The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > HOMOPHOBICS - please explain!

HOMOPHOBICS - please explain!

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All
Now,.... I dont want to cause an argument or offend people but Im very curious about the attitude of alot of people.

There is another thread on the forum relating to legalising gay marriages and I was incredibly surprised by the homophobic attitude alot of members have.

Im a married hetrosexual woman living in a regional area who would support and love any of my 4 kids who were gay - I was surprised that my attitude to homosexuals is not that of most.....

So, I would love to know why people who disagree with the gay lifestyle think this way? I dont want to cause any problems I simply would like to understand.
Posted by izzo, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 10:42:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Izzo...don't be worried :) just JUMP IN boots and all, and we can sort ourselves out.

Homosexual Behavior and Orientation.

Christian Perspective.
1/ For Christians the idea of a man laying with a man as with a woman, is an abomination to God. Leviticus 18, Romans 1

2/ The Biblical condemnation is for the ACT/BEHAVIOR.

3/ This condemnation is equally asserted for the following behaviors.
a)Homosexual
b)Incestual
c)Bestial.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.

It remains to be confirmed, whether a supposed homosexual attraction is genetic, a choice, or learned, or a result of social factors, or.. a possible combination of some or all.

Unfortunately, for those who claim it is from birth or genetic, they are immediately confronted with the problematic situation of a paedophile who can spend 30 yrs in the slammer for doing what to him is 'quite natural'.. and who comes out and within weeks re-offends, because.. "I was born this way"

Now.. we don't allow such behavior, and rightly so. Thus, I conclude, that allowing or at least promoting sympathy for such behavior is not good. I have NO time for a 'Playschool' episode showing 2 mummies or 2 daddies. That to me is child abuse of the most blatant kind.

I reject the tag 'homophobic' becuase it is a politicized term invented to attach negative/evil connotations to people who oppose such behavior.

So, perhaps we can redirect the question "Incestaphobes..please explain" or.. "Bestiality-a-phobes.. please explain" or "Paedophilaphobes, Please explain"
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 11:26:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I was surprised that my attitude to homosexuals is not that of most....."

That's your first mistake, thinking that other people must have the same attitude as you do.

If your 4 kids were homosexual, of course you would still love them; but they are not homesexual, are they?

Homophobics is a particularly stupid word. Being opposed to homosexuality for whatever reason does not necessarily mean that one hates homosexuals.

Many people think that ahborrence of unnatural sexual practices is based on religious belief. In my case, this is not so as I am totally irreligious. The only thing I can suggest you think about is the anatomical risibility of the physical act between people of the same sex,and the natural (not religious) function of that sex act.

You will hear all sorts of stuff from apologists about what happened between Ancient Greeks, animals and other tales. None of them make homosexuality right. Oh, and I forgot the old chestnut about anal sex between heterosexuals. Just as disgusting, unhealthy and possibly fatal. We are talking about burrowing dung in both cases.

Of coure,the only replies you should get are from people you call incorrectly call 'homophobes', but you find that 'homophobe' haters will not be able to resist having a go.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 11:27:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Im not homophobic, I just don't like poofters.

Apart form that the way they carry on, I am becoming concerned it might be make compulsory and we all have to learn what colour "Teal" is and take interior design courses.

- now where's me roll of lino?
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 11:52:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Unfortunately, for those who claim it is from birth or genetic, they are immediately confronted with the problematic situation of a paedophile who can spend 30 yrs in the slammer for doing what to him is 'quite natural'.. and who comes out and within weeks re-offends, because.. "I was born this way""

They're not "immediately confronted" with that at all David. Most people experience their sexual desires as "natural" - I'm sure you do also. You are talking about the issue of consent. Children cannot give consent.

You've had enough conversations on these forums to understand this. Answer the question honestly.
Posted by Vanilla, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 12:12:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Any man who has used a decent amount of public toilets in their life is more than likely to have come accross some kind of sexual advances or behaviour from a gay guy. Probably about half a dozen times in my life I have heard masturbating, or waves of hands under the door, or guys hanging around with leery looks. Now I'm not too worried, but the threat of rape is there, to a lesser extent than what a woman would feel if there were men roaming about the women's toilets of course.

Most people fob this off as stupid people thinking all gay guys are going to proposition them or something, but women especially I think are unaware of the above reality. Whether you're comfortable in your sexuality or not this behaviour's confronting. I wouldn't like my kids to be exposed to such behaviour. Not all gays do this, but anyone who remembers a Sydney department store closing it's toilets for this very reason will accept it happens.

Mostly though, I just hate camp accents. I find them really irritating, and I cant understand why being attracted to men changes the way you talk. I know many gay men who don't talk like this, so why all the stupid theatrics from the camp guys. Some talk normally, then 'come out' and all of a sudden they talk in this stupid and irritating way.
Posted by Whitty, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 2:48:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Izzo,

The following website may be of some help to you:

Homophobia: The Fear Behind The Hatred.
www.bidstrup.com/phobia.htm - 23k
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 6:25:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy

Excellent article, but will the I'm-not-homophobic-but (no pun intended) crowd read it and if so at least try to understand?

One thing I have never understood is that why do gay men encounter more vitriol than gay women?

Is it because the conservative male tends to see 'feminine' as less worthy, therefore if a male is homosexual he is behaving in a less 'manly' fashion and therefore something less than a 'real man'?. Whereas, a gay female is not such an affront to the 'manly' conservative male.

But after reading these threads, it is the gay male who is constantly derided, rarely anything said about lesbians.

I'm not saying that gay women don't encounter bigotry, just that gay men seem to cop a lot more flack on these forums. Also gay bashing tends to happen to men more than women.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 6:49:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You want homophobia? It’s all here, from a member of the US state of Oklahoma’s House of Representatives, Sally Kern:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFxk7glmMbo

Kern claims, "I’m not gay bashing, but ... " and then in the middle of a tirade of anti-gay polemic, she distinguishes herself by stating, "I honestly think [homosexuality]’s the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam."

Anyone who thinks she’s got a point needs to read this response from a (straight) eighteen-year-old student:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=C247147AFDB4FC6666640B0FDF71B6E0?diaryId=4756

izzo, I guess you’ve realised by now that the enemies of tolerance need very little coaxing to come out from under their rocks.
Posted by jpw2040, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 10:33:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm of the firm belief that homosexuals are born gay. I also suspect that applies to paedophiles.

I hold an interest in specific chemicals such as persistent organic pollutants where scientists suspect foetal exposure to these chemicals during pregnancy may "feminise" embryos.

I have a friend, one of seven siblings, four females and three males. All three males are homosexual. Two are clearly effeminate.

Nevertheless, I cannot afford the same compassion to paedophiles who harm children - generally homosexuals do not. The issue here is that sexual practices are no-one elses business providing the sex is by consent and the sexual practices do not harm others.

I have in the past advocated for the chemical castration of paedophiles, to protect communities against these misfits and since there are many more paedophiles than most people are aware of, this remains a particularly serious and often insidious problem in society.

As to the feeling of abhorrence by many, of the sexual acts performed between homosexuals, may I remind posters that heterosexuals too indulge in sexual acts which could also be regarded as repugnant or unhygenic. These days we have rather crude descriptions of these acts such as "head jobs," "blow jobs," "going down," cunnilingus etc etc.

Perhaps people in glass houses...........?

Then nature provides us with the lovely snail which prefers to mate with itself.........hmmmmm? That reminds me of the heterosexuals who have an array of blow up dolls, vibrators and dildoes.......!

