I hate people who are anti-gay - Page 7 - TeenSpot.com

resident_evil_fan · 02-22-2007, 05:30 PM

QUOTE=r3m1x;9501726]
Like I said, there's no way you can prove that there were millions of gays pretending to be straight, [/quote]
Maby not millions but there where people hiding that they where gay just like today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by r3m1x

Millions of people MAY have been hiding in the closet, but to me that just seems like you're saying millions of people that follow Zeus are just waiting until it becomes socially acceptable again to practice their beliefs.

If people came out and said that they did i promise you they would not be seen as crazy and put into psychiatric hospitals. This was the case for many gays that would come out not so many years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by r3m1x

Or that millions of Christians were out hiding somewhere before the time of Jesus, when it became socially acceptable to be Christian.

Their where no christians before jesus came.

T

Quote:

Originally Posted by r3m1x

hat, to me....seems ignorant.

I'm sorry but most people in the world would think other wise.
I mean why would gay people come out and tell people they where gay 100 years ago if they knew that they could be killed? Don't you think they would hide that they where gay and say that they where straight to avoid intolerance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by r3m1x

But it's differing viewpoints, and attempting to bash me because you think you're right is just as ignorant.

I'm not bashing you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by r3m1x

Just as there were no hippies before the 50's, doesn't mean they were out hiding and shit.

They would not have to hide. There would be no reason to hide. Gay would have a reason to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by r3m1x

This point proves nothing, except that homosexuality existed thousands of years ago as it does today.

That's what i was trying to prove.... I hope you know in your last statement you said frist that gays where uncommon in the past then you said their where none then said their wernt that many and now you say that their where many in the past. All in just two statements. It's
obvious you have know idea what you are talking baout because you cahnge what you say with evey word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by r3m1x

all throughout our timeline, but they were very, very few.

Did you ever think this could be because of our low populations up until 50 years ago?

Quote:

Originally Posted by r3m1x

Which is my argument, that society, through being accepting and expecting, sort of created this mass movement of homosexuals.

No because people do not just become gay. You can not say it's the enviorment they grew up in because gays come for evey diffrent enviorment as striahgt people do.
Take it from me I am bi and i did not choose to have these feeling for both sexes they where just their from the frist time i started to like people. Just like you when you stareted to look at girls. I think i would know over you.

r3m1x · 02-22-2007, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by resident_evil_fan

QUOTE=r3m1x;9501726]
Like I said, there's no way you can prove that there were millions of gays pretending to be straight,

Maby not millions but there where people hiding that they where gay just like today.

If people came out and said that they did i promise you they would not be seen as crazy and put into psychiatric hospitals. This was the case for many gays that would come out not so many years ago.

Their where no christians before jesus came.

T
I'm sorry but most people in the world would think other wise.
I mean why would gay people come out and tell people they where gay 100 years ago if they knew that they could be killed? Don't you think they would hide that they where gay and say that they where straight to avoid intolerance?

I'm not bashing you.

They would not have to hide. There would be no reason to hide. Gay would have a reason to.

That's what i was trying to prove.... I hope you know in your last statement you said frist that gays where uncommon in the past then you said their where none then said their wernt that many and now you say that their where many in the past. All in just two statements. It's
obvious you have know idea what you are talking baout because you cahnge what you say with evey word.

Did you ever think this could be because of our low populations up until 50 years ago?

No because people do not just become gay. You can not say it's the enviorment they grew up in because gays come for evey diffrent enviorment as striahgt people do.
Take it from me I am bi and i did not choose to have these feeling for both sexes they where just their from the frist time i started to like people. Just like you when you stareted to look at girls. I think i would know over you.[/quote]

Point 1: Are you serious? I'm glad I looked up how old you were, just to make sure you weren't someone experienced fucking with me or something. No darling, we never were arguing that

Point 2: And again...you're missing the mark. No one is arguing that they would have been, I'm just saying that there weren't that many of them to have that done to them. Jesus, get on the subject.

