|
|
Post by BELETH the Mighty on Nov 12, 2003 20:01:44 GMT -5
Sadly, homophobia can't just be considered an actual mental condition anymore. You know those macho guys you hear all the time, and every other word out of their mouth is "fag" or "that's gay" or "dood u r such a homo". That creates the idea that gayness is something to stay away from, because it's referred to in the negative connotation so often. That is what homophobia is these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarien on Nov 12, 2003 20:55:35 GMT -5
i didnt say that...but the idea of an allience forming suggests that it is nessecary...and there isnt a problem in my school with homosexual, bisexual, or homophobic relations or prejiduce...and the poster said, "help us preven homophobia"...does that suggest that they can? with the "privacy of a club" they arent going out and doing stuff...and homophobia is a fear, you cant talk to them if your gay and they know it...they are freaking afraid of you! i would strongly support an anti gay prejiduce club, but not an allience...we are all people, we dont need an allience, arent gays trying not to be outcasted? As I said before, it's a support group. I don't see anything wrong with the poster saying "help us prevent homophobia" as it is truthful. They are trying to spread awareness about homosexuals and how (not to be corny) gays are people too and aren't any different. People are using the word "homophobia" wrong too. It's an extreme fear of homosexuals and I don't believe that is really the case in well...many cases. It's like "gosh, don't touch me, you're gay and I'm going to turn gay." Most ignorant people joke like that, but they know it's not contagious. Comprendeme? Clubs and alliances are the same thing. We have the California Scholorship FEDERATION, Young Black SCHOLARS, Anime Extreme CLUB. National Junior Honors SOCIETY. Those are just titles. Alliance is just another one of those titles. Truthfully, Gay Straight Alliance sounds better then the Gay Straight club. Besides, the aim in all of those organizations is the same. In YLS, we try to teach people of Latino heritage and prevent ignorant people from saying "You're from El Salvador? You mean you're Mexican right? Go cook some tacos..." (I speak from experience -__-). And in GSA, you try to prevent the sterotypes that if you're gay, you're not fully human or are some sort of immoral heathen. As for the not trying to be outcasted...just forming your own organization, and meeting with people with similar interests or history sets you apart from the rest of the school, no matter the title of your organization. |
|
|
|
Post by William on Nov 12, 2003 23:16:28 GMT -5
ok...well allience is a bad word...and homophobia is poorly used...and very insulting to me...and just beacause someone doesnt support homosexuality (not homosexuals....were not getting into this here....) doesnt mean theyre homophobic, even by todays standards...it seems your classafied as support, or homophobic...thats so faye...and doesnt homogay as an insult for stuff (Not people...) just have a funny insulting ring to it? and also...i suggest calling stuf faye instead of gay..cuz it has the same sound, and familiarity...but not offensive...
|
|
|
|
Post by BELETH the Mighty on Nov 16, 2003 20:43:57 GMT -5
Ya know, here’s something I’ve thought about recently. The Church looks down upon homosexuality on a basic level because what? It doesn’t produce offspring. Two men can nail eachother all they want and a baby isn’t gonna come out nine months later. But then what about priests and nuns, who have sworn lifelong abstinence? That certainly denies them the ability to produce offspring. Wait a second, isn’t that what the Church frowns upon? No babies? That means that all priests and nuns might as well be gay or lesbian. Looks like you people have some kinks to work out. Of course, you’ll all naturally find some “because God said so” reason to prove me wrong, eh?
Say, something like “The Church looks down upon sodomy in general.” But why do they do that? It’s still putting your weewee in some kind of hole, isn’t it? And I’m sure it means the same amount of love as traditional intercourse. The reason sodomy in general is immoral is not because butts are gross, but because doing so doesn’t cause a baby to pop out of one’s rectum. So you people can’t use that reason, mmmkay? Great.
|
|
|
|
Post by GilSchwartzman on Nov 16, 2003 22:40:57 GMT -5
Ya know, here’s something I’ve thought about recently. The Church looks down upon homosexuality on a basic level because what? It doesn’t produce offspring. Two men can nail eachother all they want and a baby isn’t gonna come out nine months later. But then what about priests and nuns, who have sworn lifelong abstinence? That certainly denies them the ability to produce offspring. Wait a second, isn’t that what the Church frowns upon? No babies? That means that all priests and nuns might as well be gay or lesbian. Looks like you people have some kinks to work out. Of course, you’ll all naturally find some “because God said so” reason to prove me wrong, eh? Say, something like “The Church looks down upon sodomy in general.” But why do they do that? It’s still putting your weewee in some kind of hole, isn’t it? And I’m sure it means the same amount of love as traditional intercourse. The reason sodomy in general is immoral is not because butts are gross, but because doing so doesn’t cause a baby to pop out of one’s rectum. So you people can’t use that reason, mmmkay? Great. wow. you were all good until this post man. now youre starting to sound like wilshire. the whole idea behind not supporting homoseuxality is the argument behind the holiness of human sexuality. so if you dont believe in it, then you dont get it. but thats the logic there, its not about no babies. |
|
|
|
Post by William on Nov 18, 2003 0:34:15 GMT -5
the reason is that homosexuality is immoral, and we do not support the priests or anyone that defiles sexuality and its morality...i dont condemn them, but i dont support them either...make that note...cuz i dont want to be called homophobic or something...cuz thats faye...
|
|
|
|
Post by Montymidget86 on Nov 18, 2003 14:35:22 GMT -5
Hey guys, i tried reading this entire thread, :-Xand got tired at the third page. so rather than reading the whole thing, im just going to give my two sense, or cents, or however that saying goes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that homosexuality is wrong. I don't agree with it and I believe it is immoral. However, I do not discriminate against homosexuals. They are people, just like you and me, and should be treated with the respect that is owed to them. It's not fair to discriminate or treat people badly just because they chose to live a certian lifestyle. Thats all i got.
|
|
Clump
X-Treme Gulp
Stop Buggering Me
Posts: 437
|
Post by Clump on Nov 18, 2003 19:02:25 GMT -5
the reason is that homosexuality is immoral, and we do not support the priests or anyone that defiles sexuality and its morality...i dont condemn them, but i dont support them either...make that note...cuz i dont want to be called homophobic or something...cuz thats faye... You're ... faye ... Unfortunately, you do sound rather homophobic, however I would be too if one came too close to me with the wrong intentions. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark617 on Nov 18, 2003 19:23:50 GMT -5
Ya know, here’s something I’ve thought about recently. The Church looks down upon homosexuality on a basic level because what? It doesn’t produce offspring. Two men can nail eachother all they want and a baby isn’t gonna come out nine months later. But then what about priests and nuns, who have sworn lifelong abstinence? That certainly denies them the ability to produce offspring. Where'd u get this?! first off, the church is not against homosexuality because it doesnt produce babies (does the church condemn women who cant have babies for some natural reason? no). The church is against it because sex is supposed to be for marraige, and marraige is a union between a man and a woman. therefore gay sex (and heterosexual sex out of wedlock) is opposed by the Catholic church, and many other denominations. Therefore, nothing wrong with life long abstinance for priests and nuns (this practice was started so priests could focus on their ministry, and could be repelled[sp?]) or anyone else for that matter. Religion (and general culture for that matter) looks down on sodomy it is not only gross, but its also not safe (helped spread aids for one thing) and it is not natural. |
|
|
|
Post by William on Nov 18, 2003 22:09:32 GMT -5
well put...i agree...and not only the catholic church, though it seems all of you religiously read people know the catholic church most...
|
|
|
|
Post by BELETH the Mighty on Nov 19, 2003 21:13:12 GMT -5
Well then thanks you much for clearing that up. It’s just that a while ago you peoples were talkin’ boot how it didn’t produce babies, so I figured it was something from your religion.
And just another thing…..AIDS is equally spread through conventional intercourse. The virus lies in all bodily fluids, not just blood and ass-juice. The reason everyone thinks it’s all about buttsex is that a lot of gays had it in the 80’s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark617 on Nov 19, 2003 21:41:14 GMT -5
not true, sodomy is much more likely to spread aids then conventional sex, it causes a lot more tears and the virus can spread easier that way. however, the media tries to be politically correct on such issues and gave sketchy reporting on the issue so as to not offend homosexuals.
|
|
|
|
Post by William on Nov 20, 2003 23:53:14 GMT -5
i dont know about the tearing wholes thing, but it spreads more, because the percentage of sodomists to conventionalists is much higher, and they tend to stay seperated, so once you cross to sodomy you are more likely to get it than to keep in conventionalism, and also, sodomy tends to be more open and not binded to one partner. The lack of marriage (i support this lack) causes this partialy, partialy! and this isnt true with everyone, but it causes partialy a lack of relationships having a bond they feel obligated to contain. even with divorice, many widows, or devoriced people are too old for sex, and only %50 are devoriced (thought high precent, still a huge icrease from the 0% of sodomists).
|
|
|
|
Post by The Wanderer on Nov 21, 2003 16:32:10 GMT -5
0_o
Um yeah...actually forget it, I don't want to even touch this... It's getting far too involved and very redundant...
|
|
Seal_Tech
Wee Gulp
Does this remind u of at teacher @ U of D?
Posts: 77
|
Post by Seal_Tech on Nov 24, 2003 18:58:18 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with homosexuality but I think that is wrong. They way that I have these views is that I am for people haveing the freedom to do what ever it is that they want, and I don't think that it is the place for govenment enfringe on a person's views.
I have gotten a lot of shit for my views but have yet to change them.
|
|
