Self-homophobia

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

Self-homophobia? Is that like knowing you're gay and yet reviling yourself for it?

Now what do I have to say about that...

Ah. Gays aren't bad people, therefore you aren't a abd person, so hold your head up and respect yourself, you deserve it.

[InnerBrat]

What kinda jokes? and why don't you make them now?

[Stormbringer]

I've read the Catholic Bible, I'm an ex-Catholic myself. There is plenty of sexual respression and homophobia in there. Spin it how you will, it's there. The Church didn't make it all up on it's one.

There is, but it (as well as most of the text) is subject to interpretation.

It's one thing be open minded, quite another to let your brain fall out. It's undisputable that there is homophobia and hate crime there from in the Bible. Just because you have a soft spot for organized religion doesn't mean you should be blind to it's flaws.

[haas mark]

I've read the Catholic Bible, I'm an ex-Catholic myself. There is plenty of sexual respression and homophobia in there. Spin it how you will, it's there. The Church didn't make it all up on it's one.

There is, but it (as well as most of the text) is subject to interpretation.

It's one thing be open minded, quite another to let your brain fall out. It's undisputable that there is homophobia and hate crime there from in the Bible. Just because you have a soft spot for organized religion doesn't mean you should be blind to it's flaws.

You really are having a bad day aren't you? And I happen to be the scapegoat. Please don't try to get inmy head anymore. Second, it is NOT undisputable.

[haas mark]

What kinda jokes? and why don't you make them now?

anti-gay jokes, for more than obvious reasons.

[Stormbringer]

There is, but it (as well as most of the text) is subject to interpretation.

It's one thing be open minded, quite another to let your brain fall out. It's undisputable that there is homophobia and hate crime there from in the Bible. Just because you have a soft spot for organized religion doesn't mean you should be blind to it's flaws.

You really are having a bad day aren't you? And I happen to be the scapegoat. Please don't try to get inmy head anymore. Second, it is NOT undisputable.

*Shrug* I've had better. You're not the scapegoat.

Only if you're willing to twist it like a pretzel. It's in there are damn hard to explain away. I'd like to see how you would interpret them. Give us a few examples. Because the ones I saw are pretty much concrete.

And verilon, you've got a soft spot for religion. You defend it even when you're wrong and keep doing it.

[haas mark]

Look, I'm not even going to bother. You are treating me as a scapegoat whether you know it or not. And pull me up something that is concretely homophobic. The only references I've seen are the ones condemning pedophiles. And although I have a soft spot for religion (being spiritual and all), that is no reason to bring it into this. Also, the Bible's homophobia has nothing to do with personal homophobia, so really we should just drop it, unless you want to create a new thread.

[Stormbringer]

Look, I'm not even going to bother. You are treating me as a scapegoat whether you know it or not.

Bull shit. I'm not scapegoating you for anything.

And pull me up something that is concretely homophobic. The only references I've seen are the ones condemning pedophiles.

If I had a Bible with me. But you seem to be wiling to interpret quotes you say don't exist.

And although I have a soft spot for religion (being spiritual and all), that is no reason to bring it into this. Also, the Bible's homophobia has nothing to do with personal homophobia, so really we should just drop it, unless you want to create a new thread.

It is relevant. You don't want to look at religion with an objective eye. That makes you biased.

[haas mark]

Look, I'm not even going to bother. You are treating me as a scapegoat whether you know it or not.

Bull shit. I'm not scapegoating you for anything.

There you go. And I apologize for getting pissed off at you, though you deserved part of it.

And pull me up something that is concretely homophobic. The only references I've seen are the ones condemning pedophiles.

If I had a Bible with me. But you seem to be wiling to interpret quotes you say don't exist.

I'm not saying they don't exist. Just that I don't think they're there. I never said that they don't exist.

And although I have a soft spot for religion (being spiritual and all), that is no reason to bring it into this. Also, the Bible's homophobia has nothing to do with personal homophobia, so really we should just drop it, unless you want to create a new thread.

It is relevant. You don't want to look at religion with an objective eye. That makes you biased.

It is not relevant to the original topic.

[Stormbringer]

Look, I'm not even going to bother. You are treating me as a scapegoat whether you know it or not.

Bull shit. I'm not scapegoating you for anything.

There you go. And I apologize for getting pissed off at you, though you deserved part of it.

Apology accepted. I've pushe it a little too far.

And pull me up something that is concretely homophobic. The only references I've seen are the ones condemning pedophiles.

If I had a Bible with me. But you seem to be wiling to interpret quotes you say don't exist.

I'm not saying they don't exist. Just that I don't think they're there. I never said that they don't exist.

They are there. I don't have a bible to dig them out and I don't remember the locations info. But trust me, they're there and impossible to explain away.

And although I have a soft spot for religion (being spiritual and all), that is no reason to bring it into this. Also, the Bible's homophobia has nothing to do with personal homophobia, so really we should just drop it, unless you want to create a new thread.

It is relevant. You don't want to look at religion with an objective eye. That makes you biased.

It is not relevant to the original topic.

Your tactics are. You want the Bible to be homophobia free but it's not. So you want to explain it away.

[haas mark]

Your tactics are. You want the Bible to be homophobia free but it's not. So you want to explain it away.

Maybe so. But again, this has nothing to do with self-homophobia.

[InnerBrat]

If you want a bunch of references to the bible and homosexuality, try here.

I do know some gay Christians, though, so maybe it is an interpretation thing - or a fundy thing, as not all Christians believe that every word of the bible is to be taken literally.

Jesus himself doesn't appear to have said anything about it personally, anyway.

[Darth Wong]

The only "interpretation" that gets the Bible off the hook is to say that the whole OT is shit. If you don't want to visit the link, see Leviticus 20:13:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Sounds pretty clear to me, Verilon.

PS. This is definitely relevant in the sense that gays who have been brought up to this of this as "the Good Book" are inclined to feel more self-loathing as a result of these passages.

PPS. Look up "scapegoat", Verilon. It describes someone who is being blamed for someone else's crimes. No one is blaming you personally for the crimes of the Bible, so you're not a scapegoat. I'm not sure what word you were trying to use, but whatever it was, "scapegoat" isn't it.

[haas mark]

The only "interpretation" that gets the Bible off the hook is to say that the whole OT is shit. If you don't want to visit the link, see Leviticus 20:13:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Sounds pretty clear to me, Verilon.

Makes sense, but that is open to what it means by lying with a woman as opposed to lying with a man.

PS. This is definitely relevant in the sense that gays who have been brought up to this of this as "the Good Book" are inclined to feel more self-loathing as a result of these passages.

True, but what my feelings are on the subject of religion in general is irrelevant.

PPS. Look up "scapegoat", Verilon. It describes someone who is being blamed for someone else's crimes. No one is blaming you personally for the crimes of the Bible, so you're not a scapegoat. I'm not sure what word you were trying to use, but whatever it was, "scapegoat" isn't it.

So I couldn't think of the word that's on the tip of my tongue! (I STILL can't!)

[InnerBrat]

punching bag?

[Coyote]

Well, face it, in our society most kids grow up witht the people around them telling them that homosexuality is bad or wrong, or at least wierd. So when they start growing and developing these feelings, they get a psychosis going. They react to it by over-compensating.

Hence I wonder about Rev. Phelps and his high-school locker room days.

But Verilon, you can't deny that in today's media world, any question about homosexuality and religion is going to open up the gay priest thing. Just like any discussion about sex in the military will sooner or later focus on the naughty Drill Sergeants. It'll be part of the discourse at some point no matter how much we like it or not.

Another thing is that the words of homosexuality are used as insults even if there is no homosexuality involved. When I was in Junior High some of the boys called me a "faggot" because I didn't like sports. It bugged me but I got over it 'cause I didn't have the underlying questions about sexuality to drive me into a paranoid fit-- but what about another kid, a teen just beginning to comprehend his sexuality, who hears these boys using his feelings as a way to insult another boy? He'll be pushed out of his own culture; he'll feel as though no one can understand him and he's 'dirty' or outside... so he 'rebels' against himself and others of his kind.

Twisted and evil.

[beyond hope]

I've heard some pretty homophobic arguments out of die-hard atheists: "homosexuality is biologically wrong, because nature's plan is for men and women to have sex to breed" or some such variation. They'll proceed to obsess about how nasty anal sex is (as if homosexuals are the only ones who ever have anal sex) and usually post all kinds of slurs about gay men. Curiously to me, the same men would give their right arm to see lesbians in action. The Biblical attitude is pretty clear, too: "put them to death." I'd say that the majority of Christians don't hit that extreme, though, any more than all Christians automatically want to burn witches at the stake. The extremists give the rest a bad reputation.

I think the self-homophobia thing is pretty accurate: as I said, the people who are most against homosexuals are the ones who seem to obsess over homosexual sex the most. I think that they have tendencies in that direction that they simply can't deal with, and they hate homosexuals as a result. If anyone knows of some unbiased research that's been done on it, it would be interesting to see. I've heard of studies that claim to prove this is so but I don't know how unbiased they were.

[InnerBrat]

They'll proceed to obsess about how nasty anal sex is (as if homosexuals are the only ones who ever have anal sex) and usually post all kinds of slurs about gay men. Curiously to me, the same men would give their right arm to see lesbians in action.

Yeah, well, men are wierd. All of you.

The 'biologically wrong' argument is bullshit anyway - both male-male sex and same-sex partnerships are rife within the animal world. Only difference is, atheists cannot support their bigotry using a morality invented millenia ago.

[beyond hope]

Exactly... idiots abound within any social group. I just feel that focusing on the Religious Reich lets the rest of the knuckle-dragging homophobes off the hook.

[AdmiralKanos]

Exactly... idiots abound within any social group. I just feel that focusing on the Religious Reich lets the rest of the knuckle-dragging homophobes off the hook.

It doesn't, but a religious homophobe is more obstinate than a non-religious homophobe. A non-religious homophobe's prejudice is subject to debate; he does not have this infuriating "it is written in Scripture, and God knows all" broken-record catch-all "rebuttal" to every point you make.

[beyond hope]

I've never understood it, whatever the motivation: it's hard for me to imagine being so insecure in one's sexuality that the mere existence of homosexuals is a threat.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think it's necessarily insecurity about their own sexuality. The notion of tens of millions of secretly gay men who are repulsed at their own homosexuality and hide it by being excessively "butch" is something of a fiction IMO. While I'm sure it's happened, people make it seem as if this is the only thing that can make a man act like that.

The fact is that people have an instinctive need for community and companionship. One way to fill that need is to attach oneself to a community by attacking its enemies. There is a perception in many countries that the community of strong, virile, morally upstanding men is in direct opposition to homosexuality. Therefore, a lot of men and boys try to ingratiate themselves to their peer group by attacking homosexuals.

It's not about fighting their own sexual insecurity; it's about constructing a sense of shared grievances and community. That's where white supremacism comes from too; you could tell from the way those little WCOTC shits acted that they really did want the approval of other whites. They alternated between public bluster and cloying PM's, all the while trying to recruit people to their cause.

Their mommies probably didn't love them.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I saw a program on PBS about Gay-Bashers. They talked to this one who killed 2 or 3 gays, and beat up a dozen more. He'd go out with some guys to a gay bar, pick up a gay man, lure him to a paticular area and then beat him up. They would then, 'go to his house, drink a few beers and have sex.'

After saying that he paused for a second or two and said, 'Just cause I have sex with guys doesn't make me a fag.'

Self Homophobia in action. And this isn't an isolated inicident, I read a study where the more homophobic a person his, the more physical evidence of arousal there is when they look at gay porn.

[Darth Wong]

I saw a program on PBS about Gay-Bashers. They talked to this one who killed 2 or 3 gays, and beat up a dozen more. He'd go out with some guys to a gay bar, pick up a gay man, lure him to a paticular area and then beat him up. They would then, 'go to his house, drink a few beers and have sex.'

After saying that he paused for a second or two and said, 'Just cause I have sex with guys doesn't make me a fag.'

ROTFLMAO!! But seriously, I would repeat the earlier point: should we seriously believe that the majority of homophobes, who constitute a huge chunk of the general population, share this particular bizarro mentality?

Self Homophobia in action. And this isn't an isolated inicident, I read a study where the more homophobic a person his, the more physical evidence of arousal there is when they look at gay porn.

How would they conduct this study in a controlled fashion? Would a representative male control group agree to watch gay porn while being monitored for sexual stimulation? How many men do you know who would agree to have their bio-indicators monitored while watching gay porn?

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I saw a program on PBS about Gay-Bashers. They talked to this one who killed 2 or 3 gays, and beat up a dozen more. He'd go out with some guys to a gay bar, pick up a gay man, lure him to a paticular area and then beat him up. They would then, 'go to his house, drink a few beers and have sex.'

After saying that he paused for a second or two and said, 'Just cause I have sex with guys doesn't make me a fag.'

ROTFLMAO!! But seriously, I would repeat the earlier point: should we seriously believe that the majority of homophobes, who constitute a huge chunk of the general population, share this particular bizarro mentality?

I think there's two major classes of Homophobes.

1.) Religious Nutacses: Pretty self explanatory.
2.) Men who have had homo-erotic thoughts and are terrified of them. They're probably not gay, but they are so scared of being gay they attack gays. Sort of like some serial killers who target woman. A lot were raised to believe sex was evil, so when they get arroused by looking at a woman they think they're sinning. They can either admit to themselves they are weak, or they can attack the woman for seducing them. Of course, if you are raised with a healthy attitude about sex, this isn't a problem.

Also, a minority would target gays just cause they think they can get away with it. No one cares if someone beats up a few gays. No one cares, no one investigates. No investigation, no punishment.

Self Homophobia in action. And this isn't an isolated inicident, I read a study where the more homophobic a person his, the more physical evidence of arousal there is when they look at gay porn.

How would they conduct this study in a controlled fashion? Would a representative male control group agree to watch gay porn while being monitored for sexual stimulation? How many men do you know who would agree to have their bio-indicators monitored while watching gay porn?

If you pay them enough, guys will do just about anything.

Actually, they were told they'd be looking at pornographic images and the effects were monitored. So it was mostly pictures of naked woman. So the guys are thinking, 'I get to look ar porn and I get paid for it! Whoo hoo!'

But when the occasional gay-porn picture appeared there was a spike in arousal in homophobes, compared to non-homophobes.