Point 3: NO SHIT? There were no Christians before Jesus came!? That was sort of my point. Try READING, or possibly UNDERSTANDING. Kids man, I swear.

Point 4: You might not be 'bashing' me, but you're certainly not providing a decent argument to back up all the shit talking you, and the other two have done in past posts.

Point 5: People with different religious beliefs wouldn't have to hide? ...LOL I'm gonna go see if I can find a suitable emoticon for how much I'm laughing right now. Are you living under a rock?

Point 6: It's obvious you never had a decent English teacher, but let's put that aside. Uncommon and not too many mean the same thing. And when I said that, I was comparing them to ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO, or THE MIDDLE AGES. And when I said there were quite a few (refer to my past posts for an explanation) I was talking about societies like ANCIENT GREECE. Dee Dee Dee, kiddo. Dee Dee Dee.

Point 7: Low population up until 50 years ago? Wtf? Do you think we just started fucking like jack rabbits circa 1957 and jumped the population 50 times? That was quite possibly the dumbest statement I've ever read.

Point 8: Of course gay people come from all different environments. But it's different, gays are rampant today in the United States and other democracies. But they are rare in other countries, not because they're all hiding in mass numbers. But because there AREN'T as many. I'm sure some of them do hide the fact they're gay, but not enough to make a difference in the percentage part. And again, as for the decision part, I've always said it's wasn't your decision. If you really are bisexual (maybe, maybe not) then I agree, it wasn't your choice. Again, WE ARE NOT ARGUING THAT. GET ON TOPIC.

resident_evil_fan · 02-22-2007, 08:41 PM

You tell me to get on topic. How? When you change yours evey time you post. You are telling me to back up my statements when you don't even do it yourself. Also i just wanted to say that our population changed from about 2.5 billion to 6 billion all in the matter of 50 years. Just goes to show you that you really don't know anything.

r3m1x · 02-23-2007, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by resident_evil_fan

You tell me to get on topic. How? When you change yours evey time you post. You are telling me to back up my statements when you don't even do it yourself. Also i just wanted to say that our population changed from about 2.5 billion to 6 billion all in the matter of 50 years. Just goes to show you that you really don't know anything.

Just because you're taking your flames off of someone else doesn't mean I'm changing anything. I've not once flipped flopped in this argument, do I really need to state my opinion again? All I'm saying is, if you're going to push your opinions on someone else so religiously, you better have proof. I'm not pushing my opinion on you, I'm just responding to flame. I don't care if you believe me or not, and I don't believe there's a man on this world who can prove or disprove either theory. It's all in how you think.

And yes, I can look online to tell you how much the population has changed. In fact, I can predict the future! In 2050, there will be approx. 9.4 billion people on earth. Damn, ain't that some shit? But I'll tell you what is true, 2.5 BILLION people is still a lot of people, like it or not. You'd still see the same trends and everything else. I'm not saying a few billion doesn't matter, but I'm saying that the rest of the population isn't just going to up and be gay. Get over it. I don't know anything? Are you serious? You're what, fifteen years old and you can't even stay on topic when trying to argue a simple point, and you're trying to press it on someone else despite the fact you have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about. Hate to burst your bubble, but stfu

JokeAccount · 02-23-2007, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r3m1x

Gay people weren't hiding off in caves somewhere, they just didn't exist..

Eat it!

Quote:

As has been frequently noted, the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’. There is a wealth of material from ancient Greece pertinent to issues of sexuality, ranging from dialogues of Plato, such as the Symposium, to plays by Aristophanes, and Greek artwork and vases. What follows is a brief description of ancient Greek attitudes, but it is important to recognize that there was regional variation. For example, in parts of Ionia there were general strictures against same-sex eros, while in Elis and Boiotia (e.g., Thebes), it was approved of and even celebrated (cf. Dover, 1989; Halperin, 1990).

Probably the most frequent assumption of sexual orientation is that persons can respond erotically to beauty in either sex. Diogenes Laeurtius, for example, wrote of Alcibiades, the Athenian general and politician of the 5th century B.C., “in his adolescence he drew away the husbands from their wives, and as a young man the wives from their husbands.” (Quoted in Greenberg, 1988, 144) Some persons were noted for their exclusive interests in persons of one gender. For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men. Such persons, however, are generally portrayed as the exception. Furthermore, the issue of what gender one is attracted to is seen as an issue of taste or preference, rather than as a moral issue. A character in Plutarch's Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) argues that “the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail.” (Ibid., 146) Gender just becomes irrelevant “detail” and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important.

Even though the gender that one was erotically attracted to (at any specific time, given the assumption that persons will likely be attracted to persons of both sexes) was not important, other issues were salient, such as whether one exercised moderation. Status concerns were also of the highest importance. Given that only free men had full status, women and male slaves were not problematic sexual partners. Sex between freemen, however, was problematic for status. The central distinction in ancient Greek sexual relations was between taking an active or insertive role, versus a passive or penetrated one. The passive role was acceptable only for inferiors, such as women, slaves, or male youths who were not yet citizens. Hence the cultural ideal of a same-sex relationship was between an older man, probably in his 20's or 30's, known as the erastes, and a boy whose beard had not yet begun to grow, the eromenos or paidika. In this relationship there was courtship ritual, involving gifts (such as a rooster), and other norms. The erastes had to show that he had nobler interests in the boy, rather than a purely sexual concern. The boy was not to submit too easily, and if pursued by more than one man, was to show discretion and pick the more noble one. There is also evidence that penetration was often avoided by having the erastes face his beloved and place his penis between the thighs of the eromenos, which is known as intercrural sex. The relationship was to be temporary and should end upon the boy reaching adulthood (Dover, 1989). To continue in a submissive role even while one should be an equal citizen was considered troubling, although there certainly were many adult male same-sex relationships that were noted and not strongly stigmatized. While the passive role was thus seen as problematic, to be attracted to men was often taken as a sign of masculinity. Greek gods, such as Zeus, had stories of same-sex exploits attributed to them, as did other key figures in Greek myth and literature, such as Achilles and Hercules. Plato, in the Symposium, argues for an army to be comprised of same-sex lovers. Thebes did form such a regiment, the Sacred Band of Thebes, formed of 500 soldiers. They were renowned in the ancient world for their valor in battle.

Ancient Rome had many parallels in its understanding of same-sex attraction, and sexual issues more generally, to ancient Greece. This is especially true under the Republic. Yet under the Empire, Roman society slowly became more negative in its views towards sexuality, probably due to social and economic turmoil, even before Christianity became influential.

Exactly what attitude the New Testament has towards sexuality in general, and same-sex attraction in particular, is a matter of sharp debate. John Boswell argues, in his fascinating Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, that many passages taken today as condemnations of homosexuality are more concerned with prostitution, or where same-sex acts are described as “unnatural” the meaning is more akin to ‘out of the ordinary’ rather than as immoral (Boswell, 1980, ch.4; see also Boswell, 1994). Yet others have criticized, sometimes persuasively, Boswell's scholarship (see Greenberg, 1988, ch.5). What is clear, however, is that while condemnation of same-sex attraction is marginal to the Gospels and only an intermittent focus in the rest of the New Testament, early Christian church fathers were much more outspoken. In their writings there is a horror at any sort of sex, but in a few generations these views eased, in part due no doubt to practical concerns of recruiting converts. By the fourth and fifth centuries the mainstream Christian view allowed for procreative sex.

This viewpoint, that procreative sex within marriage is allowed, while every other expression of sexuality is sinful, can be found, for example, in St. Augustine. This understanding leads to a concern with the gender of one's partner that is not found in previous Greek or Roman views, and it clearly forbids homosexual acts. Soon this attitude, especially towards homosexual sex, came to be reflected in Roman Law. In Justinian's Code, promulgated in 529, persons who engaged in homosexual sex were to be executed, although those who were repentant could be spared. Historians agree that the late Roman Empire saw a rise in intolerance towards sexuality, although there were again important regional variations.

With the decline of the Roman Empire, and its replacement by various barbarian kingdoms, a general tolerance (with the sole exception of Visigothic Spain) of homosexual acts prevailed. As one prominent scholar puts it, “European secular law contained few measures against homosexuality until the middle of the thirteenth century.” (Greenberg, 1988, 260) Even while some Christian theologians continued to denounce nonprocreative sexuality, including same-sex acts, a genre of homophilic literature, especially among the clergy, developed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Boswell, 1980, chapters 8 and 9).

The latter part of the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries, however, saw a sharp rise in intolerance towards homosexual sex, alongside persecution of Jews, Muslims, heretics, and others. While the causes of this are somewhat unclear, it is likely that increased class conflict alongside the Gregorian reform movement in the Catholic Church were two important factors. The Church itself started to appeal to a conception of “nature” as the standard of morality, and drew it in such a way so as to forbid homosexual sex (as well as extramarital sex, nonprocreative sex within marriage, and often masturbation). For example, the first ecumenical council to condemn homosexual sex, Lateran III of 1179, stated that “Whoever shall be found to have committed that incontinence which is against nature” shall be punished, the severity of which depended upon whether the transgressor was a cleric or layperson (quoted in Boswell, 1980, 277). This appeal to natural law (discussed below) became very influential in the Western tradition. An important point to note, however, is that the key category here is the ‘sodomite,’ which differs from the contemporary idea of ‘homosexual’. A sodomite was understood as act-defined, rather than as a type of person. Someone who had desires to engage in sodomy, yet did not act upon them, was not a sodomite. Also, persons who engaged in heterosexual sodomy were also sodomites. There are reports of persons being burned to death or beheaded for sodomy with a spouse (Greenberg, 1988, 277). Finally, a person who had engaged in sodomy, yet who had repented of his sin and vowed to never do it again, was no longer a sodomite. The gender of one's partner is again not of decisive importance, although some medieval theologians single out same-sex sodomy as the worst type of sexual crime.

For the next several centuries in Europe, the laws against homosexual sex were severe in their penalties. Enforcement, however, was episodic. In some regions, decades would pass without any prosecutions. Yet the Dutch, in the 1730's, mounted a harsh anti-sodomy campaign (alongside an anti-Gypsy pogrom), even using torture to obtain confessions. As many as one hundred men and boys were executed and denied burial (Greenberg, 1988, 313-4). Also, the degree to which sodomy and same-sex attraction were accepted varied by class, with the middle class taking the narrowest view, while the aristocracy and nobility often accepted public expressions of alternative sexualities. At times, even with the risk of severe punishment, same-sex oriented subcultures would flourish in cities, sometimes only to be suppressed by the authorities. In the 19th century there was a significant reduction in the legal penalties for sodomy. The Napoleonic code decriminalized sodomy, and with Napoleon's conquests that Code spread. Furthermore, in many countries where homosexual sex remained a crime, the general movement at this time away from the death penalty usually meant that sodomy was removed from the list of capital offenses.

In the 18th and 19th centuries an overtly theological framework no longer dominated the discourse about same-sex attraction. Instead, secular arguments and interpretations became increasingly common. Probably the most important secular domain for discussions of homosexuality was in medicine, including psychology. This discourse, in turn, linked up with considerations about the state and its need for a growing population, good soldiers, and intact families marked by clearly defined gender roles. Doctors were called in by courts to examine sex crime defendants (Foucault, 1980; Greenberg, 1988). At the same time, the dramatic increase in school attendance rates and the average length of time spent in school, reduced transgenerational contact, and hence also the frequency of transgenerational sex. Same-sex relations between persons of roughly the same age became the norm.

Clearly the rise in the prestige of medicine resulted in part from the increasing ability of science to account for natural phenomena on the basis of mechanistic causation. The application of this viewpoint to humans led to accounts of sexuality as innate or biologically driven. The voluntarism of the medieval understanding of sodomy, that sodomites chose sin, gave way to the modern notion of homosexuality as a deep, unchosen characteristic of persons, regardless of whether they act upon that orientation. The idea of a ‘latent sodomite’ would not have made sense, yet under this new view it does make sense to speak of a person as a ‘latent homosexual.’ Instead of specific acts defining a person, as in the medieval view, an entire physical and mental makeup, usually portrayed as somehow defective or pathological, is ascribed to the modern category of ‘homosexual.’ Although there are historical precursors to these ideas (e.g., Aristotle gave a physiological explanation of passive homosexuality), medicine gave them greater public exposure and credibility (Greenberg, 1988, ch.15). The effects of these ideas cut in conflicting ways. Since homosexuality is, by this view, not chosen, it makes less sense to criminalize it. Persons are not choosing evil acts. Yet persons may be expressing a diseased or pathological mental state, and hence medical intervention for a cure is appropriate. Hence doctors, especially psychiatrists, campaigned for the repeal or reduction of criminal penalties for consensual homosexual sodomy, yet intervened to “rehabilitate” homosexuals. They also sought to develop techniques to prevent children from becoming homosexual, for example by arguing that childhood masturbation caused homosexuality, hence it must be closely guarded against.

In the 20th century sexual roles were redefined once again. For a variety of reasons, premarital intercourse slowly became more common and eventually acceptable. With the decline of prohibitions against sex for the sake of pleasure even outside of marriage, it became more difficult to argue against gay sex. These trends were especially strong in the 1960's, and it was in this context that the gay liberation movement took off. Although gay and lesbian rights groups had been around for decades, the low-key approach of the Mattachine Society (named after a medieval secret society) and the Daughters of Bilitis had not gained much ground. This changed in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, when the patrons of the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village, rioted after a police raid. In the aftermath of that event, gay and lesbian groups began to organize around the country. Gay Democratic clubs were created in every major city, and one fourth of all college campuses had gay and lesbian groups (Shilts, 1993, ch.28). Large gay urban communities in cities from coast to coast became the norm. The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its official listing of mental disorders. The increased visibility of gays and lesbians has become a permanent feature of American life despite the two critical setbacks of the AIDS epidemic and an anti-gay backlash (see Berman, 1993, for a good survey). The post-Stonewall era has also seen marked changes in Western Europe, where the repeal of anti-sodomy laws and legal equality for gays and lesbians has become common.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

tehfincheh · 02-23-2007, 09:03 AM

I think some people are homophobic-phobic.

By saying that you hate people who are anti-gay, you're even worse than them.

TheRevenge · 02-23-2007, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tehfincheh

I think some people are homophobic-phobic.

By saying that you hate people who are anti-gay, you're even worse than them.

But people have a reason for hating homophobes. There is no reason for hating a homosexual.

r3m1x · 02-23-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JokeAccount

Eat it!

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

The only problem, after reading and re-reading this article...is that it contains absolutely nothing that I haven't already been over. By that I mean it doesn't tell us that gayness was rampant about the world, it just says that some people were more accepting of homosexuality, not that it prevailed as it does in today's society.

So let's try again...

No one is denying that homosexuality has existed before, and in Ancient times, it existed in a number probably proportional to today's society, but what I am saying is that today's society, by comparison to most of human history, has seen a sharp rise in homosexuality because of reasons I've mentioned before...and before, and before. Stop giving me links about shit that no one is arguing. Or hell, I don't know...READ my posts before subjecting yourself to ignorance.

And for those of you stating I am a homophobe...nope! Not a homophobe. I don't give a shit what gay people do in the privacy of their own homes. What I expect to see out of hetero couples, I expect to see out of homo couples. As in, keep it indoors.

However, TheRevenge, I would argue to you that homophobes have just as much of a reason to hate homosexuals as homosexuals do to hate them. None. Because why should you give a shit what someone else believes as long as you're happy? All of this back and forth bickering about the gay argument is trivial.

tehfincheh · 02-23-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRevenge

But people have a reason for hating homophobes. There is no reason for hating a homosexual.

Actually there is, in the mind of a homophobe.

Just because you don't share it, that doesn't mean that it aspires to nothing. Different people have different opinions.

What's a valid reason for hating a homophobe? Their personal opinions and preferences? Well surely the same logic can be applied to a homophobe's dislike of gay people.

trueblueballa · 02-23-2007, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tehfincheh

Actually there is, in the mind of a homophobe.

Just because you don't share it, that doesn't mean that it aspires to nothing. Different people have different opinions.

What's a valid reason for hating a homophobe? Their personal opinions and preferences? Well surely the same logic can be applied to a homophobe's dislike of gay people.

Yup

Bill_iam · 02-23-2007, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeltaNui

Homophones hate gays and you hate homophones. Productive cycle.

Ok, I thought the threadstarter was an idiot when he called them 'anti-gays', but you win! 'Homophones'!!!

SaveTheManatees · 02-23-2007, 06:12 PM

I've come to the conclusion that this thread fails.

pink_lady00 · 02-23-2007, 06:24 PM

ya my parents are like that, i'm all "wtf" why? whats wrong with them
but i guess whatever floats their boat

resident_evil_fan · 02-23-2007, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaveTheManatees

I've come to the conclusion that this thread fails.

it really does.

resident_evil_fan · 02-25-2007, 12:54 AM

Raiders suck.

Jurassic_5 · 02-25-2007, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by resident_evil_fan

Raiders suck.

horribly.

night_of_the_moon · 02-25-2007, 12:59 AM

Well, I hate people who are anti-drugs. But we can't all be happy. Get over it.

sanitylost · 02-25-2007, 07:06 AM

well i didnt read all 7 pages but heres my take on it. im not a homphob and deep down im not anti queer either, but theres a problem where I live.. the next town over is a huge gay destination and all these queers are moving here with all their money(cause for some reason their all rich??) and their displacing the local population. gentrification is what it is "the displacement of a lower class", land values are ridiculously inflated cause theres all this demand but not much room so the locals that have ben here for hundreds of years and countless generations are forced to move else where cause they cant afford to buy a home here or pay the estate taxes when one gets left to them in a will. studio apartments start at $300,000 now, a 3bedroom house goes anywhere from $450,000 to over a million. so it leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth to think that im prolly not ever going to be able to afford to live in my own town when im older cause a bunch of queers own it all, but who would want to raise a family around all this anyways, guys making out hardcore in the streets.. gay pride parades..there was even a hate crime this year against a straight person! every year theres less and less kids in the schools and in the next town over their actually going to close the school cause their not enough kids anymore. so i guess maybe i am anti-gay...
I would just like to have the option open to me to live here or not...

SaveTheManatees · 02-25-2007, 12:34 PM

You do have the option. Make enough money to buy a house where you live.

Jurassic_5 · 02-25-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sanitylost

well i didnt read all 7 pages but heres my take on it. im not a homphob and deep down im not anti queer either, but theres a problem where I live.. the next town over is a huge gay destination and all these queers are moving here with all their money(cause for some reason their all rich??) and their displacing the local population. gentrification is what it is "the displacement of a lower class", land values are ridiculously inflated cause theres all this demand but not much room so the locals that have ben here for hundreds of years and countless generations are forced to move else where cause they cant afford to buy a home here or pay the estate taxes when one gets left to them in a will. studio apartments start at $300,000 now, a 3bedroom house goes anywhere from $450,000 to over a million. so it leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth to think that im prolly not ever going to be able to afford to live in my own town when im older cause a bunch of queers own it all, but who would want to raise a family around all this anyways, guys making out hardcore in the streets.. gay pride parades..there was even a hate crime this year against a straight person! every year theres less and less kids in the schools and in the next town over their actually going to close the school cause their not enough kids anymore. so i guess maybe i am anti-gay...
I would just like to have the option open to me to live here or not...

Sounds like a bad movie.