Actually I dont believe in the word homophobic. I have no fear of gay people, I would not harm any gay person nor would I waste my time countering their fight for gay rights. However, I do disagree with the lifestyle and if anyone asks me I will give my oppinion. Welcome to America. But that makes me a homophobe. I think one has to be pro-homo to not be. But here is a test I found to let you know where you stand. Don't judge me, I'm not judging you.
And which minority would that be? 1-10% of the population is gay, heterosexuals are now a minority, so...are most people bisexual? Or is this the sort of right-wing paranoia that we've unfortunately become accustomed to?
It's a bit confusing when two decades ago the hullabaloo was about (hetero-)sexual immmorality being flaunted everywhere you look, and now that it is even more extravagantly flaunted than ever, suddenly it is homosexuality that is the threat. Aren't there more important things to think about, when it comes to morality... like, I don't know, war, extortion, poverty...
It's only a sin if you're not inclined to do it anyway. Hence Christianists men's obsession with abortion and homosexuality: two "sins" they would never commit anyway. It's easier to feel good about yourself when you can define sinful behavior so conveniently.
I don't believe in God in the sense of some guy writing books and passing them down from on high, so tend to rely on logic for my morality (and obvious "truths" like the one that says that sentient beings, perhaps all beings, should be granted dignity), so homosexuality and abortion are different from each other...
Abortion... if the fetus warrants to be treated with dignity (which I suspect) then there is an argument for its legal protection. If your argument is based on "the de facto sacredness of all life" this is okay, too, but you better not squash any bugs on your travels, in that case.
Homosexuality... what you do in private, if it is not degrading to human dignity, is fine. Even if it is temporarily degrading, (like getting plastered drunk, or acting like a clown), that is fine too as long as you don't make it into a reason for being (maybe you could be a clown as a reason for being, actually...), ie a permanent state, so to speak.
But in any case, assuming there is a God, why on earth would he make someone with urges towards another person's genitalia and then say -- hey stop that! It's just silly. Equally silly to make priests remain celibate, and for the same reason.
Personally I don't think that there is anything wrong with being homosexual or with doing it, nor with openly expressing that. What is annoying is the fact that anyone that does not like it and think that it is not natural is labeled as retrograde, intolerant and close-minded. Well, if you are so tolerant then why can 't you tolerate the fact that I don't like something?
Also the constant pushing of the whole gay culture in the mainstream media is disgusting, as well gay lobby propagating that homosexuality is desired behavior,almost like it's something fancy and cool.
I don't agree with the word "constant", because I think that trend has severely died down within pop culture of late.
Either way, the whole issue is not something that affects me very much, to be frank, but the political issues bother me.
Gays have the same rights as everybody else, so should have these rights enshrined in law.
Gays still get beaten up and maimed for being gay, also, which is extremely worrisome... and not because they are gay, but because they are people, and people have the right to do what they want as long as it does not seriously damage anyone else.
Here is the interesting question- is the minority always threatened by the majority and can there be the opposite scenario?
Also, if the situation where the member of majority prefers people like himself is considered to be wrong (homophobic, sexist, chauvinistic, racist, etc.), why is the situation when the member of minority prefers people like himself considered ok and not homophobic, sexist, chauvinistic, racist, etc? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that majority discriminating minority is ok, all I'm saying is that minority discriminating majority is NOT ok.
Look, how many times have someone gay given job or favored in some other way another gay person? Often. Does that happen with straight people? Common, can't tell me that somebody got a job or promotion, because both him and his boss are straight.
although I am having a little trouble understanding exactly what you are trying to say, I have actually known cases where the straight boss would not hire gay applicants. In fact, I know gay men who have had to hide their gayness in order to get employment. And if gay men show a preference for gay employees - that's only to be expected, isn't it. So what you are trying to say eludes me.!
I have never felt discriminated against as a member of the white, heterosexual community, either by blacks or by gays. I have a hard time seeing where you get this upside down reasoning. Are you saying that the problem in our society is one of gays or blacks harming the majority through discrimination. That's pretty ludicrous IMHO.
No, I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that many people tend to gravitate toward people that are on the surface similar to them (same nationality, language, religion, race, sexuality, etc.). This is understandable, there's nothing wrong in it. When the member of majority is giving preference to his alike it is considered discriminating, but when the minority do it, it is normal. It's a double standard.
