Study: Homophobes Might Be Hidden Homosexuals

[genuineoriginal]

This is the key point. If I had innate attractions to both men and women I'd no longer identify as heterosexual even if I chose to only act on those impulses with the opposite sex. It's not simply a sexual act itself that defines orientation.

125 years ago, the concept of a sexual orientation did not exist.

Now there are so many different sexual "orientations" that the concept is becoming meaningless.

_____
Sexual Orientations

Androgynosexual
Androsexual
Asexual
Autosexual
Bisexual
Demisexual
Gray-A
Gynosexual
Heterosexual
Heteroflexible
Homosexual
Homoflexible
Objectumsexual
Pansexual/Omnisexual
Polysexual
Queer
Skoliosexual
_____​

 

[Arthur Brain]

125 years ago, the concept of a sexual orientation did not exist.

Now there are so many different sexual "orientations" that the concept is becoming meaningless.

_____
Sexual Orientations

Androgynosexual
Androsexual
Asexual
Autosexual
Bisexual
Demisexual
Gray-A
Gynosexual
Heterosexual
Heteroflexible
Homosexual
Homoflexible
Objectumsexual
Pansexual/Omnisexual
Polysexual
Queer
Skoliosexual
_____​

Eh, homo and hetero 'flexible' is effectively just bisexuality. Otherwise I'll just continue to identify as straight as it fits.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yes, I actually tend to agree because the idea of me having homosexual sex is something I find instinctively and innately repulsive, I can't help it, it's innate homophobia perhaps.
However homophobia is a term that I think should be reserved for people who react instinctively without any empathy or rational and reasoned thinking against homosexuals.
So yes I am probably innately homophobic, but no I am not homophobic in practice because I can empathise, reason and think.

Can we agree then that such feelings are innate but what we then call people who do or don't act on them is perhaps a moot point?

We can agree that feeling repulsed by the thought of homosexual sex is a natural response, most likely driven by the biological imperatives that govern human reproduction, and therefore can be considered innate.

I also believe I am not homophobic because I can empathize, reason, and think, and my objections to homosexual sex does not come from irrational feelings.

The proper term for my rational objections to homosexual sex is, as Delmar pointed out earlier, homonegativity.

There is even a scale developed to measure homonegativity

 

[Arthur Brain]

We can agree that feeling repulsed by the thought of homosexual sex is a natural response, most likely driven by the biological imperatives that govern human reproduction, and therefore can be considered innate.

I also believe I am not homophobic because I can empathize, reason, and think, and my objections to homosexual sex does not come from irrational feelings.

The proper term for my rational objections to homosexual sex is, as Delmar pointed out earlier, homonegativity.

There is even a scale developed to measure homonegativity

But yet you still think you can choose to become sexually attracted to men?

 

[alwight]

We can agree that feeling repulsed by the thought of homosexual sex is a natural response, most likely driven by the biological imperatives that govern human reproduction, and therefore can be considered innate.

I also believe I am not homophobic because I can empathize, reason, and think, and my objections to homosexual sex does not come from irrational feelings.

The proper term for my rational objections to homosexual sex is, as Delmar pointed out earlier, homonegativity.

There is even a scale developed to measure homonegativity

This really boils down to tolerance I think.
Homophobic feelings may indeed be innate but bigotry is a different matter, it's homophobic bigotry that is for me the fundamental issue here which needs to be opposed.

 

[genuineoriginal]

it's homophobic bigotry that is for me the fundamental issue here which needs to be opposed.

Why?

Throughout the history of mankind there has been a prejudice against people that commit homosexual acts, with good reason.

The societies that condemned promiscuous sexuality (homosexuality being one example) tended to survive while the societies that promoted promiscuous sexuality tended to self destruct.

 

[genuineoriginal]

But yet you still think you can choose to become sexually attracted to men?

Many people have made just that same choice, no matter how much you deny it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Many people have made just that same choice, no matter how much you deny it.

Well, no, they'll have had a latent attraction to their own gender which isn't the same thing.

 

[zoo22]

We can agree that feeling repulsed by the thought of homosexual sex is a natural response, most likely driven by the biological imperatives that govern human reproduction, and therefore can be considered innate.

I also believe I am not homophobic because I can empathize, reason, and think, and my objections to homosexual sex does not come from irrational feelings.

The proper term for my rational objections to homosexual sex is, as Delmar pointed out earlier, homonegativity.

There is even a scale developed to measure homonegativity

Sure I agree that homophobia and homonegativity are closely knit. Homophobia is like a homonegativity run amuck.

This is more about the studies showing that some homophobes might be closeted homosexuals. Seems like there's a a lot of support for that idea, though it's not a simple "homophobes are gay!" sort of thing. But maybe some of the folks with an obviously deep-rooted obsession with and outward hatred for homosexuals have something more going on, like maybe they're homosexual themselves.

Also as I'm sure you're aware, "rational" doesn't mean "right." Someone can have a rational understanding or belief that's completely wrong. For example, given that a religious person believes a particular reading of the Bible or an Indian legend or the Koran, it might be rational that they believe such-and-such... That doesn't mean they're right. It's just the input they're working from, which might be misguiding. Someone who was taught the confederacy won the civil war might have a perfectly rational understanding of rhe United States that's completely wrong.

 

[alwight]

Why?

Throughout the history of mankind there has been a prejudice against people that commit homosexual acts, with good reason.

What good reason?
But it's not true, in ancient Greek society homosexual sex was completely acceptable. This was copied later by the Romans.

The societies that condemned promiscuous sexuality (homosexuality being one example) tended to survive while the societies that promoted promiscuous sexuality tended to self destruct.

All societies will naturally tend to come and go, but I don't think you can call the Greek and Roman ones a failure.

 

[genuineoriginal]

This is more about the studies showing that some homophobes might be closeted homosexuals. Seems like there's a a lot of support for that idea, though it's not a simple "homophobes are gay!" sort of thing. But maybe some of the folks with an obviously deep-rooted obsession with and outward hatred for homosexuals have something more going on, like maybe they're homosexual themselves.

Many people are dealing with moral objections to promiscuous sexuality (including homosexuality) coupled with strong feelings of entitlement and envy.

So called homophobes may not have homosexual desires per se, but will often have incestual, bestial, or other fetish desires, and are strongly objecting to open homosexual behavior as a way of trying to control their own immoral desires.

The objections to the legalization and "normalization" of homosexuality merely follows other objections to sexually promiscuous behavior (adultery, fornication, bondage, domination).

As more and more of these sexually promiscuous behaviors become accepted by society, the objection to the next one in line becomes stronger.

The next four (in no particular order) sexually promiscuous behaviors that will come up for legalization are polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, and incest.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I don't think you can call the Greek and Roman ones a failure.

Actually, I do.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Many people are dealing with moral objections to promiscuous sexuality (including homosexuality) coupled with strong feelings of entitlement and envy.

So called homophobes may not have homosexual desires per se, but will often have incestual, bestial, or other fetish desires, and are strongly objecting to open homosexual behavior as a way of trying to control their own immoral desires.

The objections to the legalization and "normalization" of homosexuality merely follows other objections to sexually promiscuous behavior (adultery, fornication, bondage, domination).

As more and more of these sexually promiscuous behaviors become accepted by society, the objection to the next one in line becomes stronger.

The next four (in no particular order) sexually promiscuous behaviors that will come up for legalization are polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, and incest.

That's just yet another ridiculous slippery slope fallacy. I'm only surprised you didn't add rape to the list.

Think man.

 

[genuineoriginal]

That's just yet another ridiculous slippery slope fallacy.

It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy
German thought leaders move to legalize incest
I won't provide links for the other two, but there are similar movements for those as well.

I'm only surprised you didn't add rape to the list.

That is only because you are a moron.

 

[Crucible]

That's just yet another ridiculous slippery slope fallacy. I'm only surprised you didn't add rape to the list.

Think man.

It used to be illegal for an unmarried couple to live together. Now it's legal for two men or two women to get married.

This elapsed over a relatively short time. All bestiality needs, or polygamy, is a few decades of ridiculous bandwagon, liberal thought shaping shenanigans and they'll be legal too.

You see, thirty years ago people would laugh at gay marriage the same as you laugh at these other ills at the present moment.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It used to be illegal for an unmarried couple to live together. Now it's legal for two men or two women to get married.

This elapsed over a relatively short time. All bestiality needs, or polygamy, is a few decades of ridiculous bandwagon, liberal thought shaping shenanigans and they'll be legal too.

You see, thirty years ago people would laugh at gay marriage the same as you laugh at these other ills at the present moment.

Yeh, it used to be legal to segregate black people, to shove kids up chimneys and deny women the vote as well. Do you think that's funny? I don't.

Nor does civilized society where it comes to basic human rights, including those of consenting adults. The slippery slope fallacy whereby this would somehow open the floodgates to paedophilia, rape, bestiality etc is ridiculous and I suspect that you actually know that but will beat on the same stupid drum regardless.

 

[alwight]

Actually, I do.

Which societies do you think were/are successes?

 

[ok doser]

... consenting adults. ...

what is it with you retards and your reliance on "consenting adults"?

adults consent to do all sorts of vile things that should be controlled in a moral society

 

[Arthur Brain]

It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy
German thought leaders move to legalize incest
I won't provide links for the other two, but there are similar movements for those as well.

That is only because you are a moron.

Er, if you're going to 'argue' that child molesting is somehow going to be tolerated in society then it isn't moronic to point out that rape might as well be too considering the violation aspect. I think you know fine well that neither would ever be tolerated or accepted and that laws in relation to protecting children from abuse have exponentially increased over time, including after when homosexuality was no longer regarded as a crime. You just don't seem able to critically think on this whatsoever.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Er, if you're going to 'argue' that child molesting is somehow going to be tolerated in society

I am not arguing it, just mentioning it.
It appears to be worldwide phenomena, and I found a relatively safe link on the matter.
List of pedophile and pederast advocacy organizations From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it isn't moronic to point out that rape might as well be too considering the violation aspect.

I can't find any groups that are working to legalize rape.
Your "slippery slope" argument hasn't hit the radar of any of the groups wanting to legalize the next batch of sexual perversions.

You just don't seem able to critically think on this whatsoever.

Considering the list I made is quite smaller than the list of 12 perversions the American DOJ supposedly wants to legalize, and is well documented and can be found with a simple google search, your claims that I am unable to exercise critical thinking is unfounded.

Considering that your "slippery slope" argument is undocumented and returns almost no relevant hits on google, it appears that your ability to exercise critical thinking is compromised.