in perpetuum, and it would be good for both sides to be patient with the other.

 

 

1 hour ago, Socketosis said:

I take it you've not seen the crap that goes on in pride parades.

 

Yes, the LGBT movement is oozing with terrible, hateful, obnoxious, infighting and bigoted people who sorely need help and ruin everything for everyone. And I personally find "it's gross and weird" a perfectly acceptable objection, but there is a right and wrong way to treat gross and weird people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to take this time to say the required sentence, in the words of the immortal @Zaraphayx:

"This thread is gay. I'm gay. You're all gay."

 

Great, now that that's over....

 

I mean an odd place to post this, granted. Like Saxon said, few homophobes in the Furry Fandom.

However an interesting discussion.

Personally, I know one person who is allegedly homophobic, but not to any sorta extreme degree. In fact he's quite friendly to me so I'm going to say he's not really homophobic.

I do hear that the majority of the "Jocks" (which I literally just use as a banner to describe most of the people who're super athletic, and generally not the nicest) are homophobic. But I've never really heard from them, nor do I spend any time with them.

tl;dr still can't find any solid homophobia. smh.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people still care about gays?  aside from a couple of my family members who wouldn't know a gay man from a fruit salad, i don't even remember the last time i've seen legit hate against the homos. 

OH WAIT i think there was this one woman on a christian forum several years ago who tried to argue that they had an "agenda".

 

anyway one thing that's always amused me is the "if everyone was gay we'd die out" argument, because gay people can and do frequently have kids.  infertile people never have kids, but i've never seen anyone call them disgusting.  it's pretty obvious that most of the "reasons" typically listed are just excuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In places like "Bumfuck" Southern USA, they are becoming a decreasing minority. Sure, you get the outlandish minority shouting things like "My Christian faith tells me not to show this movie because of a gay character spreading the gay agenda to my kids" once in awhile, but it's slowly dying out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I cant say its slowly dying out, a vast amount of people still disagree with it because its a sin cult or something, the people that are westboro brand of asshole are the ones that are dying out because people have to grudgingly accept that different people exist and they cant be dicks about it lest they get called out by every sane person out there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

Eh, I cant say its slowly dying out, a vast amount of people still disagree with it because its a sin cult or something, the people that are westboro brand of asshole are the ones that are dying out because people have to grudgingly accept that different people exist and they cant be dicks about it lest they get called out by every sane person out there

 

Disagreement isn't hatred. Disagreement and even disapproval are always valid. Those can be reasoned with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I see a few poking fun at or criticizing Nova but honestly that little statement makes me happy after some things I've experienced in these past few months.

1 hour ago, Jtrekkie said:

Disagreement isn't hatred. Disagreement and even disapproval are always valid. Those can be reasoned with.

It is easy to find disagree with and disapprove of being used as euphemisms for hate today. Disagreeing with or disapproving of an innate or cultural trait is even dysphemistic and dehumanizing in that it demotes that trait from a lived experience and element of one's self to a debatable opinion.

That kind of language use isn't a sign of disagreement; it is a veiled expression of contempt. This becomes obvious after that kind of contempt becomes taboo or when the dysphemisms and euphemisms become so associated with the contempt that they cannot be separated from it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought more about the view that homophobia is 'dying out' in the western world and, even if it is in its death throes, it's still significant enough to motivate things like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39123265

(Texas challenging federal requirement to privilege gay married couples to the same legal benefits as straight ones, some hope that this will result in the reversal of federally legal same sex marriage in the USA).

 

The situation in European countries is more mixed- because many European countries provide a substitute for marriage that *does* have all the legal benefits, but which is not recognised as a marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, MalletFace said:

It is easy to find disagree with and disapprove of being used as euphemisms for hate today. Disagreeing with or disapproving of an innate or cultural trait is even dysphemistic and dehumanizing in that it demotes that trait from a lived experience and element of one's self to a debatable opinion.

That kind of language use isn't a sign of disagreement; it is a veiled expression of contempt. This becomes obvious after that kind of contempt becomes taboo or when the dysphemisms and euphemisms become so associated with the contempt that they cannot be separated from it.

 
 
 
 
 
 

 



Reducing humans to automata so they may be treated as cultural objects is also, by definition, dehumanizing. I will give a cherry picked example because some bigotry is acceptable. Many, if not most, extant cultures define themselves at least partially with a form of cultural racism. In addition to that, infants have been found to react differently to adults similar than their parents than they do to those of different races, (The Other-Race Effect Develops During Infancy.) So there are at least some innate mechanisms related to racism. Now, while racism is an identity, because humans are rational creatures it is also an idea subject to reason. Even in the general case, whether or not the target population is a minority is entirely irrelevant; disagreeing with racism isn't dehumanizing to racist people because they have nothing to do with the body of the disagreement. Hate by another name remains hatred, but debating opinions is not bigotry.

Which was the point of the previous post: bigotry is bigotry even if it's aimed at someone you image to be bigoted. That situation only makes it feel natural for you to condemn, so it should be avoided. Disagreement is OK, you can't make people agree with you by any force, and it's wrong to condemn them for refusing. Instead, you have to try to convince.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nova said:

4."Because my religion/president told me they are bad and they should be murdered"

Ehhrm you probably didnt really understand what was in your holy book. One word has many meanings.

Unfortunately, the section about the prohibition of homosexuality (or at least male homosexuality as laid out by the Christian Bible) is pretty damn plain about what is meant. What people fail (or more commonly refuse) to understand is the historic and socio-political drives that condition this religious response, such as the fact that the semitic tribes that would found Judaism came straight out of Babylon, where religious practices included the holy prostitution of its priestesses, plus of course the strong (and often positively portrayed) homosexual bias of certain legends from pagan Greece. With religion, a casus belli can be manufactured simply by picking on a difference in culture and saying that God hates people who have cultural feature X, or who consider personal practice Y to be morally valid. Contrast the relatively neutral and sometimes positively portrayed aspects of slavery in the Bible.

Cultural morality changes with time, religion tries its best to remain static, but sooner or later something has to flex. That's where reinterpretation comes in.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Jtrekkie said:

 

 



Reducing humans to automata so they may be treated as cultural objects is also, by definition, dehumanizing. I will give a cherry picked example because some bigotry is acceptable. Many, if not most, extant cultures define themselves at least partially with a form of cultural racism. In addition to that, infants have been found to react differently to adults similar than their parents than they do to those of different races, (The Other-Race Effect Develops During Infancy.) So there are at least some innate mechanisms related to racism. Now, while racism is an identity, because humans are rational creatures it is also an idea subject to reason. Even in the general case, whether or not the target population is a minority is entirely irrelevant; disagreeing with racism isn't dehumanizing to racist people because they have nothing to do with the body of the disagreement. Hate by another name remains hatred, but debating opinions is not bigotry.

Which was the point of the previous post: bigotry is bigotry even if it's aimed at someone you image to be bigoted. That situation only makes it feel natural for you to condemn, so it should be avoided. Disagreement is OK, you can't make people agree with you by any force, and it's wrong to condemn them for refusing. Instead, you have to try to convince.

I think you're engaging a strawman; I think Mallet was correct to observe that some people veil their prejudice in ambiguous language to escape being identified as prejudiced.
Of course this doesn't mean that using that language is always a good indicator that somebody is prejudiced- if it was then it wouldn't be a very good veil, would it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Faust said:

Contrast the relatively neutral and sometimes positively portrayed aspects of slavery in the Bible.

Irrelevant but biblical slavery aside from egyptian enslaving of hebrews was a little different than an improper act of control of a higher up from a lower person. It was actually meant as a mutual agreement between those who are broke or in poverty to form an agreement with someone who is wealthy to work in their household a set amount of years, and by the end of those years the household owner would grant said slave a portion of their welath to live off of. Hence why there are neutral or good statements about slavery, a lot of the bible was meant to highlight what was considered good practice at the time.

Things get corrupt later when you have total ownership of a race with no binding agreement.

8 hours ago, Jtrekkie said:

 

Disagreement isn't hatred. Disagreement and even disapproval are always valid. Those can be reasoned with.

It's as I've said before, I've met people who dont believe in the LGBTLMNOP movement that still manage to not nitpick, harass, relentlessly convert, or otherwise demean someone they disagree with. I've had normal encounters with Christian people who treat everyone pretty much the same and dont go wide eyed, shocked, and thrusting a cross in the direction of another human being.

 

 

@Nova Sounds like someone's learning to be an atheist :V(judging by this thread and the adam and eve one)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

Irrelevant but biblical slavery aside from egyptian enslaving of hebrews was a little different than an improper act of control of a higher up from a lower person. It was actually meant as a mutual agreement between those who are broke or in poverty to form an agreement with someone who is wealthy to work in their household a set amount of years, and by the end of those years the household owner would grant said slave a portion of their welath to live off of. Hence why there are neutral or good statements about slavery, a lot of the bible was meant to highlight what was considered good practice at the time.

Things get corrupt later when you have total ownership of a race with no binding agreement.

It's as I've said before, I've met people who dont believe in the LGBTLMNOP movement that still manage to not nitpick, harass, relentlessly convert, or otherwise demean someone they disagree with. I've had normal encounters with Christian people who treat everyone pretty much the same and dont go wide eyed, shocked, and thrusting a cross in the direction of another human being.

I am unconvinced that the indentured servitude represented in the bible is meaningfully distinct from other forms of slavery or some how consensual. Passages in the bible describe the proper way in which to beat and physically abuse one's slaves (if it takes them 3 days to die from a beating then the owner's actions cannot be considered cruel, because the murder is considered to have been accidental). The children of slaves become property too (any notion of consent to the arrangement here is absurd), and practices to mark slaves through distinctive body piercings and mutilations are discussed.

 

At the very best this form of slavery is comparable to work-houses/debtor's prisons or the indentured servitude of the industrial revolution, and I don't think anybody would ever be able to bring themselves to defend the disgusting people who established those practices.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I am unconvinced that the indentured servitude represented in the bible is meaningfully distinct from other forms of slavery or some how consensual. Passages in the bible describe the proper way in which to beat and physically abuse one's slaves (if it takes them 3 days to die from a beating then the owner's actions cannot be considered cruel, because the murder is considered to have been accidental). The children of slaves become property too (any notion of consent to the arrangement here is absurd), and practices to mark slaves through distinctive body piercings and mutilations are discussed.

 

At the very best this form of slavery is comparable to work-houses/debtor's prisons or the indentured servitude of the industrial revolution, and I don't think anybody would ever be able to bring themselves to defend the disgusting people who established those practices.

 

Hm, if that's the case would you happen to know the specific passages that discuss beatings, ownership, and mutilation? Im legit curious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

Hm, if that's the case would you happen to know the specific passages that discuss beatings, ownership, and mutilation? Im legit curious

Exodus 21:20-21

"Anyone who beats their slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if their slave recovers after a day or two, since their slave is their property."

In Deuteronomy 15, a practice to pierce the ears of slaves with an awl is described. This is done to Hebrew slaves (which are usually obliged to be released after 6 years) in order to turn them into permanent slaves, if they agree. Keep in mind that many slaves would have had children, who are NEVER freed, so this is not a choice- it is coercion. Fathers either had to submit to permanent slavery or never see their children again.

The 7 year rule is pretty racist anyway, since if the slave is not a Hebrew then the 6 year rule doesn't apply to them. They are a slave forever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery#Permanent_enslavement

In Exodus 21:2-11 you'll find excerpts clarifying that the children of slaves become slaves themselves.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A2-11&version=HCSB

Sex slaves were allowed to go free if their masters broke their oath of betrothal...but I think that it's more concerning that the bible doesn't object to selling your daughter as a sex slave in the first place. If the betrothal is not broken though...so much for going free on your seventh year (if you're lucky enough to be a Hebrew)- you're a sex slave forever. :\

 

In short, the slavery in the bible is absolutely disgusting no matter how you try to represent it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Sex slaves were allowed to go free if their masters broke their oath of betrothal...but I think that it's more concerning that the bible doesn't object to selling your daughter as a sex slave in the first place.

At the risk of further derailment, observe the case of Lot, the 'only good man' to be saved from the destruction of Soddom and Gommorrah, who offered his own virgin daughters to a rape mob in order to save his two male visitors (angels, but he didn't know that) from the same indignity.

I think this bears pointing out with relation to the current discussion around LGBT rights since it demonstrates how far morality of the old testament was skewed in direction of the heterosexual male; a woman's safety and wellbeing was considered a fair trade for the sake of (literally) saving a man's arse.

Even sadder, that wasn't an isolated incident - see also the Concubine of the Levite, who suffered a similar fate in order to provide another cassus belli. (I believe some scholars argue that the two stories are derived from the same source, but biblically they are treated as two separate incidents.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there a part in the Bible where a guy has sex with a sheep, or pretends to be a sheep, to get sex? I can't recall this now, but it always struck me as one of the few more humorous parts of that dreary book. I always thought that's what the Bible was missing :humor, a few laughs. How could you have a joyous God, without a few laughs? There needs to be a Book of Jokes added.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fossa-Boy said:

Isn't there a part in the Bible where a guy has sex with a sheep, or pretends to be a sheep, to get sex? I can't recall this now, but it always struck me as one of the few more humorous parts of that dreary book. I always thought that's what the Bible was missing :humor, a few laughs. How could you have a joyous God, without a few laughs? There needs to be a Book of Jokes added.

I didn't know there was a furry fandom in ancient Judea.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fossa-Boy said:

Isn't there a part in the Bible where a guy has sex with a sheep, or pretends to be a sheep, to get sex? I can't recall this now, but it always struck me as one of the few more humorous parts of that dreary book. I always thought that's what the Bible was missing :humor, a few laughs. How could you have a joyous God, without a few laughs? There needs to be a Book of Jokes added.

I'm gonna have to try and find that, but it sounds suspiciously similar to the Greek Legend of King Minos' wife Pasiphae who fell in love with a bull and had Daedalus make a wooden cow for her to hide inside so she could have sex with it. Remember kids, bestiality leads to having to build mazes for minotaurs. Nobody wants that expense.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Faust said:

I'm gonna have to try and find that, but it sounds suspiciously similar to the Greek Legend of King Minos' wife Pasiphae who fell in love with a bull and had Daedalus make a wooden cow for her to hide inside so she could have sex with it. Remember kids, bestiality leads to having to build mazes for minotaurs. Nobody wants that expense.

"I fucked her till she was stiff as a board."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

It's as I've said before, I've met people who dont believe in the LGBTLMNOP movement that still manage to not nitpick, harass, relentlessly convert, or otherwise demean someone they disagree with. I've had normal encounters with Christian people who treat everyone pretty much the same and dont go wide eyed, shocked, and thrusting a cross in the direction of another human being.

 

You have Christians who do not agree with the LGBT lifestyle to the point they are willing to let live as long as the the person does good things. On the other hand, you have people who' would shout  "Gays fucking gays shoving their immoral lifestyle down my throat" who are also (ironically) highly religious and xenophobic. In towns/counties in the southeast/ midwest, you'd see little to no diversity at all where that kind of thought process is somewhat common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the discussion is going there, if anyone has time compare the Hebrew idea of slavery to that of their neighbors. Slaves in Israel had human rights, which was unique Judaism, and the concept of indentured servitude was superior to the modern equivalent. Yes, it is a horrible practice, and it is condemned in the Tanakh, but keep in mind that the concept of slavery in the ancient Near East wasn't the same as ours. Honestly, ours was probably worse because we simultaneously argued that it was merciful and used it as a form of genocide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Jtrekkie said:

Since the discussion is going there, if anyone has time compare the Hebrew idea of slavery to that of their neighbors. Slaves in Israel had human rights, which was unique Judaism, and the concept of indentured servitude was superior to the modern equivalent. Yes, it is a horrible practice, and it is condemned in the Tanakh, but keep in mind that the concept of slavery in the ancient Near East wasn't the same as ours. Honestly, ours was probably worse because we simultaneously argued that it was merciful and used it as a form of genocide.

> Being sold as a sex slave.

> 'Human rights'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Zeke said:

In places like "Bumfuck" Southern USA, they are becoming a decreasing minority. Sure, you get the outlandish minority shouting things like "My Christian faith tells me not to show this movie because of a gay character spreading the gay agenda to my kids" once in awhile, but it's slowly dying out.

I wonder if we should remind overly religious people that the bible also says that people can't eat shrimp,that they are not supposed to work on the sabbath,and also says people are not supposed to gossip. Bible verses,no one takes literally today.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/13-things-the-bible-forbids_n_1327701.html

 

What Jesus did say is people should help the poor and needy, he never said anything about LGBT people though. Churches should instead of using their money to fight gay marriage,should actually use that money to build shelters for the poor,which is something Jesus actually did say.

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A34-46&version=ESV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, axelthefox said:

I wonder if we should remind overly religious people that the bible also says that people can't eat shrimp,that they are not supposed to work on the sabbath,and also says people are not supposed to gossip. Bible verses,no one takes literally today.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/13-things-the-bible-forbids_n_1327701.html

 

What Jesus did say is people should help the poor and needy, he never said anything about LGBT people though. Churches should instead of using their money to fight gay marriage,should actually use that money to build shelters for the poor,which is something Jesus actually did say.

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A34-46&version=ESV

I wonder if I should say pulling Scripture passages out of context and making a false attribution is a poor way of making an argument. Come back after learning about the 3 types of Levitical Law please (Being Moral, Social, and Ceremonial).

Actually Jesus spoke quite a bit on sexual immorality and marriage. In his own words; He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”

If you read the NT, Jesus actually spends most of his time talking about Hell, and that you need to avoid it, and how to avoid it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Zeke said:

In places like "Bumfuck" Southern USA, they are becoming a decreasing minority. Sure, you get the outlandish minority shouting things like "My Christian faith tells me not to show this movie because of a gay character spreading the gay agenda to my kids" once in awhile, but it's slowly dying out.

There's a whole lotta anti gay stuff where I'm at in the south.

Coming out is a death sentence in most areas but others...   you've  gotta come out as straight instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rukh Whitefang said:

I wonder if I should say pulling Scripture passages out of context and making a false attribution is a poor way of making an argument. Come back after learning about the 3 types of Levitical Law please (Being Moral, Social, and Ceremonial).

Actually Jesus spoke quite a bit on sexual immorality and marriage. In his own words; He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”

If you read the NT, Jesus actually spends most of his time talking about Hell, and that you need to avoid it, and how to avoid it.

Even more reason to not be christian. 

What god is worth worshipping who doesn't even understand the physiology of "his" own creations?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Saxon said:

> Being sold as a sex slave.

> 'Human rights'

 

Yeah, that's how marriage worked until relatively recently. For them, concubines were equal to regular wives.

 Look at their predecessors and sister cultures. What was different? Why? They had a new idea that wasn't found in the earlier societies. Even if they didn't apply it consistently, it was there. We have the benefit of 3,000 years of development, and we still only apply it periodically (related to my earlier post.)

Also (for general information), considering that Jewish law is being discussed, the Midrash is relevant here. They were quite aware that slavery wasn't cool and people were jerks. This stuff has little to do with Christianity.

 

 

Back on topic, I do get my own share of intolerance. Most of it has just been "looks" and a cessation of communication, although one person keeps guilting me with Argument #3. If I'm honest, the reason I'm subtle about this stuff is fear (luckily for me my brother told just about everyone in my extended family that I was gay after I told him not to.) But, also being honest,  most of the resistance I've gotten is seated in genuine concern. The hate I've gotten doesn't even register compared to the flak I get for other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, the whole "no sex before marriage" is another cultural reference that is taken way too literally and out of context, if you think about it, old cultures married out their women at pubescent age like 14 or something. So marrying out a child is essentially what is deemed messed up in that context, because at the time if you had sex before marriage you wouldnt be ready for sex at all

Unlike today, where most people marry for pleasure, consent, in their mid to late twenties, and usually have sex with their romantic partner before then because they are in love and want to embrace each other's company in that way. Never seemed to make sense to me that two people in love but holding off on marriage for something or other years for better security cant love each other in body that closely while they've been together awhile

...and this is just barring casual sex and dating.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jtrekkie said:

 

Yeah, that's how marriage worked until relatively recently. For them, concubines were equal to regular wives.

 Look at their predecessors and sister cultures. What was different? Why? They had a new idea that wasn't found in the earlier societies. Even if they didn't apply it consistently, it was there. We have the benefit of 3,000 years of development, and we still only apply it periodically (related to my earlier post.)

Also (for general information), considering that Jewish law is being discussed, the Midrash is relevant here. They were quite aware that slavery wasn't cool and people were jerks. This stuff has little to do with Christianity.

 

 

Back on topic, I do get my own share of intolerance. Most of it has just been "looks" and a cessation of communication, although one person keeps guilting me with Argument #3. If I'm honest, the reason I'm subtle about this stuff is fear (luckily for me my brother told just about everyone in my extended family that I was gay after I told him not to.) But, also being honest,  most of the resistance I've gotten is seated in genuine concern. The hate I've gotten doesn't even register compared to the flak I get for other things.

This is wrong. Numerous other near eastern cultures had similar versions of Slavery to the Hebrews and it is possible that this mode of slavery was actually the standard in the near east.

Ancient Athenia is one example, because they practiced a form of debt-slavery in the 6th century BC, the same time as the compilation of the final version of the book of Deuteronomy, which describes debt-slavery in the Levant.

I frequently find material on the internet trying to rationalise slavery in the Torah, Bible and Qur'an as 'not really slavery', or claiming that it was not as bad as other contemporary cultures. I think this is a bizarre attempt that some Jewish Christian and Muslim believers make in order to retain the notion that the founders of their faiths were blessed with divine moral insight that (for some reason) wasn't afforded to other ethnic groups.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I think this is a bizarre attempt that some Jewish Christian and Muslim believers make in order to retain the notion that the founders of their faiths were blessed with divine moral insight that (for some reason) wasn't afforded to other ethnic groups.

Oh, it's not bizarre. To admit of moral error in one part of a holy text is to admit in the potential culpability of all of it. Further, if the possible morality of slavery is a difficult pill to swallow, how could anyone be expected to believe that people come back from the dead, or fly up to heaven in a fiery chariot, or turn water into wine? Doubt is the poison of religion, and there are two main cures: blind denial ("it can't be wrong if Jesus said it isn't!") and creative interpretation ("Well of course, Genesis is really just allegorical, it wasn't intended to be taken literally.")

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, the main form of homophobia I've seen in my life is the mistaken belief that being homosexual in some way means you are a weakling and 'not a man'.  Maybe if there were a few more positive, strong and emotionally-balanced gay people in the media this could be alleviated. The common perception unfortunately is created in-the-main by comedy shows that rely upon stereotype for humour.

I am however reminded of a wonderful episode of 'The Thin Blue Line' in which the ridiculously macho and muscular fireman turns out to be gay, while the wimpy and effeminate man he's fallen for is straight. I liked that show, it wasn't hilarious but it had some lovely moments.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Faust said:

Incidentally, the main form of homophobia I've seen in my life is the mistaken belief that being homosexual in some way means you are a weakling and 'not a man'.  Maybe if there were a few more positive, strong and emotionally-balanced gay people in the media this could be alleviated. The common perception unfortunately is created in-the-main by comedy shows that rely upon stereotype for humour.

I am however reminded of a wonderful episode of 'The Thin Blue Line' in which the ridiculously macho and muscular fireman turns out to be gay, while the wimpy and effeminate man he's fallen for is straight. I liked that show, it wasn't hilarious but it had some lovely moments.

Also the very last scene in Paranorman in which the canon stereotypical jock character does not get the preppy girl character who falls for him, but instead reveals that he has a boyfriend (Another top notch scene from Laika). 

Although I have to admit that stereotype turned on its head by that show is definitely interesting and gives more awareness to different types of men

The macho gay man who isnt effeminate is highly misrepresented, there's probably more average or buff manly men then the limp wristed flamboyant. For whatever reason people seem to think sexuality=expression, all it means is you like dick/vagina//both

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Socketosis said:

What is a man?

Somebody who has walked down the right number of roads?

Also the very last scene in Paranorman in which the canon stereotypical jock character does not get the preppy girl character who falls for him, but instead reveals that he has a boyfriend (Another top notch scene from Laika). 

Although I have to admit that stereotype turned on its head by that show is definitely interesting and gives more awareness to different types of men

The macho gay man who isnt effeminate is highly misrepresented, there's probably more average or buff manly men then the limp wristed flamboyant. For whatever reason people seem to think sexuality=expression, all it means is you like dick/vagina//both

I'm really not sure how many gay people adhere to the stereotypes, compared to those who don't.

Of those who do adhere to the stereotype of being an effeminate man, or a butch lesbian, how many genuinely feel that way and how many only behave like that in order to signal their sexuality to potential friends?

...How many straight men would like to behave in an effeminate way, but feel like they must act manly?

azzhT.jpg

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...