Like when I help my countryman instead of American it is like 'that's normal, he's taking care of his people', but if American helps another American instead of me it would be like 'that's wrong, he is biased against foreigners'.
The assault on straight people??? The assault on straight people? Am I the only one who finds that incredibility naive and wrong? It is so wrong I find it to be comical at best. The assault on straight people? Please....
I think that if these people choose to live their lives that way then that's up to them. The Bible clearly condemms this by saying, 'Man shall not lie with man'' and now we know why. We have AIDS and many more STD's. So any judging should not be made by us, God will sort them out and very soon to.
ok I'm going to make this as brief as I can.....The Bible?? Come on...it amazes me how people completely disregard the fact that we were and have been around on this planet many years before the Bible and Christianity. Thousands of years. It is so sad that people believe that what this book says is how it is. Educate, learn and stop spreading negativity!! Your comments alone, sadden me, mainly because it's the people who make these judgements and condemn others, all the while saying they are NOT judgmental. Forgive me if I'm confused.
Also, not so long ago, in the 80's....yeah, less than 20 years ago, there were no tests around for blood and/or organs. I take care of someone who has been living with HIV for 20 years. This woman has NEVER used drugs of any sort, nor did she practice unsafe sex. Thanks to no testing 'way back then' she, along with many, many others are chastised & denounced every day. Regular people, like you and I. So, to pass judgment and criticize, or look down on someone because of who they love, or a disease, is less than Christian and even worse, less than what the Bible teaches.
I am a lesbian, who lives my life doing good things. I volunteer, I give blood, I help those less fortunate than myself, even if I have nothing to give, I'm giving. I'm good to others. I'm very intelligent, I served 3 years in the Army, protecting your freedom. I am a natural healer, massage therapist, working on my degree in integrated medicine. All the while, you're saying that I am less than you, or God will sort 'us' out.
I feel for you. Educate yourself, AIDS is not solely contracted by 'gays', nor are STD's. Please, if you have children, let them think for themselves & not be tainted to your negative theories, most of which are incorrect.
I want only the best for you and I appreciate your oppinion. I cannot agree with everything you say as I spent 30 + good years in my life in the archeology field. The bible was in the back of my mind the first time my friend and I reallized that the earth has suffered cotastrophism on every major and minor land mass on earth and it related to a flooding and volcanic activity <--- both biblical. I suppose enough literature is available for or against, but my personal oppinion changed years ago. Good luck to you, and I hope you celebrate that we cannot share oppinions all the time.
You do know that Aids came from africa right? And, guess where it was killing people left and right. In straight people! The only reason it hit so hard in the gay community in the united states, is because someone who happened to be gay may have brought the disease here. It could have just as easily been a straight person, bisexual, or a drug user. Nobody knows for sure how it started. Aids does not discriminate.
And your comment about stds is crazy. There are more stds among straight people than gay people have to deal with. If it was not for aids, and the treatments that came out of it. I would assume that a lot of treatments for other STDs wouldn't be out there, and STDs would not be as widely studied as they are now.
Seems like your God, as you understand Him, is punitive. And it seems like you think homosexuals deserve punishment. This kind of thinking always impresses me as “of man”, not “of God”. Okay, maybe it does impress me as being “of God”. Old Testament God does impress me as punitive, and generally testy. Jesus seems very different, more accepting and forgiving. I definitely don’t picture Jesus sending “the plague” of AIDS to homosexuals.
My score is 6 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."
I'm not sure homo sexuality is a choice to live a "lifestyle". All fetuses start out as females, which is why men have nipples, so it's quite possible something happens that isn't really understood in the process of becoming one sex or the other. The "life style" isn't for me but as far as I'm concerned, consenting adults are free to do whatever they choose, just please don't try to tell me it's normal or force it to be taught in school.
Most pedophiles are heterosexual, even ones that prey on boys. In fact, the majority of child molesters (the more common form of pedophile) are married. Pedophilia is a form of paraphilia, and it's not connected to sexual orientation. It's rarely possibly to guess a pedophile's sexual orientation by the sex of his victims.
By far, victims of sexual child abuse are abused by their parents. By far. And those parents are heterosexual. Linking homosexuality with pedophiles is worse than burning witches and just another form of that activity. Do we really have this much shallowness? No wonder I avoid these threads. So disappointing. Human beings are horrible creatures so much of the time. Homophobics are the same as racists only their issue is where the penis goes instead of uptight about skin pigment.