I do trust the homophobics among us are without "sin?"
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 11:43:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why is it so? why if I say I do not like gays I would be branded homophobic?
Bad wrong all sorts of things?
Well I have not made up my mind that I do not like them, but I do not want to get too close .
Even the toughest of men must be careful in public toilets at night or is that ok?
In a pub having a quite beer in Melbourne just months ago a woman who clearly wanted to be a bloke confronted our group wanting to fight.
We had not even known she was there, so what about gays? are they free to impose themselves on the straights?
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 20 March 2008 4:54:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dickie

without sin ? heck no. That is one of a number of passages from the Bible which indeed have bearing on how the Christian relates to 'sin' in another person.

"He who is without sin,.... cast the first stone"

"How can you tell your brother about the speck in his own eye when you do not see the plank in your own"

Did Jesus condemn sin ? absolutely. Are responsible believers expected to condemn sin ? yes they most assuredly are!

Sin is condemned with healing in mind.

1Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. 2Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal 6:1)

In regard to Homosexual behavior, a person should be admonished that this is unnacceptable to the Almighty, and should be repented of.

Until recently sex and gender issues were thought to be biological or natural rather than political. The feminist movement largely changed perceptions of gender, and the gay and lesbian movements significantly altered conceptions of sex, so that what were once seen as permanent moral standards are now viewed as historical and political constructions....

there is a two-phase pattern of sexual politics. The first is a battle to prevent the battle, to keep the issue from being seen as political and negotiable. Psychological and moral categories are used to justify ridicule and preclude any discussions of the issue, and standard Constitutional guarantees are seen as irrelevant. The second phase more closely resembles traditional politics as different groups argue over rights and privileges. Feminist and gay/lesbian politics have recently entered the second phase, while pedophilia is in the first.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 20 March 2008 8:01:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I just love the way Boaz leaps in, boots and all, fired up with righteous indignation, only to - once again - base his argument on a total fallacy.

>>Unfortunately, for those who claim [homosexual attraction] is from birth or genetic, they are immediately confronted with the problematic situation of a paedophile who can spend 30 yrs in the slammer for doing what to him is 'quite natural'.. and who comes out and within weeks re-offends, because.. "I was born this way"<<

The fact, Boaz, is that the vast majority of paedophiles are heterosexual.

Introducing your favourite topic "where will it all end, the way we are heading we will all be forced to join NAMBLA" from the springboard of a thread on homophobia, simply indicates once again to everyone how little you know compared with the amount you write.

Leaving aside Boaz's predictable knee-jerk reaction for a moment, I'm interested in the number of people who have taken the opportunity to point out that simply disliking homosexuality or homosexual acts does not in itself define homophobia. It is only when that aversion is personalized, and turned into an "us and them" incitement to hatred or ridicule, does it cross the line and become abhorrent.

Hate to say it, but much like religion. I may dislike the actions and attitudes of religious folk, but I don't feel it necessary to impose those views on others, either by standing on a soap-box or twisting their arms.

Homophobia and religious rabble-rousing both occur when individuals allow themselves to believe they are in sole possession of the truth, and choose to denigrate and excoriate "the other" that they fear so much.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 20 March 2008 8:18:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazy,

For a start, you've given us bible quotes and a analyis of them. Two quotes advocate *not* judging others but turning that gaze back on oneself, another a "gentle" restoration, the last a reminder to carry others' burdens.

None of them say that believers are supposed to condemn sin. Back to your bible, Boazy! Or, preferably, take the advice contained in your first two quotes.

Then, your sociological analysis needs some work, shall we say, particularly the "two-phase pattern of sexual politics". I would advise you to return to your conceptual drawing board.

Which leads me to the question. Do you have a point, other than you condemn homosexuality because your silly book says you must?

I notice you keep ignoring the arguments that prove pedeophilia is obviously irrelevant here. Is that because you have no counter for them?
Posted by Vanilla, Thursday, 20 March 2008 9:32:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Izzo

Just visit any major hospital and ask any honest doctor as to the amount of disease spread through sodomy. You will then see how natural it really is. If it was in the genes we would not have ex homosexuals and ex straight people. You have swallowed another unproven, unscientific pill in the name of tolerance. To promote this behaviour as 'normal' is a blot on our nation.

Pericles says
'Hate to say it, but much like religion. I may dislike the actions and attitudes of religious folk, but I don't feel it necessary to impose those views on others, either by standing on a soap-box or twisting their arms.'

He then gets on his/her soapbox. I doubt whether you hate to say it.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 20 March 2008 9:39:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner

I don't usually waste my time with you, but, er I need some clarification here regards sodomy.

Do mean that sodomy performed by hetereos causes more spread of disease, or homosexual sodomy? Or both?

Also please provide evidence of same.

Thank you
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 20 March 2008 9:48:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ - I have always found that the people with the loudest religious opinion who preach life according to the bible are usually the ones who are the least christian of all - the pew in the front row every sunday does not guarrentee a tolerant, kind, generous and forgiving human being, if anything they are usually the opposite.
So your religious rhetoric falls of deaf ears in my case!


LEIGH - I really thought that Austrralians were far more open - minded and tolerant than many other cultures - and no, I have no idea if any of my kids are gay. However we have always talked openingly about homosexuality and sex because they see it everyday on the farm!

And anal sex is practiced by hetrosexuals as well!

BELLY - you say you worry about being in a public toilet late at night- welcome to the life of a female! Like women, I would suggest that you avoid being in any situation where you think you may feel threatened - like women have to do every day of our lives!
And the woman who wanted to fight you...have you ever been confronted by a man wanting to fight you? - so how is she imposing her sexuality on you?

FRACTELLE - The way I see it is that hatred of homosexuality seems to mostly be voiced by males, and it is common knowledge that hetrosexual men do not mind witnessing sex between 2 women, so obviously lesbianism is more 'accepted' than gay men.

I am simply not convinced that homosexuality is a choice. I went through puberty as everybody does, i found myself being attracted to men and only men. There is no way I could have 'decided' that NO - I dont want to be hetrosexual anymore, Im going to become a lesbian - I would have to be sexually attracted to women, I would want to spend the rest of my life with a woman - I didnt, and the reason is because I simply was not wired that way, I was born a heterosexual female
Posted by izzo, Thursday, 20 March 2008 10:10:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle, you should know runner lacks the where-with-all to participate in debate or defend a reasoned view.

He/she is only interested in posting a demented rant on anything which does not conform with his/her self-righteous moral perspective.

Although the supposed infection rate from sodomy does stir interest, one is tempted to exclaim . . .


“Well Bugger Me!”
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 20 March 2008 10:12:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner - gee, I think we should ban kissing, touching and breathing as well....then we can stop all sorts of infections!

Col Rouge - LOL!
Posted by izzo, Thursday, 20 March 2008 10:34:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to agree that whenever issues of homosexuality come up on these posts it is almost exclusively concentrated on gay men. Even BD does not mention homosexual women as apparently his god only condemns two men lying down together.

Surely if a person is opposed to homosexuality they would have to feel as disgusted, outraged and ready to move house if a gay couple moved in next door (BD's favoured option) whatever the gender of the couple?

It does not therefore seem unnatural to me that many people have claimed that heterosexual men's aversion towards gay men is based, in large part, upon perceived threats to their own masculinity.

Whitty:- you mention the "camp" thing again. I am not an expert but some of my own gay friends who camp it up (for some of whom it is only public behaviour and not done at home)have talked about it. For them its rather like those people who turn a joke against themselves before others can do it. Actually the reasons are myriad and deep but it is an assumed behaviour. Sometimes it becomes habitual.

