A Non-PC Discussion on Homophobia

My girlfriend thinks that I am homophobic. I don’t think that I am but today I am going to confront the possibility that I might be. This discussion is happening because of yesterday’s post about the movie, Brokeback Mountain. In that post I noted that I am not interested in seeing gay men in leading roles for certain character types. Now, she said that by replacing gay with black, I would notice that I am no different from a racist. I reject this, but to do so, I wanted to consider the fact that she might be correct.

To give this topic justice, I have to acknowledge a few things. First, the black community is notorious for being homophobic. I’ve seen this in the black church and in other social settings. It was certainly evident while I was in the military. Second, I support a lot of gay right issues because I am a firm believer in Civil Rights. However, that does not negate the fact that I could be homophobic. It is possible to have ones Civil Rights philosophy not align with ones personal philosophy. As is the case of many northern whites who fought for Civil Rights for blacks but moved out of the neighborhood when a black family moved next door.

But is it fair to equate my post with that of a racist? Well, lets first define a racist.

Racist: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion [syn: antiblack, anti-Semitic, anti-Semite(a)] n : a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others.
This is a narrow definition of a racist. I would add a practice of oppression or denying human rights based on race. Prejudiced is mentioned, so we could expand the question to ask, am I prejudice against homosexuals. Lets look at the definition of prejudice.


1a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
1b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

This is an expansive definition and I think it is relevant to the discussion. Could it then be said that if a person exhibit any of these beliefs towards homosexuals, then that person is homophobic. I would say yes but lets check the definition of a homophobic before I make that conclusion.


1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.
3. adj. prejudiced against homosexual people

It seems to me that all three definitions are connected in some sense. So, now I have to contrast my beliefs and what I wrote against the definitions.

Rather than rewrite my beliefs regarding Civil Rights for homosexuals, I’ll let you read them
here. However, I can state that I am for the recognition of Gay Marriage and all that that stipulates. I don’t believe in creating any laws that would diminish the rights of gay people. But those are my political beliefs and as I stated before, political beliefs may not always coincide with social acceptance.

One aspect of the racist definition is the superiority belief. Do I believe heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals? No. I am of the belief that homosexuals are no different from anyone else. I don’t believe they can control their attraction to the same sex as I do not control my attraction to women. Would I endorse a homosexual lifestyle? Probably not, but then, who am I to endorse any lifestyle? Every man has a right to live as he pleases so long as he doesn’t harm or restrict the rights of another.

Could my comment yesterday that gays should not play certain characters be construed as saying straight men are superior becasue they are better suited to play what we perceive as masculine roles? I might come across that way if you wanted to read that into it. But lets step back from it for a moment and look at it like this.

Football is a form of entertainment. I love football and it is a brutal, violent and very physical game. Are there any gay players in the NFL? I would venture to so that more than likely there are. But because of the nature of the sport, those players keep it to themselves. Would I care if they came out? No. If they can play the game, I’m not caring about their sexuality.

Musicians. Do I really care about the sexual orientation of a musician? No. It was readily known that Luther Vandross was gay. He never came out and said anything, but we knew. Did it have any impact on his career? It didn’t. Had he acknowledged the fact that he was gay, would it have had an impact on his career? I can’t say for sure but for me it would not have made a difference.

With that said, is it then wrong for me to typecast the type of characters I like to see when I go to the movies? Would I react differently to a romantic comedy depicting a gay couple than I would a gangster movie depicting a gay man? That depends on the focal point. If the gangster is shooting and killing people the way I expect a gangster to do and he just “happens” to be gay. Then I may not think much of it. But if the focal point is about being gay and showing mobsters can be gay too, then it is not going to interest me. Does that make me homophobic?

In the definition of homophobic, fear and contempt are mentioned. I have neither toward gay people. What is there to fear? That the gayness will somehow rub off on me? If there is anyone that I have contempt for is rappers promoting a gangster lifestyle. Does that make me gangsterphobic? It probably does but it is a destructive lifestyle so I have every right to have contempt towards them. Now, I’m sure there is section of the population that thinks that homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle, but those are based on religious beliefs and I’m not going to discuss the religious aspects of this.

I think we are in an era where if we do not acknowledge, embrace and endorse the homosexual lifestyle, we are then labeled homophobic. But if in every part of my life I endorse the political, artistic and personal freedoms of homosexuals but choose not to engage the lifestyle by not seeing certain films or going to certain clubs, how is that homophobic?

The same thing that is happening with accusations of racism is happening with accusations of homophobia. The brush stroke is too broad and it takes away from legitimate concerns that gay people have when it comes to their Civil Rights.

Again, I have to acknowledge that homophobia is a major issue in the black community. I think there is a need to discuss the acceptance of gay men and women in our community, if not for righteous sake then for health sake. HIV/AIDS is a very serious issue in the black community. There are plenty of theories floating around as to the cause of AIDS cases. The Downlow phenomenon and drugs seem to be the main contributing factors. I am not sure of the numbers but I’m sure Cynthia’s Interest has some statistics on it. So, I admit that there is a need for frank and open discussion on this issue. So lets have it.

What are your feelings about homosexuality? No political correctness allowed. State your true feelings and why. What needs to take place in the black community to combat the downlow brothers? Is there even a real problem with brothers on the downlow?

OK. The floor is open.


45 Responses to A Non-PC Discussion on Homophobia

  1. Cynthia Says:
    Wow James! You have so many issues going on here. Since I don't have much time, I will be brief at this point. I totally disagree with what your girlfriend said. I'm always taken aback when people equate gayness with blackness. To me, racism is the ability to inflict your will and beliefs on others. All of us have prejudices. Some people only like dark skinned people, while others only like light skinned people, etc., etc.

    As for HIV/AIDS, downlow brothers, and African Americans with HIV/AIDS, there is no way that we can have a HIV/AIDS problem without the white community having the same problems. Since when have viruses become so selective that they will only plague one group and not the other, especially since blacks and white have always been intimate with one another.

    I wrote about blacks and homosexuals extensively. If anyone is interested take a look at the following links. I must warn you, most people don’t like what I have to say on this issue.

    Part I

    Just a little background to understand what I’m saying in Part I

    Part II (an increase in hormones is driving the rise of homosexuality in the black community)


    I could go on, but I will not write a book in your comment section.
  2. Eddie Says:
    I think there is a clear difference between being homophobic and being racist. It can be argued that homosexuals choose to be homosexual, where one doesn't choose their race. I will probably get scorned for not having a PC belief on this.

    However, as a Christian (though I will be first to admit I am not a very good one), that it is possible to love people, treat them well, and not ridicule them or discriminate against them because of their lifestyle. That is my belief, and I am sticking with it.

    I do not believe in gay marriage, either. However, as one comedian in Texas put it, "I believe in Gay marriage. I think homosexuals should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us."
  3. James Manning Says:
    Thanks Cynthia, I figured you had some information on this.

    Ed, I didn't want to bring the religious aspect into it, but I really don't think we can avoid it because it is the basis of what a lot of people believe. However, I am curious that you say you don't believe in discriminating but you are against same sex marriage.

    I look at it like this. Marriage is a religious institution and every religion has the right to define it as they please. However, the government recognizes marriage as a legal institution and therefore is not allowed to discriminate on that basis. It is the separation of church and state that makes same-sex marriage legal. IMHO.
  4. Dell Gines Says:
    Homosexuality...the easy way to get out of having to logically discuss something in a PC environment is to create a term (racist/homophobe) that you can easily label someone with if they disagree with your position.

    For example, homophobe is labeled on anyone who disagrees with homosexuality and considers it immoral behavior, that gays should not be allowed to be married, and that they shouldn't be a 'protected' class in the same manner as blacks etc.

    What it does is allows you to lump the worst of the worst, like the fellows who killed Matthew Shepard, and those who have legitimate and rational arguments as to why they believe so. But the distinction in the mind of the public isn't clear, because they are the HOMOPHOBE!

    Feel me?

    So here is my deal...

    Homosexuality is immoral, the same way fornication and adultery is immoral. I acknowledge the people engage in that behavior, and hell I have engaged in fornication in my life, so it is important to be clear that homosexuality be provided with the same measure of grace that we confer on the adulterer and the fornicator.

    But that doesn't mean that we legitimize and support such behavior through the rule of law. And that is the big difference to me. We tolerate adultery etc. as an act between two consenting adults, but adultery has a penalty in the court of law if brought up in divorce cases, meaning that we acknowledge it is a negative sexual practice.

    So in America do I acknowledge that a person can not be stopped from being in a relationship with someone else of the same sex of course. Am I for the legitimizing it through the institution of marriage, and comparing it to civil rights for blacks and others...hell no.

    Does that make me a homophobe, to some maybe. Do I care, nope.
  5. James Manning Says:
    Understood, Dell. Thank you for your input. I am interested in seeing others chime in on this.
  6. Rell Says:
    I think I'm with Eddie on this one -- homosexuality and blackness are sooooo different it's not even close.

    It's not fair for people to equate the two in my opinion.
  7. Malik Says:
    Ah, the hot button topic of the decade. "Do gay rights equal civil rights?". I should put a FAQ about this topic on my blog. Traffic and participation would probably go through the roof. Everyone would ignore actual racial issues in favor of debating sexual morality. And that's perhaps the biggest problem with equating civil rights with gay rights. I wrote an essay about it that tackles the issue from an academic angle, because I don't think anyone is really stopping to ponder the logical implications of the "homophobic" label, or its intellectual underpinnings. People on both sides of the debate are arguing from a purely emotional point of view, and the underlying issues are being obscured. People may disagree with the conclusions that I reached in the paper, but I defy anyone to answer its logic, which is presented without appeal to doctrinal authority. Bigotry Essay

    The justification for legal endorsement of homosexual conduct boils boils down to the assertion that there is no such thing as objective morality, a morality which is independent of prejudice and point-of-view. And that's the real danger of embracing the gay marriage as a right argument. In granting this so-called right, we're rejecting our collective right to have a clearly-defined and rational moral framework on which to base the organization of society. I can't understand how any rational person, much less a person of faith, can endorse that.
  8. Eddie Says:

    My belief is simple. I believe that homosexuality is sexually deviant behavior and not an orientation. As such, I do not believe that we should legally recognize sexually deviant behaviors and give them special legal treatment. I don't know how else to explain it.
  9. Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden Says:
    11 08 05

    Malik and Dell are talking the same old bullshit as usual. Yes James, I will use profane language to illustrate my point, and you said you didn't want any PC talk here. First of all EXCELLENT POST! I don't think you are homophobic by the definition. I think your post yesterday was rooted in the reality of living in American society and what many others view as marketable. I think you were just being honest with your emotions and appreciate that.

    I have heard the no moral absolutes if homosexual marriage is sanctioned. Ironically these people NEVER EVER have anything useful to say except to quote scripture. Yes, assert that it is immoral and so forth. But they are using religion to justify something that is broader than the practitioners of the relgion. This makes no sense because not everyone subscribes to their belief system.And the state can not enforce the views of one particular religion. REally the state has no compelling interest to bar what CONSENTING adults do in their own home and in their own time. AT this lies the essence of living in a capitalist world; INDIVIDUAL CHOICE! So long as the consensual homosexual behavior does not harm or infringe upon the rights of anyone else, let it be. I don't have an issue with it.

    Now do I think it is strange? Yes, it is a weird concept and I have friends and relatives who have been in same sex relationships for years. It is strange yet they have bonded and love one another. I have endessly mentioned how my niece is being raised by my lesbian sister in law and her lover of fifteen years or so.

    I have a real issue when people compare Blacks to homosexuals only because the struggle is different and one revolves around lifestyle CHOICE and the other revolves around a state of being. While some gays are born that way, they make a CHOICE to live "out" or not. The Black person can never change his skin.

    Nevertheless, look at what is in the interests of the state. If granting gays marital privilages and taxing them will bring more revenue into the economy go ahead an be my guest!

    Sorry for ranting.
  10. kerri Says:
    I understand where Eddie is coming from as I have family members who believe this way. I have several homosexual friends and all of them are in relationships and I support them in that. I may not necessarily believe they way that they do, but that is not going to stop me from being friends with someone on that premise.

    But, it's discrimination anyway you look at it. If the government is not going to accept Homosexual couples in the eyes of the law, how many years does this set us back? So many people fought so hard for people to be free and equal. While can be viewed differently by many, telling someone that they cannot spend their life married to someone of the same sex that they love is complete discrimination.

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that is what makes America great. Another great topic for debate is if it is a choice or biological.
  11. Malik Says:
    Wow Mahndisa, I'm surprised. I don't know why you lumped me in with Christian conservatives, since I'm neither Christian, nor do I subscribe to a conservative political philosophy as such. You accuse me of making appeals to doctrinal authority when I explicitly stated that I make my arguments WITHOUT appeal to doctrinal authority. Even if I did appeal to doctrinal authority, you would never catch me quoting scripture without placing it in a logical context. I don't play that game. I know why I believe what I believe, and I'm more than ready to defend it. I think you've already read the essay, and you even commented on it favorably. I don't know why you're responding so vituperatively to it now.
  12. downtownlad Says:
    I'll comment more later, but when did these straight people like Eddie "choose" to become heterosexual. Was it a tough decision? Did you attend marketing workgroups by both sides before making your choice?

    Do you really think you could "choose" to become gay tomorrow? That would involve not only having sex with someone of the same sex, but actually enjoying it. And it would also mean NOT enjoying having sex with someone of the opposite sex.

    Have you ever actually talked to a gay person who "chose" to become gay? Why would anyone ever make that choice? Do people enjoy being discriminated against and looked down upon? Have you ever actually talked to a gay person and asked them how difficult it was to come out of the closet? Yes - it's so much easier for straight people to just ask gay people to lie, and pretend to be straight. Do you think that's easy? Try going one week without mentioning your spouse or your girlfriend/boyfriend. Now imagine how difficult it must be for a gay person to be silent about his personal life FOREVER.

    Do you have any scientific evidence whatsoever that being gay is a choice? Oh that's right. You don't believe in science.

    And as for everyone quoting the Bible, I'll leave you with some quotes from the Bible on slavery. When we start making laws based on what the Bible says, bad things can happen.

    Exodus 20:20-21

    And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
    Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

    Leviticus 25:44-45

    Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

    Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
  13. Eddie Says:
    For the record, Downtown lad has "attacked" me before on other blogs. However, I thought this was a non PC discussion, no?
  14. Eddie Says:

    Do you have any evidence that it isn't?
  15. James Manning Says:
    Well, this is the type of discussion that I was looking for. First, I think there is a big difference between gay and being black.


    Now, are we actually granting special rights or extending the same rights that are afforded other Americans. When I think of special rights, I think of rights that are extended to one segment of the population and not the other.

    I have not read your essay but I do intend to read it. However, I don't think I am arguing the morality of homosexuality. Based on moral principles, I think homosexuality is wrong and like Dell, I lump it in with fornication and adultery. However, we do not restrict the rights of fornicators or adulterers.

    If we were to say that ALL sexual behavior condemned by whatever body that governs your morality were illegal and by practicing such behavior one has forfeited certain rights, then we would not need to argue this. But to say that that moral absolute stops at homosexual behavior, it seems discriminatory.
  16. James Manning Says:
    ED, it is. Say what you please. I'm not deleting anything and I'm not censoring anyone. You can attack and be attacked at will. I think it will make for an honest debate.

    You've only stated your opinion. Folks will have to just handle it.
  17. Cynthia Says:

    In many instances, there is a biological component to it, but people either can't or unwilling to look at how some people are born with genetic defects and how others have acquired a hormonal imbalance along the way. Most people who believe in God have a hard time believing there is a biological/environmental component to it because this suggests that God has made and is capable of making a mistake. For the average religious person this is not an option. But, we do have people like Nicole Kidman and Jamie Lee Curtis who are born 45XY (chromosomal males, but they are phenotypic females). Still, there are others whose endocrine system is not in homeostasis, i.e. they don't have enough of the male or female hormones, or they have too much of the other. Anyway, to me this shows that homosexuality is not morally wrong otherwise, God would have eliminated the genetic or hormonal defects from the gene pool. This is not to say that some people are freaks, I don't care what your sexual orientation. Saying this, I don't think homosexuality per se is a moral issue and is against God.
  18. Malik Says:
    James, I'm not saying that homosexual conduct is any more or less immoral than fornication and adultery. I'm saying that the rational arguments advanced to justify legally sanctioned gay marriage reject the very concept of objective morality, not just sexual morality, but morality period. The basic idea is that morality of any kind is a subjective cultural construct and therefore is no rational basis for making moral distinctions of any sort. That's the basic idea of deconstructionism, which is the philosophy that is most often appealed to by gay marriage advocates. But you'll likely never be able to have a reasoned debate about that issue, because your detractors will likely have resorted to ad-hominems and caricatures long before you ever get to the issue of the intellectual underpinnings of the gay marriage movement. Frankly, I could care less what people do in their private lives, but I tend to sit up and take notice when there's a vociferous and growing movement that's attempting to forcibly obtain public endorsement of their private behavior via legislative and judicial fiat, and it's being done in the name of my ethnicity and heritage. That doesn't fly with me.
  19. kerrimcconnell Says:
    I should clarify. I DO NOT believe that one can choose to be hetero/homosexual. My friends and I have had some intersting discussions on the topic. A particular friends parents refused to except the fact that he was gay and tried to force him to hook up with a female. It didn't pan out too well. Needless to say, it took his parents a good year to come around but now they are close than they ever were before. I just like to see what other people's views on the subject are.
  20. Malik Says:
    Cynthia, it doesn't make sense to me that all biological flaws necessarily originate with the Creator. If a mother is exposed to Thorazine during her pregnancy and the child is born with deformities, does that mean God intended it? Nor do I think that we're intended to experience perfection on this earthly plane. Personally, I believe that the material world is a training ground where we're supposed to struggle against physical obstacles and moral disorder and thereby develop spiritually. We arrive in the world capable of advancing on the path to perfection, but there's only one perfect Being in the the universe. But that issue aside, I don't think that a sexual impulse is some sort of intrinsic sin. Choosing to act (or not to act) on your impulses is where the issue of morality arises.
  21. James Manning Says:

    I can understand your feeling when the gay rights movement compares itself to the black civil rights movement, I think we all agree that they are not the same.

    I think there are moral distinctions I just think that distinction is made from a different perspective.

    It comes down to; does granting legal protection in the form of civil unions or marriage destroy the moral fabric of American society?
  22. Malik Says:
    I think the destruction of the moral fabric of American society has been fairly well accomplished already. But I don't think that means that we should go ahead and finish the job by abandoning all efforts to discern between what is beneficial and what is harmful, and formally enshrine moral disorder in the law.

    As for the specific issue of civil unions and marriage, those are very different animals. Civil unions, if I'm not mistaken, can apply to any two adults. Two sisters can apply for treatment as a single legal entity through civil unions. And as far as I know, civil unions don't have implications for the existing body of family law.
  23. Cynthia Says:

    I don't think you understand what I was saying. I said there is a genetic and/or environmental component to it. This suggests that there are some external stimuli that is causing a desired outcome.

    The biological aspect of it is the part that those who are coming from a moral perspective have a hard time with, there are studies to show how environmental and/or biology play a role in determining sexual behavior that is independent of morality.
  24. Malik Says:
    I think I understand what you're saying. I agree that there is likely a biological component to homosexual behavior. What I am saying is that the existence of a biological impulse doesn't necessarily mean that it exists by design, nor does it mean that the expression of the impulse is morally legitimate. For example, I have an inborn instinct to sleep with every attractive and sexually mature member of the opposite sex that I encounter. That impulse is an entirely natural carryover from the days when humanity lived in the wilderness, and spreading your genetic material around was a matter of survival for the entire species. However, being that I've been endowed with reason and faith by my Creator, I recognize that acting on that impulse would actually be destructive to society, and harmful to my soul. Therefore, I choose to discipline my impulses, remain faithful to my vows, and maintain the stability of my family, for my own sake as much as their sake. In my view, there is no such thing as a human behavior to which moral reasoning does not apply, because fundamentally we are moral beings.
  25. Jaimie Says:

    Wow-look at what our discussion started. I changed my mind-you're not homophobic, especially after reading the definition. I do still feel like racism and being homophobic fall in line with one another, but for different reasons. There remains the issue of not liking someone/agreeing with lifestyle because...fill in the blank.

    Who cares what someone else does in their bed? Just live!
  26. Cynthia Says:

    I disagree with the whole premise behind morality and sexual orientation. I just don't think it is as simple as that. This is not the first time I've had this conversation, and those who believe in a God and/or morality always (100% of the time) disagree with my position. So, this conversation turned out exactly like I thought it would.
  27. Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden Says:
    11 08 05

    Whoa what an excellent discussion! Malik I was speaking generally when I spoke of those who used scripture to justify their beliefs. But you DID speak of moral absolutes and that always leads to acknowledgement of who, what, where and how these abosolutes are granted. When you get into morality and claiming absolutism, by what authority do you do so? When it comes to the gay issue that is what you are doing; you are appealing to a rubric of absolutism and tacitly implying that a source grants you the rights to claim moral absolutes. I always think a rational appeal strengthens arguments because one can argue on other grounds without injecting morals into it. For example a court ruled recently in NY that gay marriage was unlawful not due to moral objections, but to something called a rational basis test. This has to do with an appeal to tradition and normalcy in how marriage as an institution is defined. An appeal to tradition carries more weight than a discussion on moral absolutes IMO. And I am sorry for cussing; it just bothers me when people use so called morals to justify Blatant discrimination!
  28. Malik Says:
    Mahndisa, briefly, morality and rationality are the same thing in my mind. Assessing whether or not something is moral or not involves assessing its benefit or harm. If something is objectively harmful, then it is bad and immoral. If something is objectively beneficial, then it is good and moral. Now some people believe that it isn't even possible to objectively determine whether or not something is good or bad, but that's another matter. Anyway, my argument is based on my assessment of the harm of redefining marriage, and the benefit of maintaining marriage in its current form. The only authority I'm appealing to is truth, which is indeed absolute. I fail to see how that constitutes immoral discrimination, as opposed to moral discernment. I wish I had more time to discuss your points, because they're very interesting, but it will have to wait for another day. Take care.
  29. downtownlad Says:
    Eddie thinks that he can attack gay people at will, but gay people are forbidden from responding.

    Sorry Eddie - but if you don't want to be called an anti-gay bigot, then stop acting like when.

    Until then - I can give as good as good as the rest of them.

    Don't worry - I'd never share a meal or have a drink with a bigot like you, so you're safe to live in your gay-free hideaway.

    Still waiting to hear when Eddie "chose" his sexuality.

    I just find this whole discussion quite funny. All these people talking about "morals" as if they're taking the high ground. Why are they always so vocal about the one sin they are least likely to commit???????

    Think about it. When's the last time you heard them denouncing masturbation?

    I stand by original point though. Homophobia in the black community is resulting in the deaths of thousands of black, straight women from AIDS. That's very sad.
  30. downtownlad Says:
    By the way - there HAVE been gay football players. But they came out after they left the sport.

    Esera Tuaolo of the Minnesota Vikings.


    And how did a black NFL colleague respond? "Aww, hell no! I don’t want any faggots on my team. I know this might not be what people want to hear, but I don’t want any faggots in the locker room."

    Eddie won't find that homophobic. But most people will.

    Baseball players have been gay as well. Former Padres player Billy Bean is gay:


    As for singers there are many. Not just Luther Vandros. Michael Stipe of R.E.M., Bob Mould of Husker Du, Melissa Etheridge, Elton John, etc. Didn't hurt their careers.
  31. James Manning Says:
    I appreciate everyone's comments here. It is a very interesting discussion. I doubt we have solved the issue but at least there was a lively debate.
  32. bold as love Says:
    Peace on That,
    I believe homosexuality is not normal. Having at one time in my life worked in the medical field as a x-ray tech, I've seen tons of lower bowel x-rays- the ones of gay men stood out
    dramtically- the rectum is not made for that kind of activity and its clear to see it isn't when veiwing x-rays.Women should take note of this fact also- saw more than my share of x-rays of women with jacked-up looking rectums.

    My issue is not with people being homosexual- its with their attempts to make the rest of us sign off on their lifestyle as being normal. Also I resent their efforts to so-called re-educate society(our children)on the issue.
    They have went so far as to try to introduce gay themed school books in our public schools.

    I'm I homophobic- Nope, but I can be a bastard when someone labels me such because I don't believe homosexuality is normal.

  33. downtownlad Says:
    Bold as Love - You have every right to your opinion. But sorry, you're homophobic. Why can't you just admit it?

    Do you think a member of the KKK would readily admit to being racist? I doubt it. They'd probably object to that charge and say something like the Bible wants the races to be seperate.

    So as long as you say that homosexuality is not normal, then people are going to call you homophobic. Deal with it.

    By the way - not every gay person has anal sex. And 35% of straight people regularly have anal sex.
  34. James Manning Says:

    I'm for a live and let live way of life. However, I can understand why some would object to try and normalize homosexuality especially when it comes to introducing the lifestyle to their children.


    I'm surprised that you have not added to the discussion other than being defensive. I wanted this topic to be free of censorship and folks did a good job with it. But I think you need to present something other than labeling people homophobic.
  35. stuffle Says:
    REally the state has no compelling interest to bar what CONSENTING adults do in their own home and in their own time. - Mahndisa

    So far as I know, no state is. There may be some archeic laws that are not really enforced, but other than that...

    Were you attempting to get at gay marriage with that statement?

    Really, the state has only one compelling reason for sanctioning marriage in the first place. That is the protection of the mother and children during child bearing years. All of the laws, regulations, and traditions surrounding marriage are really centered around that. Thus, I see no logical reason to extend that beyond its current definition.

    In other words, beyond the protection of women and children during child bearing years, when they would be most vulnerable, the state really has no interest in sactioning what is really a religious and not a state institution.

    One could then argue "well, what about people who marry but don't have children and never intend to". To which I say "so what". In the interest of keeping marriage laws relatively simple, we just have to accept that.

    So, do I think gay marriage would be some horrible anathema? No.

    On the other hand, do I see a purpose in the state allowing it? No.

    As for the whole "homophobe" term, I think that gets applied to broadly to people. I think Dell did a good job explaining how, so just see his post (4th from the top).
  36. Cynthia Says:
    @suffle, from what I've read, marriage wasn't always a religious thing either. It was incorporated into religious the same way you explained it for the state, to protect the mother and child.

    One day - I just wish people would look at more tangible evidence about homosexuality and the impact it has on society/on people and then look at what is driving it. I think people would be surprised. But, as long as most of us are only willing to look at it as a morality issue, the conversation will never get passed an elementary analysis that all of us are well versed in.

    During this entire conversation, can anyone say they learn anything new?
  37. Dell Gines Says:
    Mahndisa, I understand how your personal experience has colored your perspective, but to take pot shots...that isn't your style...what has changed? :(

    I am going to ask you two questions again...and also to the rest of those discussing this thread...if answered then maybe we will actually bridge the divide between ourselves on this subject.

    1. Why is it wrong for an adult to have sex with a 11 year old girl, and who defines it as so and why?

    2. Is it always wrong in every circumstance for an adult to have sex with an 11 year old girl, who defines it as so and why?
  38. Dell Gines Says:
    Oh one more thing, the simplest thing to do, and I have seen it done a few times on this thread, is to attempt to discredit the validity of the argument by saying, "oh they are religious" inferring that it is not logical.

    This country was founded on an absolutism premise, when you begin deconstuctring the validity of that premise then there is no protection under the theoretical construct of this nations political structure therefore you kill off the very same thing your are arguing for.

    For example, because I don't even think you see what it is your doing...

    Argument - We have to reject absolutism as it leads to discrimination for those who don't hold to absolutist ideals or behave counter to them.

    Now, lets say you win you argument and absolutism is rejected, that also means there is no absolutely wrong situation, action, or behavior, it all becomes situational relevant and subject to the individual actor performing the action.

    So now the kid down the block pops your mother in the dome piece with a 22 for no reason. According to the subjective relativist, which most of you are arguing on behalf of, the kid who popped your mother would only be wrong if he defined himself that way.

    Oh no Dell, it is always wrong to murder you say. Why? Aren't you then falling into an absolute moral position?

    Yes you are, and that is why you can argue what a moral absolutism is, but you can not reject the logical necessity of having a moral absolute.
  39. James Manning Says:

    I don’t think anyone is arguing for the elimination of any moral standards. When the state creates laws they do so with the intention of protecting rights, the vulnerable and maintaining civil order.

    A child cannot consent to sex. So we create laws to protect children because they are vulnerable. No person consents to being murdered – heck, you can’t even fake your own death. Those laws are on the books to protect civil order in our society. So, we apply moral standards for the purpose protecting people and outlawing destructive actions.

    Where we hit the gray area is when we have a situation where there is no destruction to civil order and no vulnerable party is a part of the equation. This is the case in gay marriage. Two consenting adults want the legal protection that marriage offers. How is that destructive to civil order? Other then them telling that they are married, we would never know unless it shows up in the public realm via a divorce procedure.

    Maybe it would be destructive to a religious principle, but I don’t see how it is destructive to a civil one.
  40. Dell Gines Says:
    I acknowledge that argument. Way to kick the blog up a notch by the way.

    I asked the question on the 11 year old, and murder, specifically to get the response that you provided. You say children are vulnerable and need to be protected. I agree. You say people shouldn't be murdered, I agree.

    In terms of the child, you say they need protection beccause they are 'vulnerable' and in the case of murder, the one murdered 'didn't consent'.

    So we now have created to legal positions, based upon an absolute moral position. 1) Vulnerable people should be protected and 2) People shouldn't be killed without their consent.

    By what basis do we derive those two moral positions though?

    That is what I am getting at bruh.

    When discuss the issue of homosexuality, it can't be discussed without discussing who has the right to determine laws, and from what 'moral' outlook those laws are created.

    So why is my perception on homosexuality derived from a moral perspective that has been in existence for thousands and thousands of years, less valid than someones moral position derived from what the feel is right because they know a gay and he seems nice?

    Until we begin to honestly deal with those questions, up front, and without all the 'he is a homophobe' nonsense, you will always have a disconnect where not only are people not communicating honestly about the issue, but neither side really knows what the other side is truly arguing about.

    Finally, if through legislative action, the citizenry deemed homosexual marriage OK, I would have no problem with it. I would obviously oppose it, but I would respect the right of the people to execute their will in a democracy.
  41. Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden Says:
    11 09 05

    Hello James:
    Whoa! This post generated a lot of discussion. Since I have been around circles with Dell, I will simply state Dell, your view is colored I don't take pot shots at all; I state my opinion. You have suffered from an error of procedure called the abrupt change of subject and always do so when talking about homosexuals.

    Instead of talking about why the state shd deny them the privilage of getting married,you always talk about pedophiles or animals. Real creative eh! Please James is right about something called INFORMED consent.

    Stuffle, yep the state shouldnt have anything to do with what consenting adults do. That being said, I think how you view marriage is a bit broad because you have focused on the child bearing thing. Do you think that lesbian couples who have been artificially inseminated and get pregnant shd get marriage status to protect their children then? I am curious, as your logic would support that.

    An appeal to rationality is different than an appeal to moral relativism. Although I will grant you that many of the same conclusions can be drawn from a statist or utilitarian perspective as from one based on so called moral absolutes. The issue I have is what I said earlier about what gives one license to DETERMINE what is a moral absolute versus what is NOT?
    Interesting discussion James and thx for having it!
  42. stuffle Says:
    mahndisa - I could see that being used as an argument. My own opinion though is no, I do not see that as a justification. There are all sorts of ways to have a child outside of natural procreation, and if they want to do that, fine. But, that is not a reason to widen the def'n of marriage beyond the traditional def'n.
  43. Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden Says:
    11 09 05

    Interesting Stuffle and thx for the response!
  44. downtownlad Says:
    James - If people want to call me immoral, then I'll call them bigots. That's not being defensive. It's called stating the obvious.

    I thought this wasn't a politically correct post. If that's the case, then I should be free to attack others who attack me.

    I will say one thing. Most homophobic people I know are guys who like to get their dick sucked by another guy in secret. They think their bigotry will sheild the fact that they are really gay. Obviously, they're not comfortable with their sexuality, so they think attacking gay people will make them seem more straight.

    Anyone want to take a guess who on this post is on the down low?????
  45. Outside the Box Says:
    Hey James,

    just thought I'd throw my two cents in.

    Also, concerning Dell's question, "Why is it wrong for an adult to have sex with a 11 year old girl, and who defines it as so and why?"

    Shouldn't it be addressed that while she may actually be 11, she could very well look 15?

    (This is non-PC, right?)