Only FORCED racial-mixing is "communism". Like, in my view, the forced de-segregation of the schools that happened years ago. Key word is "forced". I think the majority of students on both sides of the issue were appalled that it was a forced requirement. Society can legislate actions, but it should never be allowed to forcibly legislate racial preferences.
You don't have to be pro. You don't have to actively support gay people, and get involved in fighting for their rights. But if you disagree, that is essentially homophobic, although, in what sense exactly do you disagree?
Edit: 20 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."
I think you are a classic case of a severe missunderstanding of the word homophobic. The test is working. You celebrate the idea of freedoms, thoughts and ideas- so long as they all agree with you. "HOMOPHOBIA" is the fear of homosexuals. find me one of those people. I don't fear you. I don't care what hole you do or do not stick it in. I fear your biased way of thinking!!!
I have the freedom to disagree with you, and to think your way of thinking is bigoted. You have the exact same freedom to do the same to me. I don't know where you get the idea that anyone's freedom is being trampled upon.
If you think I'm being biased, then so be it.
As for the meaning of homophobia, take a look at Merriam Webster. You'll see standard usage agrees with my/our definition, not yours.
If I was homophobic I very much doubt I would admit it on these Forums, especially given the chastizement, that I received after praising a Writer, apparently becuse I expressed the fact, that I enjoyed reading Hubs Stories Lens whatever they may be that were unique over those that were regurgitated from other articles, found on the net. But no I am not homophobic.
It is true that in America if you feel that two guys fucking each other is utterly disgusting and sick you are labeled as homophobic. But it's also true that most people do think that way, it's just that they don't ever publicly say it, because of the ridiculous amount of political correctness in the society.
Sooner: The Torah says it's an abomination for Jewish sacrificial cult priests to have sex with male temple prostitutes (kadesh), technically. It's quite a leap to interpret this as a ban on gay sex for all people. It's also hypocritical for Christians to cherry-pick this misinterpreted condemnation among all the others delineated in the Torah and say "God says it's abominable."
Jesus never mentioned homosexuality once, but condemned divorce in no uncertain terms 5 times. One condemnation is inferred by you, another is unquestionable. Why focus on the former, ignore the latter? Is that because, maybe, you might want to get a divorce and you don't want your freedoms curtailed, no matter what your religion says?
i have to wonder what makes someone refer to themelves as "homophbic", and hate gay people. maybe they secretly want to be gay but because they are afraid to come out of the closet, they bash gay people because they are envious of theim living the life they secretly want.
With all due respect, using "manhood" as a euphemism for a penis has always sounded so silly to me. Manhood has to do with gender, the role that adult males take on such as husband, father, brother, etc. And in that light sticking your identity as a man up someone's bum has done incalculable times here in the forums and all over the planet every time we reduce ourselves to being fools, our stupidity, ignorance, and snap-judgment/knee-jerk reactions based on our own erroneous beliefs. In that light, there are any amount of emotional homosexuals out there sticking things up people's bums that really have no place in society at all.
Am I from mars or is this not a social issue? Homosexuals seem to think their lack of rights fit in that spectrum of light. The ploy of "keep your nose out of my personal business" works when it is not a social issue.
What goes on in someone else's bedroom is not (generally) a social issue.
Rights issues are social issues however, it is true.
Gays should not have the right to marry in churches, mosques, synagogues and temples that don't want to marry gay people.
Because religious groups have the right to conduct their own affairs how they want.
But if someone has been living with the same gay partner for forty years, and isn't guaranteed visitation rights at hospital visits, this is simply wrong, and needs to be protected by the state as an inalienabl right.
"Gays should not have the right to marry in churches, mosques, synagogues and temples that don't want to marry gay people."
I'm not aware of any proposals that would give gays the right to be married in churches, etc, that don't want to marry gay people. Gays are asking that their marriages in churches, by justices of the peace or anyone authorized to perform marriages be recognized the same as anyone else's marriage. Actually, there are a number of protestant churches who do perform gay marriage ceremonies. The problem is not so much on that end but rather with the lack of legal recognition of the marriage. At least that's my understanding.
I think that people who have a problem with the gay lifestyle or are all upset about anyone's sexuality is a sign of ignorance and intolerance. Maybe you don't like some gay people just like you don't like some straight people. That's fine by me but it is about the person not the lifestyle. To use the Bible that also says, "judge not lest ye be judged", is idiotic and just shows you have some kind of agenda and want to use the bible to support it. Unlike adultery or stealing being gay isn't even a commandment. It's really stupid and all about what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom. If the sexuality is in your face I think that can be offensive or just something you don't want to see nor should have to see but that is true be it gay or straight - it is just impolite behavior in a group setting maybe. Nothing about being gay. Gay people have been around since there have been people. Deal with it.
Too bad everyone can't be like you. Maybe you are the way and the light? You go for an attack on liberalness and not anything I said. I bet you'd be surprised how many people you know and some you might even love are gay... no doubt afraid to let you know about it.
As you do with me. But it's ok when you do it, eh? Do you ever actually listen or read? Again, you didn't address one point I made. Then you made assumptions about me and threw me into your "liberal pen" - then bitched at me about making assumptions. Way to go.
hey sooner! well i agree with you . what has happened is for example. we (society) have a household and there are one hundred people living in it. one of the tenants life style is loud partying all night every night. society says that wouldn't be logical. people have to work,etc. so that one person says that society is anti social. get it? it's the tail "trying" to wag the dog. good article
There is no such thing as a "gay lifestyle" anymore than there is such a thing as a "straight lifestyle". A lifestyle is a choice: being gay is not. I can choose to live a pious lifestyle, a hedonistic lifestyle, a criminal lifestyle, a miserly lifestyle...they all describe actions one takes. Being gay is not an action. It's about who you can fall in love with. And you don't choose who you fall in love with. You may choose whether to act on that love, but you certainly don't choose who you love. You may limit your chances of falling in love by only hanging around certain people, but you're going to fall in love with whomever you fall in love with and that's not a choice.
I think the 2 biggest issues were made clear with that test.... 1. If you dont understand Gay people how are you not going to be nervous around them? 2. You are afraid they will make advances towards you, for a person who doesnt like the same sex, and has been groomed for years to think it is unnatural that can be daunting, We all just need to grow up and realize that we should be flattered to be hit on by anyone,no matter their gender! We are all great people, but someone has to be attracted to you to want to make a pass at you, and noone is loved by everyone!
10- Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic".
However, Misha, I'm not trying to "outscore" you. Simply wanted to 'fess up that this is my score NOW...but at age 22, it would have been astronomically high, Turbo-Homophobic To The Max (with the exception that I never keyed anybody's car, homosexual or otherwise).
My point being that SOMETIMES people really DO change....
the thought of two guys having sex isn't something i;m all good with. But i would support gays because i feel sorry for them. I believe that they are born that way, it's not a choice they make, and their lives are hard. Many gay peoples friends and family disown them.
The vast majority of people with AIDS live outside the West, and do not get it from homosexual sex. Some of them get it indirectly because condom distribution and education is curtailed by some Christian groups and leaders (like the Pope, and the evangelical lobby in the US and elsewhere)
Unfortunately, the consequences of poor choices (or sin) often spill over and adversely affect the lives of others who were not accomplices to the poor choices. A faithful wife is battered by a drunkard husband or a devoted mother is hit head-on by a driver under the influence of alcohol. Even so, in most cases, STDs spreading amongst straight people are usually the cause of promiscuity or illiegal drug use which are outside God's will, too.
By the test, I'm "homophobic". That's funny, 'cause I only checked the choices that showed my opinion, and I didn't check any of them that asked if I called anyone insulting names or would advocate violence, etc. So according to that, if someone simply thinks homosexuality is wrong, they're homophobic. It's as I thought. Very typical "test", illustrating the bias of those who MADE UP the test.
That's true. According to the test, I'm homophobic. Just stating my opinion on this controversial subject condemns me to being the "H" word. I don't have a problem with those who choose the live the life, I just have a problem with the particular lifestyle they have chosen to lead. I have a problem with judging others.
yeah, I made an unfair generalization there...or at least, after re-reading it definitely looked like I did...
the problem is not THAT all people who support gay rights think religion is ridiculous...the problem is WITH those people who think religion is ridiculous...(and that problem is one that I have, and maybe others, but I won't speak for them)
hang on while i stop being HUMAN and having opinions... and what do you mean, "you people"?
It is definitely bigoted, but I think it falls under free speech rules in any case. The same goes for much intolerance towards gays. However, there might be a difference, in that gay people are still frequently physically attacked for their orientation. I don't think I have ever heard of this towards Christians in the US... so , it might come under "incitement to hatred" or something.
Anyway, you don't have to think that homosexuality is morally correct, but you live in a pluralistic society where everyone has to tolerate much they dislike... better that than dictatorship, right...
trust me, my own feelings on gay rights in a legal sense are confusing...i know that as a society we (at least on the surface) are all about separation of church and state, but in my own personal practice, I can't vote for a piece of legislation that I don't morally agree with just because the LEGAL world views the RELIGIOUS world as (searches for the best word...) incosequential
basically, what I've been getting at since I started posting in this topic (pages ago) is that while I'm not going to go out of my way to be rude or (worse) physically abusive towards gays, I'm also not going to be taking any ACTION to give support to that lifestyle and if a vote comes up, all i can do is vote the way I think is RIGHT, not "fair" I don't see how that would make me homophobic though...not to open up another can of worms, but I'm also not going to be pushing for drug legalization, but that doesn't mean I have a phobia of drug users...
Well, this makes sense, frankly. The key, as you point out, is that you recognize your duty to treat gay people with the same respect as all others, and that it would be reprehensible to lobby your government (which is built on the principle of inclusion, after all) to introduce discriminatory legislation. Just the same, it would hardly make sense to vote against your own worldview on a particular issue however.
It is repugnant to me, for the record, that people hold the view you do on this matter, but then it is repugnant, no doubt, in your eyes to see nothing wrong with homosexuality. So, thank God for a free society where opinions can be expressed and no group ever has complete power over the country (except, perhaps, Dick Cheney's posse, for a while, but that's another story)
It's so weird. There are only two groups I can think of that Jesus was openly angry and hostile to:
- religious hypocrites - financial extortionists (in the Temple)
...he even defended an adulterer about to be stoned, saying we're all as bad as her anyway... so his "strictness" towards sexual behaviour was hardly as poisonous as some of the "Christians" writing here.
It's true that he might have been, but he hardly had the benefit of several centuries of human rights thinking behind him, so he was at a disadvantage. Don't the epistles admonish you to be a good slave...
There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with a lifestyle. But in many cases the most moral thing to do is simply mind your own business (and certainly not lobby for any kind of political change that might result in government intervention into people's bedrooms!)
I've composed a short simple test for HETEROphobia.
Who dares to take it?
Here are the questions:
1. Have you ever insinuated to your straight friends that they should "try it, you might like it"?
2. When you see a straight couple cuddling or kissing, are you jealous?
3. You're friends with a straight couple. Have you convinced them that it's okay for you to be alone with the spouse because "it's safe; I'm gay".
4. In the scenario above, does it make you angry or confused when they believe that?
5. When your straight friends have relationship problems, do you compare that to your own instability in relationships, trying to "normalize" the gay life?
6. Do you call people like me who are against homosexuality "homophobes"?
7. You know a straight couple, one of which you had sex with years ago before you decided to engage in homosexual activity. The partner doesn't know. Do you now laugh to yourself, either in humor or in ridicule (either one) that you and the former lover have that secret while the other person doesn't know?
I'm not at all, but as a student of language, I have to say the term is an interesting study in the development of language and usage. Either side of the polemic abortion debate would kill (lol) to have been able to coin THE term that the debate revolves around as well as the gay rights movement has.
The word homophobic is a biased and inaccurate for the attitude it is meant to describe.
- There are people who dislike homosexuality based on any number of reasons, social, biological, religion or whatever, but have no fear of them.
- There are people who are afraid of them for various reasons (believing them responsible for transmission of aids, corrupting children etc.).
- There are people who are afraid of them and don't like them.
Only the last two categories are accurately described by the term. The first category is not defined by the term at all.
As language goes, it's evidence of a calculated rhetorical move that gave the gay rights movement an advantage in the fight for equality. The term is by it's nature pejorative given the polemic nature of gay rights.
Well, it's more a matter of it having be mis-coined. Words are symbols that convey a larger meaning. This word now means "dislike of or fear of homosexuals" despite its linguistic origins pointing to it meaning technically "fear of sameness" or "fear of mankind."
It'd be like me inventing a pair of rain-proof pants and calling them "underpants" even though you wear them on the outside of your clothing. We could argue all day whether or not that was the right word, but if the world started referring to my product as underpants, well, that's that.
I actually had my own idea that the word is missused and not mis-coined. In the test it is obviously missused, and many people have called me homophobic for simply dissagreeing. Having said that- what is your first impression of the word "Cult". To be fair, don't look it up.
I don't have a "first impression" of that word, as I've read all sorts of stuff that deals with cults, sects and religions and have a pretty solid working understanding of the term, at least in the context of anthropology/religion.
Not true. 99% of america associates the word with some form of religious commune or strange sacraficial practices and/or seances. I could tell you why. Media influence. Waco Texas, haha just the other day on CNN "Lawsuit calls yoga chain a cult" <--- am I a word stickler? maybe. just funny in a disturbing way.
Who cares what some TV website says anyway. Is this what we've sunk to, that we decide what to do and not do, think and not think, based on what television producers and writers think? Come on; who, seriously, without rocks for brains, gets their views of the world from TELEVISION.... (mmmmmm)
Discovering what I have seen here, thanks to many of you, I am upset that the test stands. I feel it is highly biased and now wonder what is the point of naming anyone who simply does not agree with homosexuality a homophobe. That is poor research.
Yeah, I know a lot of what you post here is (deliberate, of course) nonsense . I actually have a lot of love in my life; I'm very blessed with a long-term husband and a loving family. Agreed that love and happiness are not a zero-sum game.
Empathy , kindness, tolerance , humanity,realism and commonsense. We mustn't stand in judgement. Many doctors find it hard to determine the sex of a baby and surgical decisions are sometimes made without the parents consent.
This world is not so straight forward as being made up of males and females. So,no being homophobic doesn't make sense to me.
While I do not activly support gay rights. I also do not allow a persons preferences guide my judgment of them. I like people! If they happen to be gay well thats just the way it is. 20 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."
I found the survey to be very interesting. I am a Christian and I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. Yet, legislatating morality does not work i.e. making things illegal is rarely the answer to bringing about lasting change. I think open dialogue is the basis of coming to the best ideas and can elicit changes.
While a student at Long Beach State, I had a classmate who was openly gay. He and I had several classes together back to back and would often walk together from one end of the campus to another. We would talk about this and that. After one particular conversation about differences in lifestyle, I told him affectionately that I could love him as a person without agreeing with his lifestyle choices. He seemed very moved by that.
I had a cousin who was homosexual. He was a very nice individual. Unfortunately, he got into a bad relationship and was hospitalized for an extended time after his lover beat him to a pulp. Soon after he passed away from AIDS. It makes me very sad to think about how he suffered and died. I would not wish that disease on anybody, even if I disagree with their lifestyle.
Jesus loved misfits and cast aways; even when he didn't agree with their lifestyle choices. He also told them to repent and make better choices, but it was up to them to make those choices.
OMG. Sometimes when I read about all the abuse of children and shit that happened at the hands of Priests and Nuns in the name of Jesus, I think nah, that couldn't of really happened, and then you step into the religious forums and read such hate filled words.
I wonder if the term lifestyle developed from the portrayals of homosexual stereotypes on television (as in "flaming gays"). Some homosexuals dress and act in ways that fit the stereotype but most are indistinguishable from heterosexuals. It strikes me as analogous in part to the range of lifestyles in other minority communities, notably, the African American community in which some assimilate while others proudly display their differences, in speech, dress and in naming their children. I admit to a certain amount of prejudice toward or skepticism of "flaming" homosexuals and African-Americans who are not inclined to blend in with our middle class white American culture.
(However, I'm proud that I scored an 8--hard core non-homophobic or whatever they called it on the little test. I hope I would do as well on a test for prejudice toward other minorities.)
I don't think people can help who they are attracted to physically. I've been sexually attracted to men before that I really didn't even particularly like. I think it's chemistry or pheromones or something.
Actually, sometimes I think I might be gay - a gay man trapped in a woman's body. I keep finding myself drawn to big hairy men...
every so often, well not too often, i will find myself drawn to a woman. i used to work with this blonde named Jenny. one night we were working late and she asked me if i had ever been attracted to a woman. i was a big wimp back then and siad "no, no" and she looked disappointed.
now i would say "why yes, i have". at the time i was attracted to her but never told her.
does that make me gay?
no, because i worship men.
i just think some people pluck something inside you whether you want them to or not.
Brenda, I used to think that, too. But then there's my relative - a gay man from a very strict, religious family. He fought being attracted to other men for years. He tried to convince himself that he wasn't gay. He tried to fall in love with several wonderful girls. He couldn't. Toucing them in a sexual manner literally made him ill. He was always "girlie," even as a kid. I should have seen it coming even back then. Why would anyone choose a life of ridicule and ostracism?
The concept of choosing sin isn't limited to the gay lifestyle. ...Each Christian is a former deliberate sinner! Whatever our "weakness" is....is something we naturally rotate toward. We're all born with the capability of turning into deliberate sinners after the age of accountability. Would you say that a kleptomaniac chooses a life of having to hide from "the law"? Yep. There may be something in him or her that knows it's wrong, but they still choose to do it, knowing they'll eventually get caught and be subjected to the legal system and notoriety as criminals, and knowing it's against God's laws as well.
I, too, have relatives who are "gay". One of them is fully (and maybe inextricably; I hope not...) immersed in that choice. They were both raised in a Christian home...a good Christian home. The other one has re-affirmed his belief in the Lord and has chosen to live a celibate life. I would, of course, wish for him that he'd someday try to marry a woman and be happy....but if he can't, then he has still chosen the better life in the eyes of his Lord.
It's not a matter of "can't". It's a matter of choosing to not exercise any any self-control.
Agree. For me at least, a person's character is not tied to his/her sexual orientation. You're either a person I can admire, and would want to know, or you're not. Most of us are looking for the same things in relationships. People in committed relationships earn my respect, regardless of the specifics.
My friend Carly is seriously amazing. She is a dual major, she is president of the Resident Students Club, she helped organize our Student Leadership conference. She lets me borrow her records all the time, and is the best asian food buddy (she knows all the good places). She is trying to teach me how to paint (key word "trying") . She really is a great friend.
I don't know about you Brenda, but I didn't choose my sexual orientation (liking women I mean). Did you choose yours? Can you honestly, really, imagine someone choosing something like this? Just how does someone do this? The very idea sounds odd. I mean, if you don't like that kind of plumbing, what can ya do?
Which Bible? You know Brenda's a Christian, right?
Interesting that the only two things that Christians adopt from the Torah (Jewish Bible) are the 10 commandments and those passages they interpret to condemn homosexuality. The other 99%? Ignored. "Jesus made a new covenant...except for those things we'd like to continue condemning."
Edenic diet????? Love it. It is not typically incorrect. Just because you happen to belong to a church that follows an "Edenic" diet does not change the fact that 99.99 percent of Christians ignore 90 percent of the Torah's teachings...
my brother is gay, and his partner is gay, and they are both very successful attorneys. they have no children but are doting uncles and generous to a fault. they do not flaunt their "gayness" nor do they put down straight people. they are kind and moral and when i talk to them and visit them in their beautiful home with their pampered little dogs and see them as model citizens and members of their community, the word "sin" never enters my mind.
Here is what I do understand: I understand not being homosexual personally. I even understand believing that homosexuality is against your religion's teachings.
But what I don't understand: If you yourself are not homosexual, and you yourself are the one who believes in your religion, and religion is a personal choice, why does it matter what someone else's sexual orientation is? And why is it appropriate to claim someone that is homosexual is going to hell when they don't follow your personal religion? Maybe your religion says it is a sin, but someone else's may not.
Do you understand that?
Furthermore, I also do not understand how someone can believe sexual orientation is a choice. Or that homosexuality is a choice. I also don't understand how someone can disregard a person as a friend, or important, or amazing based on one part of their life. I also don't understand why importance is placed on something personal, something that makes someone who they are.
Man! I really don't understand a lot! Maybe you could teach me? Knowledge is power Brenda.
My former roommate is/was gay, and the only real complaint I had was too many Brad Pitt movies in the house (oh, and that dreadful Cher album -- I like Abba as much as the next person, but I have my limits...)
We do not wake up in the morning and decide to be gay today, we are naturally born gay just as others are born straight, bisexual and whatever else. Each to their own I say, we have no choice in being gay its who we are...
I've been very hurt by the many things people have said to me and I was getting really tired of the ridiculous excuses. And I know it says ten reasons but I could only figure out five, sorry1.) Unlike many straight...
Why have some of the nation's most vehement anti-gay activists Ted Haggard, Larry Craig had gay sex scandals of their own? An op-ed in the New York Times' Sunday Review section tries to explain. The authors of the...
Though I know that being homosexual is not accepted still in today's society why is it individual feel it is there moral and civic duty to cast hatred animosity towards those who live within that population? Does not...