Hmm, I would also be interested to know if anal sex is only disease carrying when its indulged in by gay men? Are all the straight couples who indulge in it also crowding the hospitals?
Posted by Romany, Thursday, 20 March 2008 10:54:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
izzo - I'm not surprised at all by the vitriol in response to your post. Whenever topics associated with male homosexuality are raised at OLO there is inevitably a litany of ranting and raving from that small minority of (almost invariably) men who are affronted by other people's sex lives.

Many of them attempt to rationalise their homophobia by reference to religious texts, while others seem to be more of the knuckle-dragging poofter-bashing persuasion. However, I think that what they all share is a certain fragility in their own sexuality as men, such that it always ends up being a case of them "protesting too much, methinks".

Personally, I don't care what consenting adults do with each other,so long as it doesn't frighten the horses.

Col Rouge - good one. See, you can be witty without being nasty.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 20 March 2008 10:55:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Izzo,

"And anal sex is practiced by hetrosexuals as well!"

I did say that. And I did say what of thought of it - it is still using the dirtiest part of the human body for sex, no matter who does it; burrowing into ordure! It is unnatural for both homos and heteros.

You thought Australians were far more "open minded". Where do you draw the line on being open minded? How disgusting do things have to get?

I also said that, although you asked a question of what you call 'homophobes', the 'homophobe' haters would butt in and, sure enough....

I smiled at the homosexuality you see everyday on the farm. What a strange farm it must be! A bit of bum sniffing between animals doesn't lead to homosexuality.

In the meantime, I hope that your kids never put you to the test re their sexualtiy. We often find the theory of how we would react is much different when it comes to the pratice.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 20 March 2008 11:05:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Romany,

'It does not therefore seem unnatural to me that many people have claimed that heterosexual men's aversion towards gay men is based, in large part, upon perceived threats to their own masculinity.
'
I don't doubt this is the case some of the time. But there are a lot of other forces at play. A lot of people, even gay men themselves, are disgusted by anal penetration. That explains some of the inconsistancy in relation to attitudes to lesbians. That and lesbians being glorified in porn. And I have already discussed my objections to camp behaviour.

FRACTELLE ,

With regards to lesbian porn, I don't think it's homophobia to not be interested or turned on by males and rather watch two individuals you find attractive rather than only one. Some of the guys in porn are pretty ugly. Ron Jermey anyone?

CJ Morgan,

I don't think religious people who object to gays are necesarily homophobic.
Posted by Whitty, Thursday, 20 March 2008 11:17:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Boazy

Could you have sex with a male? Could I have sex with a female? No way! That also applies to those who are gay and are often forced by family or society to become "heterosexual" thus having to lead a life of misery and deception.

So what's all the fuss about? Why should humans be any different to the hundreds of other species who also engage in homosexual acts?

A friend of mine, a smart young man about town, was quite scathing of gays. "Shirt lifters, poo shooters!" he would call them.

However, my God (Karma) works in weird and wonderful ways. The smart young man about town unwittingly married a very smart young woman whose two brothers are gay!

Runner. I suggest you obtain the current statistics on the numbers of heterosexuals infected with syphillis, gonorrohea, chlamydia, hepatitis, herpes, HIV etc and see how these diseases are being spread through "normal" sex.

Here are some sobering statistics for your perusal:

http://www.ashastd.org/learn/learn_statistics.cfm

Perhaps you should ponder on Boazy's words of wisdom:

"How can you tell your brother about the speck in his own eye when you do not see the plank in your own?"
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 20 March 2008 11:41:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Fractelle,

I agree with you. There is far less tolerance of male homosexuality than female homosexuality. Possibly because there's less information
about female homosexuality.

The cross-cultural evidence on lesbianism is fragmentary. The reason may lie in the fact that women in most societies have less freedom to experiment and deviate sexually than men, but it may also be the case that lesbian behaviour is typically so discreet that researchers may have interpreted it as mere 'affection' and overlooked its real meaning.

In general, lesbianism does not appear to arouse the strong reactions that male homosexuality sometimes does, and in practice most cultures appear to tolerate or not notice it.

The classic example of this phenomenon was a nineteenth-century British law that forbade male homosexuality but ignored lesbianism - because Queen Victoria refused to believe that women did such things!

Another factor could be that - male homosexuals are more promiscuous as a group than heterosexuals, while relationships involving only women are more stable.

In the first decade or so of gay liberation,
some gay men seemed to initiate their own sexual revolution, reacting to their new freedom by almost celebrating promiscuity. The appearance of AIDS has abruptly chastened that attitude, and encouraged many gay men to revert to more traditional practices of dating and settling down with a single partner.

Lesbians seem to maintain even more stable and enduring relationships than heterosexuals do (Hooker, 1965; Masters and Johnson, 1979; Blumstein and Schwartz, 1985; Ettmore, 1980), which could explain the reason for greater tolerance.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 20 March 2008 11:54:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not scared of gays (that's what 'homophobic' translates as), just the diseases that they spread. AIDS, HepC. Ah, the dangers of anal action.
Posted by Jack the Lad, Thursday, 20 March 2008 11:55:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jack,

Hep C? It's rare for Hep C to be spread via sex. It mostly affects injecting drug users.

Three-quarters of the deaths from AIDS in the twentieth century were in Sub-Saharan Africa, where it is overwhelmingly a heterosexual disease.
Posted by Vanilla, Thursday, 20 March 2008 12:11:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Izzo;
It is really quite simple why the majority of people dislike
homosexuals.

First is the old cry Ünclean".
I won't impose why that is so as it needs little imagination.

Second is that it is not natural as it cannot lead to the birth of
new life and that is what sex is fundermentaly about when you get
down to the nitty gritty.

So as a mother you naturally feel put off by homosexual behaviour.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 20 March 2008 12:41:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But, Bazz. Izzo is not put off by homosexualtity, even though she is a mother. And, says she, she would still loooooooooooove her children even if the did turn queer. Very confident for a lady who has not yet had to face up to any odd behaviour from her offspring!

Izzo, as so many before her, dudded us by inferring that she was really interested in why other people did not agree with her. She had no such interest, of course; it was all a ploy to enable her express her own views without "offending anyone".

I have little time for people not prepared to state their opinions without first hearing what other people think.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 20 March 2008 1:02:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Second is that it is not natural as it cannot lead to the birth of
new life and that is what sex is fundermentaly about when you get
down to the nitty gritty." (Bazz)

What do we now regard as natural? Perhaps Mother Nature is now reforming her policies since humans are breeding themselves out of existence. Is that "natural?" Are homosexual numbers increasing or is it due to more gays "coming out of the closet?"

Perhaps, in the future, when we are invaded by hordes of environmental refugees, we may think more kindly of the homosexual community who cannot be held accountable for the irresponsible population explosions which are already contributing to this awful dilemma.
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 20 March 2008 2:28:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""I smiled at the homosexuality you see everyday on the farm. What a strange farm it must be! A bit of bum sniffing between animals doesn't lead to homosexuality.""

Um, Leigh, Im sorry to tell you but animals dont just do a bit of bum sniffing. Bulls humping bulls and rams humping rams is pretty common sight if you had ever spent any time on a farm.

You imply that my reaction would be different if any of my children were gay (notice I said 'were' gay and not 'turn' gay). I have thought about this situation quite a bit because my extended family have had to deal with this exact situation. In both situations the gay relations were ignored by their imediate family which as you could imagine had a devastaing affect on everyone involved. So, after witnessing these scenarios I have sworn to myself that I would never allow this to happen if any of my kids were gay. How could anyone turn their back on their child for ANY reason. I want to love and support my kids no matter who they sleep with - I simply couldnt careless if they are gay or straight. I just want them to feel loved, and secure in the knowledge that they will always be welcome home - no matter what...
Posted by izzo, Thursday, 20 March 2008 3:25:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The numbers are increasing because it has become fashionable to
be a homosexual. There are enough immature young minds that think
that is "cool" whatever that might mean.
Also society has put a measure of respectability on it by saying it is
unacceptable to say anything derogative against them.
So those that were in the closet now feel able to "come out".

No matter how you spin it, it is unnatural, no ifs no buts.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 20 March 2008 3:28:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz that's pretty funny. I cant imagine anyone changing their sexuality to be 'cool'!
Posted by Whitty, Thursday, 20 March 2008 3:36:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz “The numbers are increasing because it has become fashionable to
be a homosexual.”

mmmm. and I guess some might even write songs about it…

oh they have already

“Dedicated follower of fashion” by whom-

The Kinks, of course.

I tell you what, I agree with Whitty, “I cant imagine anyone changing their sexuality to be 'cool'!”

For a start, I have always found just pondering “sexuality” makes me hot a steamy, maybe it is my mind and having one which works.

Finally your parting comment

“No matter how you spin it, it is unnatural, no ifs no buts.”

Without wishing to seem pedantic, I am uncertain to what an “if” might be, although I am sure, to be supposedly unnatural, the other is spelt “butts”.

Come back again soon, I enjoy playing with you.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 20 March 2008 4:25:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's true bazz. Humanity has never learned to cope with 'unnatural' things like televisions and the motor car.

Plus, it's not like there was any homosexuality back in the good old days, whenever they were. Those upright ancient Greek fellows just enjoyed making gay artwork, just like Elton John.

And yes, gayness is bound to lead to other things like beastiality. Consenting dogs are pimping themselves on street corners, and none of the equal rights advocates for people find anything the least bit gross about sex with animals.

Similarly, everybody knows that respecting an adult's decision to have sex with a person of the same gender is wrong, and they need to be told what to do.
I mean, if we respect adult's decisions, what next?

Fortunately, we have people to tell us how very wrong homosexuality is. It's wrong because.... because.... uhh... it's gross and totally not cool with the bible.

It's also an activity that spreads disease, like swimming in pools and breathing on people. Nasty stuff.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 20 March 2008 4:41:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few figures:
A 1997 study in British Columbia found the life expectancy of men who engage in sodomy to be comparable to that of the average Canadian man in 1871. Researchers estimate that nearly half of the 20 year old men currently engaging in sodomy will not reach their 65th birthday.1

- Ninety-five percent or more of the AIDS infections among gay men result from receptive anal intercourse.2

- The risk of anal cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive. A Michigan homosexual newspaper admits there is no such thing as "safe sex" to prevent this "soaring" cancer risk. Condoms offer only limited protection.3

- Homosexual men face a significantly higher risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices.4

- Men who engage in sodomy are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), increasing up to 500% their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Men who commit acts of sodomy with men have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of STDs. Control of STDs is a central component of HIV infection prevention in the United States; resurgence of bacterial STDs threatens national HIV infection prevention efforts.5

- Anal Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection is nearly universal among HIV-positive homosexual or bisexual men and about 60% in HIV-negative men exhibiting the same sexual behavior.6

Yea normal behaviour!
Posted by runner, Thursday, 20 March 2008 5:30:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forgot your footies, Runner. C'mon, don't be shy.
Posted by Vanilla, Thursday, 20 March 2008 5:41:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Omigod, guys! It really is spreading! Now we have "Homosexual newspapers"!! Guard all your inanimate objects closely: they could turn gay.

Once that happens they will immediately become promiscuous and inadvertently brushing up against a book will be 950% likely to give you Hep.C

(ps Sorry, runner. Couldn't resist.)
Posted by Romany, Thursday, 20 March 2008 7:27:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have heard that if you sit on a seat that was recently vacated by a gay person you are 860% more likely to be sitting down than to be standing.

(Sometimes it helps to be Irish)
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 20 March 2008 7:34:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner, all of those statistics, with the exception of anal cancer, are examples of disease transmission caused by unprotected sex.

Seeing as gay men are unlikely to get pregnant, they are less likely to wear a condom and more likely to contract a disease from a promiscuous lifestyle.

This is a reflection of the importance of safe sex to either heterosexuals or homosexuals.

Regardless of whether the sex is vaginal or anal, condoms are an effective tool for preventing infection.

So really, if these figures concern you so much, you should be out there promoting condoms for gay people. Then, won't it be fantastic when you don't have these statistics to worry about anymore?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 20 March 2008 8:06:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner “A 1997 study in British Columbia found the life expectancy of men who engage in sodomy to be comparable to that of the average Canadian man in 1871.”

So what was the life expectancy of a sodomite in 1871 or are you suggesting it was not practiced before 1872?

It makes anal sex sound almost as lethal as smoking but at least your breath and your clothes don’t smell.

I heard, during the apartheid years for a white South African male, the most likely way of catching Herpes was from a rugby scrum.

Since the place went democratic, the most common place now is probably off a warm toilet seat.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 20 March 2008 10:08:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What kind of world would be more just, peaceful and moral:
a world where sexual diversity is understood, accepted and where everyone is welcomed and included-
or
a world that privileges heterosexuality and oppresses, condemns and excludes minorities based on their sexuality or gender identity?

Everybody should be free to express their sexuality and live their lives fully as long as they don’t jeopardise the freedom of others.

TRTL exactly, I still don't understand why the popes don't ever promote the use of condoms- surely these would save lives and prevent abortions :D
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 20 March 2008 10:45:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Izzo, my irrational fear is that I will raise a homosexual who converts to Islam and is anxious about the future of our planets' rainfall distribution.

Kick out the jams motherflicker.
Posted by palimpsest, Thursday, 20 March 2008 10:58:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia “What kind of world would be more just, peaceful and moral”

What a great question. Thanks for focusing us on it.

A world which oppresses, condemns and excludes, through either racial, gender, religious secular (state) or other dictates and edicts, will only produce resentment and encourage revolt in those who are oppressed, condemned and excluded.

A world which accepts diversity, tolerates difference and values uniqueness will be a more just and peaceful world where fewer are disposed to revolt or resent. It might also be more “moral” simply through greater acceptance and observance to a common moral standard.

A world which is more tolerant of diversity leaves people to explore not only their individual sexuality but to aspire to their individual potential and answers the question “why are we here?” with the answer “to grow, each to the limit of our own potential”

A world which is less tolerant of individual sexuality and restrictive to people individual potential is a place where “life” is reduced to mere “existence” and answers the question “why are we here?” with the answer “to perpetuate the race”.

If it comes down solely to “perpetuating the race”, why bother?
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 20 March 2008 11:43:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was under the impression that it was a well known fact that sexual preference was determined prior to birth- thus a person is born homosexual. I'm happy to search for written lit to support this if anyone asks.

So how can anyone be critical of someone who is born the way they are? This would surely scare the religous lot because that means God must of made a mistake in order for their to be a genetic glitch- and apparently God does not make mistakes.

There is also a misconception that gays are paedophiles- NOT TRUE. Its a fallacy. They are sicko's who prey on children and get themselves into professions that allow them to have contact with their intended victims. An example? Lets see- oh the priesthood is one.

One would hope that society is becoming more tolerant as a result of a more open society. My favorite saying again applies to this topic: We fear what we do not know.

And please, for those people who admit to not liking gay's but deny being homophobic, well you are homophobic, plain and simple.

