Damn, that last reaction.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
That's really shameful behaviour...don't like gay people, don't look but getting violent because two people you don't even know are holding hands? Bunch of assholes...
But really the western culture (or should I say the non-middle eastern culture since that is Russia) sometimes astonishes me. I mean here in middle east it's quite normal if two men hold hands and no one would think they're gay. Kisses on the cheeks and hugs are also really common especially among relatives.
I mean you don't have to declare your hatred of the same gender to prove your straightness but that seems to be the trend in non-middle eastern societies.
I really hope things improve other there. My best friend is Russian and I've heard lots of horrible things that happen there. I really worry about her and all the other people that have to live in barbaric cultures.
You have to truly be scum of the earth if you would seek to do harm to someone because they are gay.
It's not surprising. There are certain individuals on these forums that have no qualms if gays are murdered.
God forbid...
It's not uncommon in some countries for guy friends to hold hands. Oh the horror!
Seriously these assholes need to get a grip, especially the last dickhead at the end.
On another note, there are some seriously hot Russian women.
Ya from all the shit I see on the internet I'd never want to live in russia. Seems to me the country is stuck in the 70's, hell if it wasn't for the technology that's there I'd put it even farther behind that era.
Anyone who get uncomfortable and violent around homosexuality are insecure about their own sexuality. Some are closet gay themselves.
I've heard this argument more than I care to remember and it sounds equally asinine each time. People of certain creeds antagonize homosexuality out of ideology, while other folks feel purely secular aversion towards it. In some societies it's culturally motivated, and in others it constitutes a part of a certain morality. The crux of it is that there are many reasons behind animosity towards homosexuality, the least prevalent and most tenuous of which is the one you mentioned.
Anyone who get uncomfortable and violent around homosexuality are insecure about their own sexuality. Some are closet gay themselves.
I've heard this argument more than I care to remember and it sounds equally asinine each time. People of certain creeds antagonize homosexuality out of ideology, while other folks feel purely secular aversion towards it. In some societies it's culturally motivated, and in others it constitutes a part of a certain morality. The crux of it is that there are many reasons behind animosity towards homosexuality, the least prevalent and most tenuous of which is the one you mentioned.
What you call asinine, is actually a phenomenon that has been studied and documented by the academia itself.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf
363 citations as well. Of course, it doesnt even take an academic paper to realize as much, a lot of prominent anti-gay supporters, turned out gay or buying a prosititute of the same sex.
Most notably, Ted Haggard.
Edit: Lol, someone even has a website listing prominent homophobes who are gay
Anyone who get uncomfortable and violent around homosexuality are insecure about their own sexuality. Some are closet gay themselves.
I've heard this argument more than I care to remember and it sounds equally asinine each time. People of certain creeds antagonize homosexuality out of ideology, while other folks feel purely secular aversion towards it. In some societies it's culturally motivated, and in others it constitutes a part of a certain morality. The crux of it is that there are many reasons behind animosity towards homosexuality, the least prevalent and most tenuous of which is the one you mentioned.
What you call asinine, is actually a phenomenon that has been studied and documented by the academia itself.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf
363 citations as well. Of course, it doesnt even take an academic paper to realize as much, a lot of prominent anti-gay supporters, turned out gay or buying a prosititute of the same sex.
Most notably, Ted Haggard.
I didn't reject clandestine homosexual arousal as a possible reason for antipathy to homosexuality; instead, I rejected it as the sole reason behind it. It was his blanket statement that I called asinine, not the premise itself.
Also, that's a laughable sample size.
Anyone who get uncomfortable and violent around homosexuality are insecure about their own sexuality. Some are closet gay themselves.
I've heard this argument more than I care to remember and it sounds equally asinine each time. People of certain creeds antagonize homosexuality out of ideology, while other folks feel purely secular aversion towards it. In some societies it's culturally motivated, and in others it constitutes a part of a certain morality. The crux of it is that there are many reasons behind animosity towards homosexuality, the least prevalent and most tenuous of which is the one you mentioned.
What you call asinine, is actually a phenomenon that has been studied and documented by the academia itself.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf
363 citations as well. Of course, it doesnt even take an academic paper to realize as much, a lot of prominent anti-gay supporters, turned out gay or buying a prosititute of the same sex.
