Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sindayven]

I agree with a lot of that, but I'll dispute this now. I don't think there's a drive to perpetuate the species anymore, I think the drive is to just get that pleasant feeling as much as possible. I mean, if the associated pleasure was gone, would people still be as crazy to have sex all the time? As this is on topic of homosexuality, I'd assume there's little to no drive to continue the species through this, unless it somehow attracts an opposite gender mate in the process?

The pleasure IS the drive. If your brain never rewarded you for performing certain activities, you'd never do them.

As to why people are homophobic, I assume it's possibly biological. Our strong subconscious desire to be the kind of guy that attracts mates can lead us to distance ourselves from anything perceived to be emasculating, including being assumed to be gay (like if a man hits on you) or being associated with gay friends. It's important to note that just because something is a biological or natural response, doesn't mean it's good; those same tendencies can also drive people to cheat or even rape.

Personally, I think it's pretty sad that some people would deny homosexuals equal rights, and even punish them.


Sorry if any of that seemed incoherent. It's 5:00 AM, and I'm very tired.

[G-Flex]

Our strong subconscious desire to be the kind of guy that attracts mates can lead us to distance ourselves from anything perceived to be emasculating, including being assumed to be gay (like if a man hits on you) or being associated with gay friends.

To be fair here, this assumes that considering homosexuality emasculating is in itself predetermined by biology, which is almost certainly not sure.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

To be fair here, this assumes that considering homosexuality emasculating is in itself predetermined by biology, which is almost certainly not sure.

Indeed. The association of homosexuality with effeminate behavior is a social stereotype of western countries. Japan's idea of what gay people look like, on the other hand, is a over-muscular giant of a man. It all boils down to regional stereotypes.

[nenjin]

As totally evidenced by HARD GAY. The videos are a hilarious look at cultural bias as it relates to homosexuality. In Japan, a half naked guy wearing a gay biker outfit is swarmed by children who love him.

Just imagine how that would play over here.

[smigenboger]

Wut.

That's as close to homosexuality as Johnny Bravo is to heterosexuals. It seems too over the top to make a point. Unless I completely missed the point.

[nenjin]

It seems too over the top to make a point. Unless I completely missed the point.

That is the point. It's so over the top the Japanese think it's hilarious. I imagine some over here, most likely from Fox News, would shit a brick if he were doing that on regular basis in downtown NY. They'd be all "Oh noes, they're trying to make our children gay/make them crave gay sex!"

[RAM]

Personally, I think it's pretty sad that some people would deny homosexuals equal rights, and even punish them.

To be fair, I suspect that homosexuals have equal rights to engage in heterosexual activity and heterosexuals are equally restricted from homosexual activity. Of course, they will still be the subject of abuse from society, but the prospect of opposing basic human cruelty is a bit too depressing to dwell on just now. While it is still discriminatory, I feel that there is a difference between 'nobody is allowed to do this because we don't like people who do this' and 'you are not allowed to do this because we don't like you'.

On the topic of marriage, I feel that it is an antiquated tradition that served its purpose well enough but no longer deserves legal representation. I would like to see its legal presence replaced with a unified theory of dependency that could address children, those deemed mentally or physically incapable of managing their own affairs, siamese twins, and people who have been stuck in a ditch being bombed for 2 years whose minds would break if they lost contact. It might also be possible to apply something like that to joint ownership situations like communes or business partners...

As a tradition, however, marriage is defined by its rules and history. If you change the rules, then it changes the tradition. For example, some people accept polygamy as appropriate, others feel that multiple partners of any kind would be a complete betrayal of the underlying concept. The people involved in such an example are clearly dealing with different traditions. So it is, in a sense, impossible for homosexual couples to have the same marriage that existed prior to their being included in the list of acceptable applicants. Not that this would significantly affect marriages that do not involve any such changes, but it is exceedingly difficult to convince humans that exclusivity is not something to be cherished...

[Deathworks]

Hi!

I do think that we are talking about denying equal rights there. How about the right to be happy with the person you love? If both persons give consent to it, there is no reason to deny them the right to become an officially accepted couple. Moreso, why should the law be bound by tradition? If that had been the case, then equal rights for women and blacks should never have been established, as there has been a very long tradition of claiming that those two groups are not really human but something below human. Laws are there to protect the citizens from harm and allow them to pursuit their path to happiness - so how is a law justifiable that denies that pursuit for no tangible reason (bigotry is not a legitimate reason for legislation in my opinion)?

The Japanese image you mentioned of gayness you mentioned (which is probably not the only image in Japan, though), also fits in nicely with what I saw on the English adult internet. While just an inexperienced user, I sometimes came across gay stories (which I was not interested in), and at least at the community site where I came across them, they all seemed to start with a handsome young guy entering a truckers' bar... at which point I hit the back button as I was not out to study communities I don't belong to :) :) Nevertheless, I didn't have the impression we were dealing with an extremely over-feminine character there.

Deathworks

[Sindayven]

To be fair here, this assumes that considering homosexuality emasculating is in itself predetermined by biology, which is almost certainly not sure.

Perhaps emasculating wasn't the right word. I mean that anything that calls in to question a man's ability to attract mates and reproduce is perceived as pretty insulting.

[RAM]

Hi!

why should the law be bound by tradition?

Deathworks

I wholeheartedly support a separation of laws from marriage. I would hope that laws would be objective. And while I don't mind traditions being limited by government laws, I don't feel that they should be defined by them...

[Archangel]

When being gay is referred to as a sin, its religious, in my viewpoint.  (Do you ever see sin being used outside of religious viewpoint/context?)

sinθ=^{opposite
        hypotenuse}
Couldn't resist.

[Josephus]

Yeah, okay, I could have phrased that better. Like, "Is it distasteful to you because you think that building your life around any one thing is odd? And if so, why do you think that?"

I'm Catholic, just so you know I'm not trying to insult you. As for what makes it a sin, I mean, I know it's there in the Bible but I was hoping for more justification than that. I mean, Thou Shalt Not Kill is in the Bible and because murder being legal and moral would lend to a lot of deaths and be totally against our instinct of self-preservation, why would you believe it to be a sin? What other justification do you have? Basically:

Right, because of religious dogma.

I was under the impression this thread was about reasoning behind prejudice against homosexuals.

What he said.

When being gay is referred to as a sin, its religious, in my viewpoint.  (Do you ever see sin being used outside of religious viewpoint/context?)

Yes. In older Dilbert strips.

But that's pretty much it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, putting a "sin tax" on certain items is technicly a non-religious use, although I would argue otherwise. There's also a growing use of the world to condemn things that have nothing to do with religon, mostly invoked within speaches and essays, but it's more for style than anything else.

[Leafsnail]

Sure - for some people, marriage has to be between a man and a woman.  Those people aren't gonna be forced to officiate at or attend gay weddings.

But there's no reason they should have a monopoly over the concept of marriage.

Incidentally, on the polygamy point, at what point does the bible start supporting monogamous marriage (serious question)?  Certainly, towards the start many of the characters have multiple wives (Solomon springs to mind).