Why can't we just accept people for unique human souls they are and not judge them based on sexual, religous, race and creed labels.
Posted by TammyJo, Friday, 21 March 2008 12:17:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
izzo I must admit I avoid females like you far more often than gays, your views to you at least are the only ones that matter and no way I stay in company like that.
Gays have rights yes it is my job to see they get them, so too do I my Melbourne story is one of tens I could tell is it less wrong for men to be confronted at night than women?
So if an idiot or worse harms a female we act but not complain if it is man on man?
Some one bought God into the debate wonder who? are we to consider the pedophile priests and ministers Gay?
Just maybe it was unwise to use Gods name while so many misused it that way.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 21 March 2008 6:42:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TammyJo, it appears to be well established scientifically but that presents a significant issue for those who's god does not like homosexuality therefore in their minds the science must be wrong.

Just like it so obvious to many of them that the world was created one week some 6 or 7 thousand years ago and an earth thats billions of years old with life evolving over a very long period is just wild specualtion and not taken seriously by "real" scientists.

The good thing about homophobia is that it gives the rest of us some entertainment speculating what causes it in different homophobes. I tend to favor the one where they are in denial about their own attractions - those who protest too.

Whitty's point earlier in the discussion about public toilets is also relevant. My own views were much less tolerant when I had a job which meant that I regularly needed to use public toilets and sometimes at night. Far too much soliciting for gay sex on toilet walls, too many holes drilled through walls etc.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 21 March 2008 8:29:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well it's settled then. If animals do it, it must be OK for humans to do it. The fact that humans have the ability to take a moral approach, but animals do not have morals, is beside the point.
Posted by Mr. Right, Friday, 21 March 2008 8:37:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re solicitation. Interesting. I've always been of the view that we should be allowed to come on to who we like and at least expect a polite rebuff. When you're a young woman, middle-aged geezers make passes at you, and often your overriding thought is often, "as *if* — I can't *believe* you've dared to approach me." Some women were happy to let that show. My philosophy always was, sex makes the world go round, everyone tries their luck, and they've a perfect right to, so if you're not interested, just say so, politely.

My point is that blokes in public toilets are allowed to try it on. They shouldn't persist once you rebuff them, of course, which you should clearly and at once. But I don't see why they shouldn't give it a shot. Girls have to put up with this stuff for years!
Posted by Vanilla, Friday, 21 March 2008 9:07:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Well it's settled then. If animals do it, it must be OK for humans to do it. The fact that humans have the ability to take a moral approach, but animals do not have morals, is beside the point." (Mr Right)

I must disagree with you Mr Right. Many underestimate the conscious abilities of other species. This is due to the conceit of humans who insist they are the superior species - Ha!

There is also evidence of altruism in other species, with some animals acting disinterestedly for the good of others.

Animals which live in communities often exhibit signs of morality which resembles human behaviour.

The concept that animals are sentient - possessing a level of conscious awareness, and able to have feelings - was finally recognised by the European Union in 1997.

One should not underestimate the intellect of other species simply because they don't speak our lingo or respond to OUR wishes.

However, unlike stoopid homo sapiens, I suspect other species know better than to moralise over sexual orientation.
Posted by dickie, Friday, 21 March 2008 9:15:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanilla how do you feel about unisex toilets? Do girls have to put up with people propositioning them in toilets?

I do agree with you in the general sense though.
Posted by Whitty, Friday, 21 March 2008 9:15:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanilla

With you on this, getting propositioned is no big deal, women have been dealing with it for millenia.

BTW I have been propositioned by both sexes on many occasions - its only annoying if they don't accept that you're not interested.

So boys, if another male propositions you, maybe you should feel a little bit flattered that at least someone has found you attractive ;D
Posted by Fractelle, Friday, 21 March 2008 10:32:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanilla, you are correct but the question is in part about why male homosexuality evokes such a strong reaction. I don't know if it's still an issue but it used to be a very visible issue. A contributing factor for many hetrosexual males having a strong dislike of homosexual males.

There was always the concern that no would not be accepted and I prefer privacy when I'm using a toilet so anybody who drills peep holes through the wall in toilets is likely to not be on my favourite's list.

I can only recall one workmate being propositioned, most of the rest of it was stories of a friend of someone we knew rather than first hand accounts but those stories combined with the add's on the walls, the peep holes through the walls were enough to keep the issue real. We tended to be cautious which toilet blocks we used and make sure we had company nearby if possible.

Like a lot of stuff around sexual violence our concerns may have been exagerated by stories rather than real risks. Whatever the risk there was enough physical proof to make those concerns seem valid and to ferment a dislike of homosexual's.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 21 March 2008 11:10:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agression is what comes out of you. Phobia is what you block from reaching you. And in this light, I want to block homoaggression to affect me and my children.

Someone nicely listed number of factors which contribute to creation of this sexual deviation (not derogatory but as it is), and said that it is not determined what is deciding factor.

Long time ago and not so long we were studied that we are what genetics dictate. With open mind I could not accept this because of other evidence. Than I formulated my own opinion that at most genetics dictate 30% of our behaviour, who we are. Than more and more scientific evidence showed me that I am right and lately there is evidence that genes dictate very little and environment and our choice dictate the most. Out of that, our own decisions are absolutely decisive.

Fear or phobia or dislike or non acceptance does not have to be conscious, people can and do reject this choice of orientation. Yes I thought for a while what if I was born with genetic make up which would "sit on fence" and parents decided if I will be boy looking girl, or girl looking and behaving boy. Overall I had to decide what I want and what is acceptable in society.
It is a bit side issue but my personal stand is contrary to many, that I want to be happy when my family is happy. I do not want o be happy beside family members. Here I do not care about opinion of majority, but what is absolutely good. Consciously linking my happiness with happiness of wife and children is definitely not against family, nor society nor myself.

Rape or fear of homosexual rape and very unpleasant behavior in parks or public toilets, is not beneficial to society, nothing what homosexuals do is beneficial to society. (I am not talking about homosexual motor mechanic).
Posted by mmistrz, Friday, 21 March 2008 2:30:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said about animals, dickie, and I dare say that humans could learn a lot from animals, too.

Col thanks for your reply to the question I asked about the kind of world we prefer to live in. I fully agree with all you said but I had hoped for a straight answer from the homophobic crowd as well.

I mean- would they really prefer to live in a world where, as Col so succinctly stated, ““life” is reduced to mere “existence””?
There are countries in where homosexual men literally have to hide themselves from the public eye once their secret has been found out. Showing themselves means they risk being chased and beaten with clubs and stoning by large groups of heterosexual males. My cousin, who has been living in one of the ME countries as a writer for the past couple of years has witnessed such brutal attacks, which are mostly not reported to the police because they won’t bother with gay bashings.

Although homosexuals in Australia have more rights (e.g. of police protection), anyone who has read the link that Foxy provided earlier in the discussion is aware that homophobes are responsible for the terrible effect homophobia has not only homosexuals but on society.
If I may, Foxy, here’s that article again if someone has missed it: www.bidstrup.com/phobia.htm
Now, would the gay-haters really prefer to live in a world affected by homophobia rather than in a world where people are able to live and let live?
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 21 March 2008 2:31:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trust me people, evolution will sort us all out, with the force of nature. I noticed infestation around here, everywhere I look in fact, and its called, HUMANS! I hope this helps you to look at this from my point of view.

Over population is going to create all sorts of oddities, and as it grows, you think this is bad.

But back to the point. People will convince themselves of absolutely anything, and its all a matter of, small minded people, trying to attack, what they don't understand.

What I mean by that is, I don't have a point of view on this matter and its all about the human race going off the map.