Most notably, Ted Haggard.
I didn't reject clandestine homosexual arousal as a possible reason for antipathy to homosexuality; instead, I rejected it as the sole reason behind it. It was his blanket statement that I called asinine, not the premise itself.
Also, that's a laughable sample size.
Which is not what he said. He said they are insecure, which you have to be to hate anyone for anything that doesn't have a direct effect on people. He clearly said only some are actually gay, and last time I checked some doesn't mean all.
Anyone who get uncomfortable and violent around homosexuality are insecure about their own sexuality. Some are closet gay themselves.
I've heard this argument more than I care to remember and it sounds equally asinine each time. People of certain creeds antagonize homosexuality out of ideology, while other folks feel purely secular aversion towards it. In some societies it's culturally motivated, and in others it constitutes a part of a certain morality. The crux of it is that there are many reasons behind animosity towards homosexuality, the least prevalent and most tenuous of which is the one you mentioned.
Sounds like I hit one too close to home there.
And in your fervor to defend homophobia, you missed the point and it wasn't all homophobic individuals are homosexuals themselves.
While I believe in freedom of speech,
Those two guys who responded with violence took it way too far.
You don't say.
But really the western culture (or should I say the non-middle eastern culture since that is Russia) sometimes astonishes me. I mean here in middle east it's quite normal if two men hold hands and no one would think they're gay. Kisses on the cheeks and hugs are also really common especially among relatives.
I mean you don't have to declare your hatred of the same gender to prove your straightness but that seems to be the trend in non-middle eastern societies.
That's funny because Islamic countries have some of the most intolerant laws when it comes to homosexuality. Their perception of what constitute as homosexual behaviors might differ from the west but they prosecute them just the same as Russians if not more harshly.
But really the western culture (or should I say the non-middle eastern culture since that is Russia) sometimes astonishes me. I mean here in middle east it's quite normal if two men hold hands and no one would think they're gay. Kisses on the cheeks and hugs are also really common especially among relatives.
I mean you don't have to declare your hatred of the same gender to prove your straightness but that seems to be the trend in non-middle eastern societies.
That's funny because Islamic countries have some of the most intolerant laws when it comes to homosexuality. Their perception of what constitute as homosexual behaviors might differ from the west but they prosecute them just the same as Russians if not more harshly.
Yemen: According to 1994 penal code, married men can be sentenced to death by stoning for homosexual intercourse. Unmarried men face whipping or one year in prison. Women face up to seven years in prison.
Iran: In accordance with sharia law, homosexual intercourse between men can be punished by death, and men can be flogged for lesser acts such as kissing. Women may be flogged.
Iraq: The penal code does not expressly prohibit homosexual acts, but people have been killed by militias and sentenced to death by judges citing sharia law.
Mauritania: Muslim men engaging in homosexual sex can be stoned to death, according to a 1984 law. Women face prison.
Nigeria: Federal law classifies homosexual behavior as a felony punishable by imprisonment, but several states have adopted sharia law and imposed a death penalty for men. A law signed in early January makes it illegal for gay people countrywide to hold a meeting or form clubs.
Qatar: Sharia law in Qatar applies only to Muslims, who can be put to death for extramarital sex, regardless of sexual orientation.
Saudi Arabia: Under the country’s interpretation of sharia law, a married man engaging in sodomy or any non-Muslim who commits sodomy with a Muslim can be stoned to death. All sex outside of marriage is illegal.
Somalia: The penal code stipulates prison, but in some southern regions, Islamic courts have imposed Sharia law and the death penalty.
Sudan: Three-time offenders under the sodomy law can be put to death; first and second convictions result in flogging and imprisonment. Southern parts of the country have adopted more lenient laws.
United Arab Emirates: Lawyers in the country and other experts disagree on whether federal law proscribes the death penalty for consensual homosexual sex or only for rape. In a recent Amnesty International report, the organization said it was not aware of any death sentences for homosexual acts. All sexual acts outside of marriage are banned.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/02/24/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death/
But really the western culture (or should I say the non-middle eastern culture since that is Russia) sometimes astonishes me. I mean here in middle east it's quite normal if two men hold hands and no one would think they're gay. Kisses on the cheeks and hugs are also really common especially among relatives.
I mean you don't have to declare your hatred of the same gender to prove your straightness but that seems to be the trend in non-middle eastern societies.
That's funny because Islamic countries have some of the most intolerant laws when it comes to homosexuality. Their perception of what constitute as homosexual behaviors might differ from the west but they prosecute them just the same as Russians if not more harshly.
Yemen: According to 1994 penal code, married men can be sentenced to death by stoning for homosexual intercourse. Unmarried men face whipping or one year in prison. Women face up to seven years in prison.
Iran: In accordance with sharia law, homosexual intercourse between men can be punished by death, and men can be flogged for lesser acts such as kissing. Women may be flogged.
Iraq: The penal code does not expressly prohibit homosexual acts, but people have been killed by militias and sentenced to death by judges citing sharia law.
Mauritania: Muslim men engaging in homosexual sex can be stoned to death, according to a 1984 law. Women face prison.
Nigeria: Federal law classifies homosexual behavior as a felony punishable by imprisonment, but several states have adopted sharia law and imposed a death penalty for men. A law signed in early January makes it illegal for gay people countrywide to hold a meeting or form clubs.
Qatar: Sharia law in Qatar applies only to Muslims, who can be put to death for extramarital sex, regardless of sexual orientation.
Saudi Arabia: Under the country’s interpretation of sharia law, a married man engaging in sodomy or any non-Muslim who commits sodomy with a Muslim can be stoned to death. All sex outside of marriage is illegal.
Somalia: The penal code stipulates prison, but in some southern regions, Islamic courts have imposed Sharia law and the death penalty.
Sudan: Three-time offenders under the sodomy law can be put to death; first and second convictions result in flogging and imprisonment. Southern parts of the country have adopted more lenient laws.
United Arab Emirates: Lawyers in the country and other experts disagree on whether federal law proscribes the death penalty for consensual homosexual sex or only for rape. In a recent Amnesty International report, the organization said it was not aware of any death sentences for homosexual acts. All sexual acts outside of marriage are banned.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/02/24/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death/
Give Putin sometime, I'm sure he will get Russia there in the next few years.
But really the western culture (or should I say the non-middle eastern culture since that is Russia) sometimes astonishes me. I mean here in middle east it's quite normal if two men hold hands and no one would think they're gay. Kisses on the cheeks and hugs are also really common especially among relatives.
I mean you don't have to declare your hatred of the same gender to prove your straightness but that seems to be the trend in non-middle eastern societies.
That first part is not true at all, if two men holds hands they are gay, they look weird, people look at them another way and lots of comments could come out from guys, no two straight men holds hands like they are a couple, I am middle-eastern too and I can vouch holding hands is not considered normal.
Kissing cheeks and hugs ( btw hugs is universally acceptable so it shouldn't be in the discussion at all) is another story, doesn't mean anything, it's totally weird however, if the kiss on the cheek is sexual.
Normal kisses on the cheek for greeting is like a hi or hello in the west when a female/male kiss a female friend when they meet, just a tap on the cheek to make it relatable for western guys, sometimes it's not even a kiss in our culture, just two cheeks slightly hitting each-other like when two glasses of wine hitting/touching for a toast, I don't even remember any one time where the whole lips actually touched my cheeks with their saliva all over....yikes!!
I have a question for my fellow western guys here, why is it considered totally socially normal and acceptable for women to kiss each-other for greeting but it's considered weird or gay for males to do the same?
Every Russian friend I've had in this country has said that getting out of Russia was the best decision they or their parents ever made. Despite what we want to believe or what the propaganda that comes out of there says it's a hellhole unless you're one of the elite. In the old days it meant being a communist party official while now it means being a Putin crony. They change the labels but the system is the same.
It's not surprising considering how religious Russia is and how the church and the state is connected. Of course, that's surprising considering that I always thought Russia was more atheist because of the Soviet Union.
But hey, I guess some of those asshole's masculinity was threatened because they're secretly gay. Or whatever.
Very interesting,
For balance though, it would have been more so - interesting to see them try it across multiple countries. In area's of America, it would probably illicit a similar reaction I suspect.
@bmanva:It's funny because it's gay? Because I don't recall mentioning anything about prosecution and whatnot. Do you think it's funny? Are you homophobic? I feel sorry for you man...
@effec_tor: I saw you at the Guardian.
That first part is not true at all, if two men holds hands they are gay, they look weird, people look at them another way and lots of comments could come out from guys, no two straight men holds hands like they are a couple, I am middle-eastern too and I can vouch holding hands is not considered normal.
Kissing cheeks and hugs ( btw hugs is universally acceptable so it shouldn't be in the discussion at all) is another story, doesn't mean anything, it's totally weird however, if the kiss on the cheek is sexual.
Normal kisses on the cheek for greeting is like a hi or hello in the west when a female/male kiss a female friend when they meet, just a tap on the cheek to make it relatable for western guys, sometimes it's not even a kiss in our culture, just two cheeks slightly hitting each-other like when two glasses of wine hitting/touching for a toast, I don't even remember any one time where the whole lips actually touched my cheeks with their saliva all over....yikes!!
I have a question for my fellow western guys here, why is it considered totally socially normal and acceptable for women to kiss each-other for greeting but it's considered weird or gay for males to do the same?
You must live in one of those westernized middle eastern countries I assume? Because men holding hands never was gay at least until a decade ago or something. It's only weird because it's something couples do these days which they've learned from western culture. Before they got westernized there was no such thing as "romantically holding hands" because it's not all that romantic to begin with. But westernization is a b****.
Yep that's how kisses on the cheeks work. I prefer mere handshakes myself but usually when you meet a relative or a friend after a long time, kisses on the cheeks are obligatory.
And that question is my question too. Western culture is soooo weird sometimes.
Anyone who get uncomfortable and violent around homosexuality are insecure about their own sexuality. Some are closet gay themselves.
I've heard this argument more than I care to remember and it sounds equally asinine each time. People of certain creeds antagonize homosexuality out of ideology, while other folks feel purely secular aversion towards it. In some societies it's culturally motivated, and in others it constitutes a part of a certain morality. The crux of it is that there are many reasons behind animosity towards homosexuality, the least prevalent and most tenuous of which is the one you mentioned.
What you call asinine, is actually a phenomenon that has been studied and documented by the academia itself.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf
363 citations as well. Of course, it doesnt even take an academic paper to realize as much, a lot of prominent anti-gay supporters, turned out gay or buying a prosititute of the same sex.
Most notably, Ted Haggard.
I didn't reject clandestine homosexual arousal as a possible reason for antipathy to homosexuality; instead, I rejected it as the sole reason behind it. It was his blanket statement that I called asinine, not the premise itself.
Also, that's a laughable sample size.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
pushing homosexulaity = population control in the grand scheme of things.
in a biblical perspective it's considered an abomination which means it's hateful
that's why people out there hate the lifestyle.
adapting to the environment or survival of the fitites as some call it the lifestyle will die out.
just something to think about.....
I didn't reject clandestine homosexual arousal as a possible reason for antipathy to homosexuality; instead, I rejected it as the sole reason behind it. It was his blanket statement that I called asinine, not the premise itself.
Also, that's a laughable sample size.
Which is not what he said. He said they are insecure, which you have to be to hate anyone for anything that doesn't have a direct effect on people. He clearly said only some are actually gay, and last time I checked some doesn't mean all.
I suggest you polish your reading comprehension skills before attempting to engage others in discussions. You'll save yourself first and foremost but others too the bane of reiteration and superfluous explication.
He specifically said that anyone who feels antipathy to gays is insecure about his sexuality which is blatantly wrong. It is understood that sexual insecurity is related to a confused and repressed sexual identity that may be too ashamed to make the jump to the other side of the isle. This is the direction Maroxad steered the discussion to, and I obliged accordingly. But to humor you for a second, your statement that one has to be insecure to hate someone for something is just as asinine as his blanket, baseless statement.
You could have figured this much by yourself, which makes me wonder whether you genuinely misconstrued my post or whether that was a poor attempt at equivocation.
Anyone who get uncomfortable and violent around homosexuality are insecure about their own sexuality. Some are closet gay themselves.
I've heard this argument more than I care to remember and it sounds equally asinine each time. People of certain creeds antagonize homosexuality out of ideology, while other folks feel purely secular aversion towards it. In some societies it's culturally motivated, and in others it constitutes a part of a certain morality. The crux of it is that there are many reasons behind animosity towards homosexuality, the least prevalent and most tenuous of which is the one you mentioned.
Sounds like I hit one too close to home there.
And in your fervor to defend homophobia, you missed the point and it wasn't all homophobic individuals are homosexuals themselves.
We all make asinine statements every now and then. As long as we keep it to a minimum - and most importantly - as long as we don't obstinately defend such statements, they don't shame us in any way.
You made an asinine statement when you spewed that baseless, blanket statement, which isn't disgraceful. But it's disgraceful to stand by it after its asininity came to light, let alone to use equivocation for that end. In no where did I claim that you said all "homophobic" individuals are homosexuals themselves, so I'm not sure where you're pulling this one from. Also, explain how I defended homophobia in my post; I'd be very curious to learn about that.
pushing homosexulaity = population control in the grand scheme of things.
in a biblical perspective it's considered an abomination which means it's hateful
that's why people out there hate the lifestyle.
adapting to the environment or survival of the fitites as some call it the lifestyle will die out.
just something to think about.....
Eating shellfish is an abomination in the Bible. Wearing clothing created from two materials is an abomination in the Bible. All sins are equal in the eyes of God, so eating shrimp and wearing polyester is just as bad as sodomizing your same-sex lover. It's this kind of "pick and choose" theology that makes the anti-homosexual because of religion crowd look so small minded, bigoted, and ignorant about their own faith. The Bible is very explicit. Judge not lest ye be judged yourself. Love your neighbor as yourself. Don't point out the speck in your brother's eye and ignore the beam in your own.
So any time you see a Christian try to use religion as their reason for homophobia, you can instantly and without any doubt know that they are not a true believer, not an ardent believer in the faith. You can know that by the tenets of their own faith that they will be in Hell with the sinners, because they are sinners based on the scriptures of their own faith.
I didn't reject clandestine homosexual arousal as a possible reason for antipathy to homosexuality; instead, I rejected it as the sole reason behind it. It was his blanket statement that I called asinine, not the premise itself.
Also, that's a laughable sample size.
Which is not what he said. He said they are insecure, which you have to be to hate anyone for anything that doesn't have a direct effect on people. He clearly said only some are actually gay, and last time I checked some doesn't mean all.
I suggest you polish your reading comprehension skills before attempting to engage others in discussions. You'll save yourself first and foremost but others too the bane of reiteration and superfluous explication.
He specifically said that anyone who feels antipathy to gays is insecure about his sexuality which is blatantly wrong. It is understood that sexual insecurity is related to a confused and repressed sexual identity that may be too ashamed to make the jump to the other side of the isle. This is the direction Maroxad steered the discussion to, and I obliged accordingly. But to humor you for a second, your statement that one has to be insecure to hate someone for something is just as asinine as his blanket, baseless statement.
You could have figured this much by yourself, which makes me wonder whether you genuinely misconstrued my post or whether that was a poor attempt at equivocation.
What makes it wrong? Being insecure about your sexuality doesn't necessarily mean you're gay when you want to be straight. All it means is that you're insecure. Like I said you'd have to be insecure to have a problem with homosexuality.
Instead of just saying "lalalala you're wrong lalalala!!!" why don't you actually put some thought in to your posts?
It's sad 2 people can't walk down the street while holding hands without gathering negative attention. It shouldn't matter if it's a man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman.
People just need to get over this gay hatred...even humpback whales are coming out!
Uhm, let's just say I expected something a little more.... Graphic... Am I weird?
They are right though, insecurity is a big part that causes homophobia (hence, why so many homophobes are suppressed homosexuals themselves). Another big problem are echo chambers. In echo chambers, dogma thrives and intellectualism dies.
@OmegaTau: what exactly is that supposed to make us think about?
If Natural selection is a true theory hetorosexuals have nothing to worry about it if they dislike homosexuals.
Homosexuality is a successful trait as long as they are passed around in smaller ammounts. Homosexuals will not rear children of their own, instead looking out for their nephews and nieces.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment