[QatzelOk]

As many people mentionned, it's not just a lot of Americans that are homophobic, but also religious Muslims and Jews.

Abrahamic religions all share a certain loathing for nature, in all its forms. The whole idea of Abrahamic religion is to deny nature (and human nature) in order to be useful to a production-orientated society.

Hating gays is like hating wolves or bees. It's about hating nature because you aren't allowed to be natural - schadenfreude for those who have been immiserated by a philosophical straight-jacket. (pun intended)

[Deutschmania]

Black Americans are significantly more homophobic than White Americans. the least homophobic are non Hispanic Whites. but if you want real homophobia go to Muslims lands or Christian Africa. This is yet more bigoted anti White racism from the left.

This is yet more whataboutism from the right .

[Finfinder]

All you have to do is imagine two people attracted to each other. Who have the same genitalia. They call it "nature".

Nature only intended for the contents of the lower digestive tract to be pushed in one direction.

[Godstud]

Newsflash. Heterosexuals engage in anal sex, too, so your "natural" argument is shit.

[QatzelOk]

Nature only intended for the contents of the lower digestive tract to be pushed in one direction.

Then why did nature make men want to put their penises in there?

Your version of "nature" seems to be abrahamic-religion-based. In other words, a fake text.

Fake texts are the source of homophobia.

[Finfinder]

Then why did nature make men want to put their penises in there?

Your version of "nature" seems to be abrahamic-religion-based. In other words, a fake text.

Fake texts are the source of homophobia.

In terms of the context and flow of this thread my joke was Quaker -ish and funny. BTW In nature you need a male and female to create a offspring. Fake what does that mean btw?

[QatzelOk]

In terms of the context and flow of this thread my joke was Quaker -ish and funny. BTW In nature you need a male and female to create a offspring. Fake what does that mean btw?

In nature, you don't have to always be creating offspring. (In fact, this is a very bad idea.... in nature)

Fake text is what is driving your fake version of what "nature" constitutes (ie. we need to make babies with every thrust of our penises or else baby Jesus will cry)

And then you tack on the word "nature" to hide the superstition behind your opinions.

[Godstud]

BTW In nature you need a male and female to create a offspring.

You need to take more biology classes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

Komodo Dragon
Despite some rather compelling reasons why komodos don't make great pets, including that their saliva is usually toxic, some people do keep these giant lizards in the home.

Concerns aside, female komodos have a singular ability to lay eggs without having had sex, and these eggs will produce healthy male children. This occurs because female komodos have two different sex chromosomes -- W and Z -- that multiply on their own in the eggs.

These eggs either become nonviable female WW or male ZZ, the presumption being that in an isolated environment, the female will create males with which to mate and, presumably, make more female komodos.
http://animals.mom.me/animals-that-use- ... 67429.html

[Finfinder]

In nature, you don't have to always be creating offspring. (In fact, this is a very bad idea.... in nature)

Fake text is what is driving your fake version of what "nature" constitutes (ie. we need to make babies with every thrust of our penises or else baby Jesus will cry)

And then you tack on the word "nature" to hide the superstition behind your opinions.

Wow you are amazing you can read that much into a sentence.

Are you saying its a bad thing you exist ?

[Godstud]

What he is saying is that it's not always a good idea to be creating more and more offspring, particularly when overpopulation is a thing.

[QatzelOk]

Wow you are amazing you can read that much into a sentence.

Are you saying its a bad thing you exist ?

My existence is in no way dependent on limiting the options of every penis.

In fact, most of us would probably have better lives if penises were free-er than they are now. In our capitalist system, the rich fuck everyone else, and the poor get killed in wars or factory accidents or from obesity or lack of education. Perhaps limiting penises to "baby-making" activities is part of the problem.

Pre-European (pre-abrahamic) societies in the Americas had no issues with homosexuality. Or with other aspects of nature like cold weather, hot weather, rainy weather, or floods. They simply lived off the interest that nature provided them with.

We try to "improve" on nature with technology and behaviorism, and this is ultimately suicidal - like any cult behaviour.

[Zamuel]

Fake texts are the source of homophobia.

This sort of BS is indeed an abomination … Fake texts now? Sexual phobias seem to have been of little concern "way back when." In many instances, homosexuality was celebrated. Homophobia (in the west) seems to have evolved inside the early church and been carried into Roman Catholicism right along with the Homosexuals trying to escape it. From there it became ingrained into the tainted morality the church promoted.

Zam

[QatzelOk]

This sort of BS is indeed an abomination … Fake texts now? Sexual phobias seem to have been of little concern "way back when." In many instances, homosexuality was celebrated. Homophobia (in the west) seems to have evolved inside the early church and been carried into Roman Catholicism right along with the Homosexuals trying to escape it. From there it became ingrained into the tainted morality the church promoted.

Zam

Any fake text that pretends to carry "the secrets of the universe" is bound to cause a lot of problems if it's adopted by a powerful cult. The bible is a fake text: it was adopted by powerful cults, and caused a great deal of harm to both nature, and to the humans who applied it to nature (including themselves).

TV is another fake text that is applied with great harm.

[Finfinder]

My existence is in no way dependent on limiting the options of every penis.

In fact, most of us would probably have better lives if penises were free-er than they are now. In our capitalist system, the rich fuck everyone else, and the poor get killed in wars or factory accidents or from obesity or lack of education. Perhaps limiting penises to "baby-making" activities is part of the problem.

Pre-European (pre-abrahamic) societies in the Americas had no issues with homosexuality. Or with other aspects of nature like cold weather, hot weather, rainy weather, or floods. They simply lived off the interest that nature provided them with.

We try to "improve" on nature with technology and behaviorism, and this is ultimately suicidal - like any cult behaviour.

Interesting point of view which is a little deeper ( like sitting around beating drums in a circle while doing some good hydro deep ) than my comments was intended. I'm glad that it did provoke though and comments.

[QatzelOk]

Interesting point of view which is a little deeper ( like sitting around beating drums in a circle while doing some good hydro deep ) than my comments was intended. I'm glad that it did provoke though and comments.

Delicious vegetables often grow in heaps of dung.

[Zamuel]

Any fake text that pretends - The bible is a fake text: - TV is another fake text

There you have it, conclusive proof that Donald Trump is infectious … Quarantine him immediately before this fake disease spreads further.

Delicious vegetables often grow in heaps of dung.

So, let us be careful about WHICH we eat …

Zam

[Finfinder]

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/a ... ow-cure-it

Numerous studies have delved into why people are antagonistic towards LGBT+ people and what can be done to combat those attitudes.

Some findings - such as the correlation with age and religiosity - are not all that surprising, but others have produced unexpected results.

Homophobic people are more likely to be anti-social and immature

A 2015 study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found that homophobia was correlated with psychoticism and immature defence mechanisms. Psychoticism is different to psychotic, and refers to behaviour which is aggressive and anti-social.

Now that’s not to say that all homophobes are anti-social, but that there’s a higher incidence of psychoticism among homophobic people, and vica versa. Psychoticism is also a risk factor for psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia.

The opposite is true of ‘neurotic defence mechanisms’ and depressive symptoms. The study also found that homophobia was more prevalent among men than women.

There is some irony about this – it wasn’t too long ago that homosexuality itself was considered a mental illness.

Homophobic people are likely to be religious, older, traditional, less educated and have had limited contact with LGBT+ people

Gregory M. Herek, a Professor of Psychology at the University of California, has conducted numerous studies into attitudes about LGBT+ people for over 40 years.

His research has shown that there are quite a few factors which are correlated with homophobic beliefs. He says that people with negative attitudes are:


less likely to have had personal contact with lesbians or gay men;
more likely to perceive their peers as holding negative attitudes, especially if the respondent is male;
likely to be older and less educated;
more likely to be religious, to attend church frequently, and to subscribe to a conservative religious ideology;
more likely to express traditional, restrictive attitudes about sex roles;
and are more likely to manifest high levels of authoritarianism and related personality characteristics.

The more comfortable a man is in his masculinity, the less likely he is to be homophobic

Robb Willer, a PhD candidate in sociology at Cornell University, found that when men were insecure about their masculinity, they were more likely to be homophobic.

"Masculine overcompensation is the idea that men who are insecure about their masculinity will behave in an extremely masculine way as compensation,” Willer said. He tested this in a 2005 study.

"I found that if you made men more insecure about their masculinity, they displayed more homophobic attitudes, tended to support the Iraq war more and would be more willing to purchase an SUV over another type of vehicle," he said.

Saying LGBT+ people are ‘born that way’ is not the best argument

A US study in the Journal of Counselling Psychology aimed to analyse the beliefs of homophobic people to find out what was at the core of their homophobia. They measured four different beliefs about LGBT+ people against levels of homophobia.

Discreteness: A person is either gay/lesbian or heterosexual

Homogeneity: People who share the same sexual orientation share common traits and value

Naturalness: It is impossible to truly change one’s sexual orientation

Informativeness: It’s useful to group people according to their sexual orientation

They found that most people – homophobic and non- homophobic – believed that sexual orientation was inborn and unchangeable, and that it was the other factors which had an effect on homophobia.

They found that the more a person believes sexuality is binary, that LGBT+ people are homogenous, and that it’s useful to group people according to orientation, the more likely they are to be homophobic.