Personally, now to contradict myself, I do have a point of view, and this is what I will say. I bet you all thought I was gay! lol.

But without jokes, If you are gay, do it in doors and away from the public, cause if you toilet hangers scare one of my children again, I just might forget that Iam human.

Remember, you are the contradiction.

The majority are going to love this, but we must all draw the line somewhere.

My sister is gay, and five years ago, was the first time I have meet them, and too my surprise, they were quite well balanced people, but they were the ones with morals and kept themselves with-in the boundaries of acceptance.
Posted by evolution, Friday, 21 March 2008 5:34:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“If you are gay, do it in doors and away from the public”

Depends what you mean by “it”, Evolution.
Do you mean that there needs to be two lines: one for homosexuals and one for heterosexuals? Why?
Is there a need for a separate line for homosexuals?
Who decides that?
And who then decides where exactly that line is drawn?

Can you elaborate if I am misinterpreting you?
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 21 March 2008 7:29:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can see you missed the point completely. The line is drawn with what is above. Read it again.
Posted by evolution, Friday, 21 March 2008 7:47:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Specified! "it" is the act of sex in the domaim of public interaction.
Posted by evolution, Friday, 21 March 2008 7:52:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are you saying, you are having sex in toilets?
Posted by evolution, Friday, 21 March 2008 8:02:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nah, Evolution, I am not into sex in toilets, I prefer a relaxed, sanitary and nice smelling atmosphere ;)

I fully agree that sex in toilets or any public place is unacceptable no matter what someone’s sexual orientation is.
But I would’ve thought that having sex in public is already a criminal offense- lewd conduct or disorderly conduct?

I never knew about peepholes in male toilets and find this quite revolting but what can or do men do about it? Poke a stick through it? (I would!)
I’m pretty sure that if I (or other women) found a peephole in one of the public toilets I’d immediately demand for it to be fixed and would insist on more frequent maintenance checks. Perhaps toilet walls can be made from a different material that can’t be drilled through.

Evolution, what are those boundaries of acceptance you’re talking about?
It should be accepted that homosexuals express the love they feel for their partner in public the same way heterosexual couples are able to do, i.e. hold hands, embrace, show affection, and kiss.

I’m surprised that you were surprised that your lesbian sister and her partner are balanced people- why wouldn’t they be?
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 21 March 2008 10:35:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia

Congratulations on making some sense out of evolution's post. I read it once, I read it twice, I tried reading it standing on my head. I think evolution's against homos being affectionate it public. Which is a tad homophobic.

OK - I'm not into seeing anyone of any sexual persuasion doing the horizontal in public, although having said that I have done so in a park, but we hid and I'm sure no-one saw us and it was heaps of fun.

But holding hands, smooching in public - nothing wrong with that - means that the world is full of love - a good thing.

Excellent point about the holes in public toilets, Celivia, I mean here we have a bunch of men complaining about it on OLO - well Graham Young isn't going to fix it - complain to appropriate authority - then you can be called uppity like us womenfolk when we complain about sexual predation ;-D

Well it is about time I proceeded with my favourite expression;

Live and let live

The world will be a happier place.
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 22 March 2008 8:50:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've had sex in quite a few different bathrooms. And the toilet in was there too.
Posted by Vanilla, Saturday, 22 March 2008 9:20:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No one talks much about the disease factor.
As homosexuality spreads... so does their little plague.
Seriously, for the health of a world, I would like to see governments bold enough to give an ultimatum to the gays and begin to cut the gay folk off from many social benefits from that point on.
Sooner or later the spread of homosexuality has to be curtailed.
Many have stopped using condoms again. Thats no great love for the youth they deceive into their beds.
Posted by Gibo, Saturday, 22 March 2008 10:14:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanilla and Fractelle,

I'm sure you would both get quite uppity if anyone ridiculed women when they feel threatened. I've stated previously I usually don't mind being propositioned by males, but feel threatened being propositioned in a public toilet. You haven't answered my query of whether you would like all toilets to be unisex toilets, and be happy to be propositioned for sex in them by men who lurk around inside? If no, why do you think men are being homophobic, or precious if they object to it.
Posted by Whitty, Saturday, 22 March 2008 10:47:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whitty

Warning, am about to state bleeding obvious:

Male sexual predators hide around female public toilets too. It is a reason why women prefer to use them in pairs or groups (the toilets that is).

We live with male sexual predation all our lives, just walking down a street in daylight can be fraught if we are on our own. So please enough of the sookie-sookie-la-la.

BTW When I was studying at RMIT there were unisex toilets, I never had any problems, but then this was a university a different setting to public toilets in pubs and parks etc.
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 22 March 2008 11:20:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whitty, I'm really sorry, I thought I was just joining in a bawdy joke with Fractelle. I certainly wasn't ridiculing anyone. And I certainly didn't ever mean to suggest, in my earlier post, that men are being homophobic or precious if they object to a come-on that's legitimately threatening. I just wanted to make the simple point that come-ons themselves are perfectly acceptable, even if you think the person delivering it is too old/ugly/undesirable/male. I was deviating from the subject somewhat.

We had unisex toilets when I was at uni too, and I hated them. Not because of any sexually threatening situations, but because I didn't want boys to hear me poo. I don't think that's issue here (unisex toilets, not pooing, though that's not the issue either) — most women have been in a situation where they feel threatened because we're alone or for whatever reason vulnerable, so we can empathise.

It's ghastly to encounter someone sexually threatening and I've personally been in a lot of hairy situations. My philosophy has always been that a threatening demeanor has to be met with bravery and steely-eyes. It can turn people on if you look frightened — it can freak them out if you look like you're very tenacious and possibly a bit mental. If someone grabs you, the old, very loud, very deadpan "Get. Your. F@*!%ing. Hands. Off. Me." routine has always worked well for me.

We will *never* be able to avoid getting in to threatening situations, especially if you want to have a halfway adventurous life, so it's all about how you deal with the situations when they arise and how you let them affect you.
Posted by Vanilla, Saturday, 22 March 2008 12:01:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With respect to the public toilet thing - it's my understanding that it's mostly closet homosexual men (you know, the Alan Joneses of the world) who engage in furtive sexual encounters in such places. Gay men who are 'out' don't need to, because there are gay bars etc where they can meet partners openly. It's my contention that the poor sad bastards who solicit homosexual sex in public toilets do so precisely because they feel constrained from expressing their sexuality openly by - you guessed it - homophobia.

While, like most men, I've encountered evidence of such goings-on when I've had to use public toilets, I've always found it more sad than threatening. On the other hand, I once had a girlfriend who had a penchant for dragging me into the bathroom at parties and having her wicked way with me, also for having sex in other semi-public places.

It was all rather fun, really ;)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 22 March 2008 12:22:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gibo “Seriously, for the health of a world,”

That is big cousin of “common good”

I made a comment either on this of another thread recently,

That I have never met anyone who has met anyone who has met the “common good”. I think he is just an excuse for when people lack a valid reason for seeking to restrict other peoples liberty.

I apply the same to his big cousin too.

Whilst I do not smoke, take non-prescribed drugs or drink beyond moderation, am not anorexic nor morbidly obese ir have experienced anything but a heterosexual relationship and understand how excesses of such may be harmful, I do not seek to prevent others from indulging themselves in any one of those pursuits.

Yet I know globally, all such indulgences and many others are seriously not good “for the health of a world”

But what is worse is when our life indulgences and choices are prohibited to us.

For then we cease to know “life” and experience only existence.

To add to the experiences of public toilets, mine have been extraordinarily uneventful to the point of being bland. Not that I would complain about that.

To Celivias question about peepholes, I have seen them and offer two choices, either stuff them full of the regularly supplied paper or if anything should be pushed through them, kick it hard whilst twisting the sole of ones shoe to inflict maximum pain and injury, for ladies, a stiletto heel would work very well.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 22 March 2008 12:56:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Vanilla

You would appreciate many of the public toilets in Japan where music and other sounds are employed to hide those embarrassing aural moments :D

I guess we're getting a bit off topic (colour?) with all this public loo talk and I think CJ has made a good point that the homos lurking round the public loo is more for those who haven't really 'outed' themselves. So to speak.

None of this justifies the level of hate and discrimination that gays regularly encounter. The over-reaction of some straight men indicates a lack of confidence in their own sexuality. It is not a big deal to be propositioned, if a man finds himself overreacting, then perhaps it is time to have a good long think about things.

Of course, the religious homophobes take refuge between the covers of their bibles. God says homosexuality is an abomination so that justifies the bigotry. Yeah well, god also says that anything that lives in water and isn’t a fish is an abomination too (Leviticus 11:10-12). God must get really pissed if a couple of gays dine out on oysters.

I don’t apologise for any double entendres either.

Cheers dears
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 22 March 2008 1:05:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ,
I think it's more complex than you suggest. Straight men go to beats to have sex with poofs, and poofs who like straight men go to find them. But some very out and proud gay men simply like dirty toilet sex.

I find this whole discussion hard to take seriously. Homosexuality exists. Through humanity's history, they've turned up, consistently. Religious types don't like them. A few people think they spread disease — forgetting that HIV is largely a heterosexual infection. Boazy, as always, makes spurious links to pedeophilia then leaves the thread when he's disproved. Col and Whitty have been the most honest, admitting to a strong aesthetic distaste.

I think what we call homophobia is a probably a pretty natural and visceral repulsion — sometimes minor, sometimes extreme — towards same-gendered sex. Our body trains us to find certain things repulsive because it wants to dissuade us from doing them — eating spoilt food, for example, or having sex with out siblings. For straight people, same-gender sex is one of those things. And vice versa — I've seen gay men shudder at the thought of a lady's hoo-ha in the same way a bloke would shudder if you suggested he gave his mate a friendly reach-around.

Smart blokes challenge themselves, ask themselves where it comes from, is it fair, etc etc? It's a good area, I believe, in which to challenge nature. Some blokes get over it because of exposure — they have gay family members, or old friends who come out, or it's work. Anyone who works in the meeja or any of the "creative" industries has to get used to it eventually.

Unless they're religious nutters, women just don't seem to have the same repulsion. I'm a died-in-the-wool fag (and leso) hag. I love the sense of humour and the creativity and the cleverness of my little poofy gang - I know these are cliches, but for me, they're reality.

Like Izzo, I don't get homophobia — I don't *feel* it — but what I've learnt from this thread is there probably isn't much to it.
Posted by Vanilla, Saturday, 22 March 2008 1:14:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle, I was posting when you were, but yes, I like that innovative Japanese thinking. It beats noisy throat-clearing any day.

"God must get really pissed if a couple of gays dine out on oysters."
V. funny. And especially if they're looking over at the next table, thinking, "Damn, I really wish I'd had the scallops!" While idolising Judy Garland. ON A SUNDAY.
Posted by Vanilla, Saturday, 22 March 2008 1:22:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, sorry..gotta get back to the toilets:

Have always found the "open door" policy in China somewhat embarrassing:partitions that only (on Westerners) come to waist-height mean students etc. can lean over and have a friendly chat about the latest assignment while one is squatting or a male colleague can conduct a D & M with one while he's at the urinal.

But gotta admit it cuts out all fear of sexual predators of any persuasion.

Though if one were propositioned and refused someone further down could always pop up and say "Hey, I'm up for a bit of that." Good pickings potentially.
Posted by Romany, Saturday, 22 March 2008 1:41:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that this will be my last post in this discussion.
I really enjoyed all of your posts and have gained from your contributions.

It’s interesting that nobody in this discussion has come up with a valid reason why homos should not have the same rights and freedom as the rest of the population.

As Col has shown, even if one feels distaste one can still accept homosexuals as citizens with equal rights.
A world that welcomes, includes and values diversity and uniqueness is a happier, freer, more just and more peaceful world than a world that rejects and excludes diversity.
And that is a very important point to think about.
Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 22 March 2008 2:16:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What if one day the HIV/AIDS virus mutates and goes airborn. We might then have wished we had done something to bring the spread of gay movements into line with decency and social health.
Posted by Gibo, Saturday, 22 March 2008 2:24:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia raised the question, "Why should homosexuals have the same rights as the rest of society?"

There is general agreement that homosexual youth suffer from much higher levels of suicide and homlessness than the general youth population. And most gays, lesbians, religious liberals, mental health professionals, and human sexuality researchers attribute their high suicide rate to the culture's homophobia.

According to a US Health and Human Services report:

"Not only must lesbian and gay youth withstand ridicule and, often violence from their peers, they rish outright rejection from their
parents should they decide to 'come out.' The combination of the culture's condemnation of homosexuality and the alienation from one's home and parents (supposedly a haven of security and support) causes unusually high rate of attempted suicide.

Gay adolescents were two to three times more likely than their peers to attempt suicide accounting for as many as 30% of completed youth suicides each year. 26% gay youth are forced to leave home because of conflicts with their families over their sexual identities. Up to half engage in prostitution to support themselves - greatly increasing their risk for HIV infection."

This should concern us all.

If we believe in a fair and just society with equal rights for all -
then surely attitudes must change. We should tolerate our differences,
not condemn them. There must be something very wrong when young people would rather kill themselves than live in the society we've created.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 22 March 2008 3:46:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Fractelle, Vanilla, for the delightful contributions.

“God must get really pissed if a couple of gays dine out on oysters.”

A friend has his parents here for a long-term visit, staying with him and his (male) partner. My partner and I invited them over for dinner yesterday (Good Friday), so we were three couples, two of them male.

We started with oysters, then snap-fried school prawns (whitebait style). As far as I know, the rest of the meal was uncontroversial, though I have to confess that all evening I was wearing clothes made of two different fibres.

After we had waved our well-fed guests off, I lay myself down with another male.

The entire evening (yes, all of it) was very pleasant.
Posted by jpw2040, Saturday, 22 March 2008 6:38:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle,

So instead of appreciating both men and women don't really like to be sexually propositioned while on the loo, you sympathise with the women, but think I/men are being a sook. Nice double standard.

Vanilla,

Cool. Like I said, I find it flattering when male or female takes an interest. Just not so sexy when I'm on the loo with my pants around my ankles.
Posted by Whitty, Saturday, 22 March 2008 6:49:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few comments. I've attempted to provide some explaination about one of the factors that used to contribute to a dislike of homosexual men. A question was asked and I've attempted to give some insight into a one of the issues which I'd had experience of. That does not make all our reactions at the time as good as they can be or necessarily valid but it does seem to me that some of the reaction to male homosexuals has to do with the public toilet thing.

It also occurs to me that I've not noticed much of that stuff in recent years, I've changed jobs and the area I live in so maybe it's not in my face the way it use to be or maybe the internet has opened up alternative ways for what I presume are mostly fringe homosexuals to meet up. Maybe increased public acceptance of homosexuality has made it easier for gay men to get a room or make other arrangements.

I've not worked out just why my own view's changed. I suspect that the change in jobs helped. I know that in my early days on OLO the postings of DavidJS had a significant impact. David's posts gave a great insight into one persons life that was remarkably different to what was all to often the public face of male homosexuality. At that stage we seemed to see a lot of really camp gay males on TV and I think Queer Eye was fairly big at the time. I find the camp thing very cring worthy so David's POV was much appreciated.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 22 March 2008 9:06:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia. The boundaries of acceptance is where one shows respect for all those around them, including themselves. Holding hands and showing affection is the right for all people in love or not. Toilet hangers are giving the gay community a bad image and my sister, who I just got off the phone with, has said, that these toilet people are loathed and are a serous threat to the community( And most of these types are on the drug ICE and are out of there minds) and they are not to be recognized in-with the rights of real gay people.

Fractelle. A tad Homophobic! Mate! stay off the drugs.LOL. and going into the bushes with yourself doesn't count. Just joking. But seriously,
If I didn't have a sister that was gay, I think this is where homophobia manifests from. People are just frighten of what they don't understand. I think I said this before. People! Iam from Sydney, and there's nothing in this world that I haven't seen.

Just one question! Do you think toilet hangers are going around with portable drills? and if so, what should the walls be made of.

Better still, can we shoot them. LOL.
Posted by evolution, Saturday, 22 March 2008 10:26:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Homosexuality was hidden from the world by harsh laws for centuries.
Today in the western world we are seeing an openness that has both an enlightening spirit and a dark side.
If I had a child who became a soddomist in adulthood I would show my concern that it will become a curse later in his life.If I had a daughter and she showed that she was gay I would also tell her my concerns.
The Sydney gay scene appears to be a fun, young scene, but the link between pedophilia and the recruiting of young people to prostituting themselves within the gay scene is all too obvious.
Transvestites can certainly say that they were born that way,but a lot of so called gays,are more comfortable talking and having sex with their own kind,than facing their responsibilites as responsible hetrosexuality.
Illegal drug taking is are another reason why the gay scene is obscene.
The drugging of youths,leads to the explotation by gay/pedophiles.
One only has to read the newspapers to see the link between Gays and pedophilia.
Posted by BROCK, Sunday, 23 March 2008 1:54:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poppycock Brock

Paedophiles predominantly operate under the mask of a heterosexual. They very often have wives and children. They violate the bodies of their own children, their nieces and nephews, step-children and any other vulnerable kid they can get their filthy hands on.

I have a friend who is attached to the police division for sexual assault and child molestation. She is currently struggling to deal with a father who raped his 9 month old daughter.

Illegal drug taking in the gay scene eh? What about the illegal drug taking and drugging of victims in the hetero scene Brock?

And please Brock, give us a link to the newspapers you claim are revealing a link between Gays and paedophilia.
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 23 March 2008 2:15:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Best line of the thread, from Gibo: "What if one day the HIV/AIDS virus mutates and goes airborn."

Brock, if the link is obvious, show us some evidence.
Posted by Vanilla, Sunday, 23 March 2008 3:08:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think most people are accepting of homosexuality even if, like myself, they don't fully understand it. "First do no harm" is my motto and I can't see a problem even though personally the mechanics of the sex is a bit offputting for me ie. orifices provided by nature for specific purposes.

While not fully understanding homosexuality fully even though I have known many homosexuals - you might be surprised at how many are in senior government and in politics. Most of the homosexuals I have worked with and befriended are not camp or butch.

As some posters have already touched on why do some homosexual men camp it up and essentially feminise themselves (albeit a distorted view of femininity sometimes) and some lesbians become 'butch' or masculine. If you are attracted to the same gender isn't it because you are attracted to the essence of that gender. What I mean is if you are a lesbian would you not be attracted to a feminine person? I don't mean to offend but I have always pondered that fact.

Maybe it is because it is these images that are fed to us via the media. Why do heterosexual men have sex with men in some situations like in prisons - is it just sex for sex's sake. Would we all become gay if we were stranded on an island with only the same gender for the rest of our lives or would we seek sexual gratification from whence it could be obtained and does it really matter. I don't pretend to understand all the nuances.

The point is if someone is born gay, history has shown that no amount of deprogramming works and is indeed inhumane and maybe we should just accept that we are all not the same.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 23 March 2008 4:23:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brock. We are still waiting!
Posted by evolution, Sunday, 23 March 2008 11:11:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican. Your last sentence, makes all the sense to the bone.

Well thought about.
Posted by evolution, Sunday, 23 March 2008 11:18:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your all stupid except for Leigh and Mr Right. Maybe CE Morgan just has big balls instead having the hide to say that homophobics are secretly attracted to homos when we all know from the other thread he is a bum boy. This goes withgout saying for god bothers who are inherently stupid but also for people who are led by animals down the food chain. It is also pretty stupid pretending that only god bothers hate homos. All the people who hate homos and aren't god bothers don't even have churches so they don't get protestors in their church and homos are always hassling god bothers so others have less reason. Leigh was spot on pointing out how Izzo wasn't straight with us and give me a break about that bull. Sheep are so stupid they wouldn't know the difference that doesn't mean they won't mount the first ewe they come across. It is surprising and a funny thought for bulls but if true it would be the same. That type of thing isn't gay just stupid. People should leave homos alone as long as they keep away from the kids. Other people should stop pretending that anyone who disagrees with their stupid ideas is scared of homos. Your just making a joke of yourself.
Posted by J Bennett, Tuesday, 25 March 2008 9:06:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a sad little person J Bennett is. So much hate from such a tiny brain. Do us a favour and crawl back under your homophobic rock.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 25 March 2008 10:08:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
J Bennett -

For starters, the word is 'you're.' It's a contraction of two words - 'you' and 'are' as in, 'you're.'

'Your' refers to the possessive. As in, 'it's your spelling that's flawed.'

Paragraphs would also be nice, even if it's just to break up the scarcely legible stream of invective.

I know it's cheap to focus on grammar than ideas, but frankly, the ideas you're putting forward don't have much to them either.

As for CJ being a 'bum boy,' I find the hypocrisy there quite amusing.

You say it's wrong to dismiss those who speak out against homosexuality as simply homophobes, yet you tar people who defend them as homosexual.

See the hypocrisy? How is it any different? If people who dislike homosexuality aren't homophobic, then why are people who defend them homosexual?

My suspicion is that you're reacting to the 'fear' connotations associated with the term 'phobic' and you just don't like anyone thinking you could be afraid.

It's clear you hate homosexuality - and the term 'homophobe' also applies to people who hate it, rather than fear it.

So how can you deny you're a homophobe? Are you saying you like homosexuality?

It's a bit bizarre really. You're disguising it as concern for children but the denigrating language you use is pretty compelling evidence to the contrary.

I've also proven in other threads that you're ignorant of the inequities in relation to issues like civil unions. You even made the comment that homosexuals have everything equal except for adoption, which is just plain ignorant.

But I guess there's plenty of things you can be proven ignorant of.

You say "People should leave homos alone as long as they keep away from the kids."

Then... why, when I clicked on your comment history, do I see that half your comments are devoted to denigrating homosexuals?

If you're going to criticise, then go ahead - but please, try to make your invective a little more coherent.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 25 March 2008 10:26:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If i'm not mistaken humans are animals.Bi sexuality amongst animals is the norm.So what's the big deal.We are not talkink about paedophiles who prey on the weak and the defenseless,we are talking about consenting adults who happen to prefer people of their own sex.Why should it matter to anyone else what happens in the privacy of your bedroom.Live and let live i say.If someone rapes men,women or children let them be punished but for loving someone of their own gender leave them alone.They are not hurting you.Why are people obssessed with telling others how to live their lives.I don't understand why it would matter to anyone not involved.
Posted by haygirl, Tuesday, 25 March 2008 1:33:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy