Homosexuality as sexist

[exnihilo]

Ex, you need to get educated and grow up. The usual way of marriage, for instance, has as its very common advertisement actions that are reprehensible and even criminal. The institution itself has desecrated its own ideal “definition.” Or perhaps you don’t get news? I don’t know; it is troubleing to me that such ideas as yours are taken by so many as having anything to do with reality. And I know this is ad hominem. But maybe in this stream of misconstuing love and reality, it is merited to say something.

Yeah, it is entirely ad hominem since you addressed no points. You just make the baseless claim I am uneducated and immature. What ideas dont have anything do with reality? The idea that homosexuality is prevalent in prison? Gosh I thought after hearing thousands of dont drop the soap and you better watch out for Bubba in prison jokes that gay sex, in fact gay rape, was very common in prison. So unless normal men turn gay the only other option is gay men are more criminal as a way of explaining this crazy idea me and the rest of society have. Neither explanation helps the gay agenda which is why every time I’ve mentioned prison and gay sex I’m told I’m crazy. I guess in today’s world I am crazy, thank God.

 

[Baelor]

Yeah, it is entirely ad hominem since you addressed no points. You just make the baseless claim I am uneducated and immature. What ideas dont have anything do with reality? The idea that homosexuality is prevalent in prison? Gosh I thought after hearing thousands of dont drop the soap and you better watch out for Bubba in prison jokes that gay sex, in fact gay rape, was very common in prison. So unless normal men turn gay the only other option is gay men are more criminal as a way of explaining this crazy idea me and the rest of society have. Neither explanation helps the gay agenda which is why every time I’ve mentioned prison and gay sex I’m told I’m crazy. I guess in today’s world I am crazy, thank God.

Why is prison rape committed?

 

[Qoeleth]

Do you believe it is a conscious, deliberate choice on the part of (male) homosexuals to deny women equal rights by excluding their consent for a sexual relationship, or might this be on an unconscious level? Also, is the motivating factor anger toward women, as you seem to be saying, or fear of them? It sounds interesting as an academic discussion in the social science domain. Practically speaking, as well as biologically, I don’t agree with it, however. And, on a humorous note, if your hypothesis is correct, would this mean there are probably more conservative GOP homosexuals?

Of course, I suggest it is unconscious. Men who become homosexuals have an unconscious fear of women. Similarly, men who are chauvinist have an unconscious fear of women.

I think a lot of homosexuals are conservatives, or at least social conservatives. Wasn’t J Edgar Hoover one?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

There is no such thing, IMHO. Being open about one’s homosexuality is more possible today in most countries as opposed to 40-50 years ago. Attraction is the key element. I don’t think 250 pound women are attractive, I have no ulterior motive other than the fact that I’m not attracted to overly overweight women. Don’t overthink things.

By the logic of the OP, this is akin to raping overweight women. Care to explain yourself!?

 

[m134e5]

I have seen some subcultures within the homosexual community that definitely are sexist. I’ve seen radical feminist lesbians who have no problem using anonymous sperm donors to conceive children, but whine and squeal about how men objectify women. I’ve seen men who are so repulsed by women that they believe that men should behave as radical feminists say they do, and that they should be treated preferentially to women as radical feminists say they are. I don’t think this answer was exactly what the person who started this thread was looking for, but I think it says a lot about the motivations of the homosexual community.

 

[Qoeleth]

I have seen some subcultures within the homosexual community that definitely are sexist. I’ve seen radical feminist lesbians who have no problem using anonymous sperm donors to conceive children, but whine and squeal about how men objectify women. I’ve seen men who are so repulsed by women that they believe that men should behave as radical feminists say they do, and that they should be treated preferentially to women as radical feminists say they are. I don’t think this answer was exactly what the person who started this thread was looking for, but I think it says a lot about the motivations of the homosexual community.

No, that is pretty much hitting the nail on the head- that homesexuality is contrary to gender equity.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Do you have evidence for this? Identical twins have the same genes. The identical twins studies show only a 20% incidence of both twins being homosexual.** If the condition was genetic, then it should be 100%**.

The part I bolded is not true. Even concerning traits nobody disputes are genetic, a 100% coincidence rate is absent. Genetics is far more complex than simply having a gene and displaying a phenotype.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

No, that is pretty much hitting the nail on the head- that homesexuality is contrary to gender equity.

You’ve ignored every point questioning your premise that lack of interest implies active discrimination. Care to respond to this?

 

[Qoeleth]

You’ve ignored every point questioning your premise that lack of interest implies active discrimination. Care to respond to this?

Sure- It is genetically programmed in us to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. An orientation or action contrary to this implies a movement (conscious or unconscious) to disempower those of the opposite sex.

A homosexual may say and think they are not interested in people of the opposite sex, but biologically and at the deepest level of mental and physical hardwiring, they still are.

For a person to say the are not interested in the opposite sex, is like someone saying they have no desire or interest at all in eating food. It is contrary to physical and biological reality.

 

[Baelor]

Sure- It is genetically programmed in us to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. An orientation or action contrary to this implies a movement (conscious or unconscious) to disempower those of the opposite sex.

Proof, please?

A homosexual may say and think they are not interested in people of the opposite sex, but biologically and at the deepest level of mental and physical hardwiring, they still are.

Proof, please?

For a person to say the are not interested in the opposite sex, is like someone saying they have no desire or interest at all in eating food. It is contrary to physical and biological reality.

Proof, please?

Furthermore, none of this implies considering the other sex to be inferior.

 

[Qoeleth]

Proof, please?

Proof, please?

Proof, please?

Furthermore, none of this implies considering the other sex to be inferior.

You are asking for proof why opposite sex attraction is hardwired into living beings??? That fact that (biolgically, scientifically) the purpose of sexual activity is reproduction, which occurs between a male and female. It’s pretty obvious, I would have thought.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Sure- It is genetically programmed in us to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. An orientation or action contrary to this implies a movement (conscious or unconscious) to disempower those of the opposite sex.

All you’re doing is asserting this without any evidence. Indeed, you’re actually ignoring counterexamples provided by others. How is it that I’ve disempowered somebody by not having sex with them? I’m a heterosexual male. Am I disempowering my fellow males by not being interested in them sexually?

A homosexual may say and think they are not interested in people of the opposite sex, but biologically and at the deepest level of mental and physical hardwiring, they still are.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

For a person to say the are not interested in the opposite sex, is like someone saying they have no desire or interest at all in eating food. It is contrary to physical and biological reality.

And yet we do in fact know of individuals who have eating disorders. Is it your position that they’re only kidding themselves?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

You are asking for proof why opposite sex attraction is hardwired into living beings??? That fact that (biolgically, scientifically) the purpose of sexual activity is reproduction, which occurs between a male and female. It’s pretty obvious, I would have thought.

No, (s)he’s asking you to substantiate your claim that heterosexuality is universally “hard wired” in everyone.

 

[Qoeleth]

All you’re doing is asserting this without any evidence. Indeed, you’re actually ignoring counterexamples provided by others. How is it that I’ve disempowered somebody by not having sex with them? I’m a heterosexual male. Am I disempowering my fellow males by not being interested in them sexually?

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

And yet we do in fact know of individuals who have eating disorders. Is it your position that they’re only kidding themselves?

By being hetrosexual, you are allowing females there proper place and dignity in society. To that extent, you are limiting the power of your fellow males. (In a good way- by giving some status to women).

Eating disorers are disorders, not natural propensities. Maybe not kidding, but ‘deluding’ might be a better word.

P.S. I could ask for “Evidence?” for every statement you make. It is an annoying and tedious form of argument. You can either disagree or agree with an observation or proposition, but there is no obligation to provide evidence for every observation or comment.

 

[Qoeleth]

No, (s)he’s asking you to substantiate your claim that heterosexuality is universally “hard wired” in everyone.

Ok. I’ll substantiate it for you- it’s obviously true. In the same way I would substantiate the claim that the sky is blue, or 1+1=2.

 

[meltzerboy]

Of course, I suggest it is unconscious. Men who become homosexuals have an unconscious fear of women. Similarly, men who are chauvinist have an unconscious fear of women.

I think a lot of homosexuals are conservatives, or at least social conservatives. Wasn’t J Edgar Hoover one?

Someone recently wrote a book about J. Edgar Hoover, in which the author claims the whole “gay thing” was made up after Hoover started persecuting alleged homosexuals.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

By being hetrosexual, you are allowing females there proper place and dignity in society. To that extent, you are limiting the power of your fellow males. (In a good way- by giving some status to women).

You’re bouncing all around here and moving the goal posts around. Your initial post explicitly stated that being homosexual is a form of unjust discrimination against women. Even taking into account your revised position that is denies them their “proper place and dignity in society”, this still presupposes that any given woman has a right to be sexually attractive to any given man. This is why people in this thread have been bringing up things like particular men not being attracted to overweight women, or men who chose to be celibate not engaging in sex with anyone. You don’t get to hand wave this away and special plead your case. Either you’re consistent, or you aren’t, and so far you’re batting 0-3.

Eating disorers are disorders, not natural propensities. Maybe not kidding, but ‘deluding’ might be a better word.

That’s completely irrelevant. It doesn’t change the fact that there are cases in which individuals have a drive (or to use your words, are “hard-wired”) against the norm. You stated that gay men and women are “truly, deep down” straight. Demonstrate this, or rescind it.

P.S. I could ask for “Evidence?” for every statement you make. It is an annoying and tedious form of argument.

No, it’s the only valid way to argue. You started this thread, and you made the argument that homosexuality (1) is a form of discrimination, and (2) is not determined by biology. You shoulder the burden of proof because they are your claims.

You can either disagree or agree with an observation or proposition, but there is no obligation to provide evidence for every observation or comment.

If you want to be taken seriously, then yes you do have such an obligation. Your “observations” are just that: unreproducible, cherry picked anecdotes which wreak of selection bias.

Ok. I’ll substantiate it for you- it’s obviously true. In the same way I would substantiate the claim that the sky is blue, or 1+1=2.

No it’s not obviously true, nor is it like math. Math is logical and lends itself to actual proof. Your argument is inductive and so cannot be “obviously true”. You need to provide relevant inference which lends support to your conclusion being true.

Here, allow me to demonstrate:

To what extent sexual orientation is due to one’s environment and one’s biology is still a matter of controversy, but it has been well established that there is a biological component [1] evident in the coincidence of various biological traits with one’s orientation, including blood typing, rhesus factor [2], relative size of digital segments [3], spacing of cutaneous appendages [4], chemotactic preference of body odor [5], and of course high incidence of shared sexual orientation among monozygotic twins [6] (even in cases where said twins were separated at birth [7]). Today’s interest includes determining what effect one’s matrilineal heritability has on one’s sexual orientation [8] (whether that be due to X-linked genes [9], maternal proteins in the egg [10], or pre-natal paracrine and endocrine factors [11]). All of the objects of study in the literature involve obviously biological factors over which nobody has conscious or subconscious control, and unlike your mere anecdotes, these were observed under controlled conditions using properly designed experimentation, and actual statistics to determine if the data is even significant [12].

 

[xixxvmcm85]

To what extent sexual orientation is due to one’s environment and one’s biology is still a matter of controversy, but it has been well established that there is a biological component [1] evident in the coincidence of various biological traits with one’s orientation, including blood typing, rhesus factor [2], relative size of digital segments [3], spacing of cutaneous appendages [4], chemotactic preference of body odor [5], and of course high incidence of shared sexual orientation among monozygotic twins [6] (even in cases where said twins were separated at birth [7]). Today’s interest includes determining what effect one’s matrilineal heritability has on one’s sexual orientation [8] (whether that be due to X-linked genes [9], maternal proteins in the egg [10], or pre-natal paracrine and endocrine factors [11]). All of the objects of study in the literature involve obviously biological factors over which nobody has conscious or subconscious control, and unlike your mere anecdotes, these were observed under controlled conditions using properly designed experimentation, and actual statistics to determine if the data is even significant [12].

[1] Jannini, E. A.; Blanchard, R.; Camperio-Ciani, A.; et al. Male Homosexuality: Nature or Culture? Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7:10, 3245-3253 (2010).

[2] Ellis, L.; Ficek, C.; Burke, D.; et al. Eye color, hair color, blood type, and the rhesus factor: Exploring possible genetic links to sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37:1, 145-149 (2008).

[3] Hall, L. Dermatoglyphic Analysis of Total Finger Ridge Count in Female Monozygotic Twins Discordant for Sexual Orientation. Journal of Sex Research, 37:4, 315-320 (2000).

[4] Kirk, K. M.; Bailey, J. M.; Dunne, M. P.; et al. Measurement Models for Sexual Orientation in a Community Twin Sample. Queensland Institute of Medical Research, 30:4, 345-356 (2000).

[5] Martins, Y.; Preti, G.; Crabtree, C. R.; et al. Preference for Human Body Odors Is Influenced by Gender and Sexual Orientation. Psychological Science, 16:9, 694-701 (2005).

[6] Buhrich, N.; Bailey, J. M.; Martin, N. G. Sexual orientation, sexual identity, and sex-dimorphic behaviors in male twins. Behavior Genetics, 21:1, 75-83 (1991).

[7] Joseph, J. Separated Twins and the Genetics of Personality Differences: A Critique. American Journal of Psychology, 114:1, 1-30 (2001).

[8] Iemmola, F.; Camperior-Ciani, A. New Evidence of Genetic Factors Influencing Sexual Orientation in Men: Female Fecundity Increase in the Maternal Line. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38:3, 393-399 (2009).

[9] Craig, I. W.; Harper, E.; Loat, C. S. The Genetic Basis for Sex Differences in Human Behaviour: Role of the Sex Chromosomes. Journal of Phycology, 68:3, 269-284 (2004).

[10] DuPree, M. G.; Mustanski, B. S.; Bocklandt, S.; et al. A Candidate Gene Study of CYP19 (Aromatase) and Male Sexual Orientation. Behavior Genetics, 34:3, 243-250 (2004).

[11] McGuffin, P.; Riley, B.; Plomin, R. Toward Behavioral Genomics. Science, 291:5507, 1232-1459 (2001).

&

Doerner, G.; Poppe, I.; Stahl, F.; et al. Gene- and environment-dependent neuroendocrine etiogenesis of homosexuality and transsexualism. Institute of Experimental Endocrinology, 98:2, 141-150 (2001).

[12] Gavrilets, S.; Rice, W. R. Genetic models of homosexuality: generating testable predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society London, 273, 3031-3038 (2006).

 

[Baelor]

You are asking for proof why opposite sex attraction is hardwired into living beings??? That fact that (biolgically, scientifically) the purpose of sexual activity is reproduction, which occurs between a male and female. It’s pretty obvious, I would have thought.

If it is hard-wired, it is presumably empirically identifiable. Show us this identification. Show us what makes someone attracted to someone else biologically.

By being hetrosexual, you are allowing females there proper place and dignity in society. To that extent, you are limiting the power of your fellow males. (In a good way- by giving some status to women).

What is the proper place of women in society? What is their dignity? Why are you limiting this to males?

P.S. I could ask for “Evidence?” for every statement you make. It is an annoying and tedious form of argument. You can either disagree or agree with an observation or proposition, but there is no obligation to provide evidence for every observation or comment.

There is not an obligation until one makes a claim that is verifiable. If someone else asks for evidence, evidence must be provided if there is a challenge to the claim. I challenge yours. And you are more than welcome to ask me for evidence, but I have not made any claims, so I fail to see how that is even possible.

Ok. I’ll substantiate it for you- it’s obviously true. In the same way I would substantiate the claim that the sky is blue, or 1+1=2.

Both of those are explicable. I can explain why the sky is blue, or why 1+1=2. If you are putting them in the same camp as your former statements, then the latter are also explicable. So explain them. “Self-evident” is not a justification. It is a cop-out.

And if they were so self-evident, we would all be on the same page.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Of course, I suggest it is unconscious. Men who become homosexuals have an unconscious fear of women. Similarly, men who are chauvinist have an unconscious fear of women.

I think a lot of homosexuals are conservatives, or at least social conservatives. Wasn’t J Edgar Hoover one?

Repressed homosexuals (like John Paulk) probably are social conservatives in the US, as to sublimated ones no trend can be discerned.