"We suggest that this demonstrates the limited capacity of 'born this way' arguments to reduce homophobia," one researcher said.

[Finfinder]

In terms of the context and flow of this thread my joke was Quaker -ish and funny. BTW In nature you need a male and female to create a offspring. Fake what does that mean btw?

@QatzelOk You might find this interesting

@Godstud maybe you should look into a reference before your standard reactionary antagonistic and often off topic replies.

Quakers and Sexuality

Quaker recognition that there is that of that of God in everyone has led them at times to challenge conventional thinking about personal relationships and sexual ethics.

Quakers traditionally have no clergy to conduct their weddings. As George Fox said: "we marry none; it is the Lord's work, and we are but witnesses.” For a time, this led to the legitimacy of their marriages – and children – being called into question. In one court case in 1661, counsel asserted that ‘Quakers went together like brute beasts.’ The judge disagreed and declared the marriage lawful. When the Marriage Act of 1753 made the Anglican service the only recognised form of marriage in England, the two exceptions allowed were for Jews and Quakers.

Quakers on the whole remained conservative on matters of sexual ethics until the early part of the 20th Century. The first open discussion of sexuality by Quakers came in 1924, when a group of British Friends published, "Marriage and Parenthood: The Problem of Birth Control." This pamphlet advocated a qualified use of family planning and opposed the idea that the use of contraceptive devices promoted promiscuity.

David Mace, one of the founders of the National Marriage Council in Britain (1939), Emily Mudd, who founded the American Association of Marriage Counsellors (1942) and Mary Calderone, who founded the Sex Information and Education Council of the US (1964) were all Quakers. Quaker educators of this period advocated sex education as a way of strengthening marriage. Divorce was seen as a tragedy, but the meetings were encouraged to emphasis forgiveness and could sanction remarriage within the meeting.

In 1963, a group of British Friends published, Towards a Quaker View of Sex’. This radical look at the sexual mores defined sin as “actions that involve the exploitation of the other person” and chastity as “the total absence of exploitation.” They recognised that exploitation could occur within marriage as well as without, and called for “a morality that will enable people to find a constructive way through even the most difficult and unproductive situations.”

Much of the publicity that surrounded its publication of Towards a Quaker View of Sex focused on what it had to say about homosexuality. “An act which expresses true affection between two individuals and gives pleasure to them both does not seem to us to be sinful by reason alone of the fact that it is homosexual,” the authors wrote. Rather it should be judged by the same criterion as any heterosexual relationship.

Quakers such as Laurence Housman (1868 – 1959) had earlier campaigned actively for more toleration for homosexuals. The Quaker civil rights activist Bayard Rustin was openly gay, something that caused divisions with the civil rights leadership and with Quakers. In 1986, Rustin wrote:
“Today, blacks are no longer the litmus paper or the barometer of social change… The question of social change should be framed with the most vulnerable group in mind: gay people.”

In the UK, Harvey Gilman spoke in his 1988 Swarthmore Lecture about the difficulties of being ‘A Minority of One’ – a gay Jewish Quaker.

Liberal Quaker meetings in Australia (since 1994), Britain (since 1988), Canada (since 2003), and some parts of the US have celebrated same-sex commitments in meetings for worship and are now seeking where possible to give these the same status as a marriage between a man and a woman.

However, as for many faith groups, questions of sexuality and sexual morality continue to divide Quakers. Evangelical Friends, in the US and Africa in particular, reject liberal Quakers’ attitude to homosexuality. Indiana and Western Yearly Meetings (members of Friends United Meeting) issued a statement of "core values" which include abstinence outside of marriage, where marriage is “a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman”. Evangelical Friends Church Southwest, a yearly meeting (members of Evangelical Friends International), states in its Faith and Practice that homosexuality (like any other sexual activity outside of marriage) is “sinful in that it rejects God’s plan.”

Abortion is another issue on which Quakers struggle with difficult moral choices. For some, the Peace Testimony bars the taking of any human life. Others feel that requiring a woman to carry an unwanted child is itself an act of violence.




http://www.quakersintheworld.org/quaker ... -Sexuality

[Godstud]

@Godstud maybe you should look into a reference before your standard reactionary antagonistic and often off topic replies.

You are attacking me, and not what I am saying. I don't care if you don't like my opinion on homophobes. I do not suffer the fool.

I tore apart your "natural"weak-ass argument, so you decided not to "look into a reference before your standard reactionary antagonism and off topic replies".

https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/a ... ow-cure-it
facts:
Homophobic people are more likely to be anti-social andimmature

Homophobic people are likely to be religious, older, traditional, less educated and have had limited contact with LGBT+ people

Saying LGBT+ people are ‘born that way’ is not the best argument