Dehumanizing Stereotypes

[Zecryphon]

Homosexuals have never been allowed to keep their sex life private.

Wrong. Fifty years ago the idea of homosexual behavior being normal was not the norm. It has since come a long way through them being more open about who they are, what they do and education.

They have always been dragged into the public eye. In both of the Supreme Court cases, the issue began when the police, acting on information that proved to be false, broke into someone's house and found him in bed with another man, and arrested them for sodomy. They were keeping their sex life private until the government interfered.

What was the information? If it was that two men were having sex with each other, which was probably a violation of a state's sodomy law, then the information wasn't false, was it?

The Stonewall riots, which are usually considered to be the beginning of the Gay Pride movement were a reaction against constant police raids on private clubs. Before the riots, very seldom did evidence of orientation happen in "public" and even then mostly in the immediate neighborhoods where no one minded, except the "watchdogs of society" safe in their suburban neighborhoods, who sicced the police on them in the first place.

Were there sodomy laws on the books that these clubs would have been in violation of?

Even today, the only way that most gays "bring their bedroom behavior out into the public square" is in little things like holding hands, kissing, hugging, etc. -- the exact same things heterosexual couples do in public. Maybe we should outlaw any public displays of affection. Then maybe you can put the blinders back on.

I'm not wearing blinders Ollie, so you can keep your little snide comments about me to yourself. How pathetic. You can't even remain civil through one post. I feel so sorry for you. What's it like to be so small that the only way you can feel better about yourself is to make snide and untrue remarks about people you've never met.

 

[Zecryphon]

The majority of the public is fine with it. it's just those who are obessed with the lives of others. If everyone would just mind their own business, things would be a lot better for others.

Actually, the votes show that the majority of the public is not fine with gay marriage. Things are only considered being better for others when it's the Christians that mind their own business. If we told people to mind their own business and stay out of our debates and discussions about sexuality, we'd be called all sorts of names. But I guess that's just your double-standard rearing its ugly head again. It's okay for you to tell others what's right and normal, but others can't tell you.

 

[Zecryphon]

Homosexual orientation isn't oriented towards an act. Homosexual orientation is oriented towards people.

A person isn't homosexual because they engage in, or want to engage in, homosexual sex. A person is homosexual because they tend to be romantically/physically/sexually attracted to people of the same gender as themselves.

But the people who are engaging in loving homosexual sex must first be attracted to the people they're having sex with right? The orientation must first be in place, before the act can happen right?

 

[Zecryphon]

This is a huge double standard. It is so common for heterosexuals to bring their "bedroom behavior out into the public square" that we don't even notice when they do.

I don't consider holding hands and kissing to be bedroom behavior. I consider public sex to be bedroom behavior and do we really have to go into the problem of homosexuals meeting in public restrooms for sex? You don't see heterosexuals commiting that act anywhere near as often as homosexuals do. So no there isn't a huge double standard.

There are wedding rings, couples holding hands in public and kissing each other, weddings, engagement parties; the list just goes on and on.

A wedding ring is not bedroom behavior. A wedding and an engagement party are not bedroom behavior, unless you're using those as a sexual fantasy. So sorry, none of the stuff you've listed is bedroom behavior.

Yet we never criticize a couple for wanting to get married in the "public square", despite the fact it is little more than advertising what they do in the bedroom.

Really? Exchanging vows before God is only something that can happen in the bedroom? Since when?

And this is even ignoring the "checking out the opposite sex" that you can see in malls, clubs, and even schools.

So we can't look at someone in public now? Good to know.

The facts are that heterosexual are far more public about their sexual behavior than homosexuals have ever tried to be;

That is such a lie. None of the things you have listed are considered bedroom behavior. Let's not forget the gays hooking up in public restrooms and airport restrooms for anonymous sex.

until heterosexuals take their sexuality and keep it in the bedroom they have no right to demand the same of homosexuals.

Until you present a decent case, you have nothing of value to say in my opinion.

 

[David Brider]

But the people who are engaging in loving homosexual sex must first be attracted to the people they're having sex with right? The orientation must first be in place, before the act can happen right?

Not really sure how you see that as being relevant?

David.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

until heterosexuals take their sexuality and keep it in the bedroom they have no right to demand the same of homosexuals.

Until you present a decent case, you have nothing of value to say in my opinion.

You know, that above quote, is interesting. "Christians" (heterosexuals by theology and choice), have been trying for years to "clean up" Hollywood and the music scene as citizens of a free state.

But, it is the anti and non Christians that continue to produce sexual filth day in and day out. When Christians object to this secular filth, (and desire to remove their children from public schools and boycot Hollywood, MTV and businesses (like McDonalds) that pander to the sexually licentiosu crowd), we get hammered for that as well.

Our consistency is what is hated above all else. When it cannot be silenced, then we see these kinds of secular (liberal, humanism) people calling themselves Christians and speaking out "for" the Church.

And if Christians object to these kinds of people yet agian?

Guess what happens?

 

[Zecryphon]

Not really sure how you see that as being relevant?

David.

You said homosexuality isn't oriented towards an act. My question to you seems very relevant. Must people who engage in homosexual sex, first be attracted to people of the same sex? In other words, a person must be homosexual, which has been declared in this forum to being innately attracted to someone of the same sex, before having homosexual sex with another person. In other words, the orienation or the nature, dictates the action. You have sex with people you are attracted to. Heterosexuals have sex with women, because they are first attracted to them. Is the same not true for homosexuals?

 

[Zecryphon]

You know, that above quote, is interesting. "Christians" (heterosexuals by theology and choice), have been trying for years to "clean up" Hollywood and the music scene as citizens of a free state.

But, it is the anti and non Christians that continue to produce sexual filth day in and day out. When Christians object to this secular filth, (and desire to remove their children from public schools and boycot Hollywood, MTV and businesses (like McDonalds) that pander to the sexually licentiosu crowd), we get hammered for that as well.

Our consistency is what is hated above all else. When it cannot be silenced, then we see these kinds of secular (liberal, humanism) people calling themselves Christians and speaking out "for" the Church.

And if Christians object to these kinds of people yet agian?

Guess what happens?

Oh absolutely! There's a huge double standard in play here. The non-Christians and others are free to object to Christian's objections. But we can not object to anything they say or do. They want Christians to just shut up and take it. Not gonna happen. So what do they do? They call us names like bigot, homophobe, gay basher, etc. as if that's gonna really hurt us. I say "bring it on". Christ told us this would happen to all Christians:

Matthew 5:11-12

11 "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reard is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Now keep in mind that the above scriptures apply to all Christians, not just the straight ones.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

By Christians. Most of the US is Christian.

Why is that a reason to not respect the majority view of the public?

 

[David Brider]

You said homosexuality isn't oriented towards an act.[sup]1[/sup] My question to you seems very relevant. Must people who engage in homosexual sex, first be attracted to people of the same sex?[sup]2[/sup] In other words, a person must be homosexual, which has been declared in this forum to being innately attracted to someone of the same sex, before having homosexual sex with another person. In other words, the orienation or the nature, dictates the action.[sup]3[/sup] You have sex with people you are attracted to. Heterosexuals have sex with women[sup]4[/sup], because they are first attracted to them. Is the same not true for homosexuals?

1: It's not. It's oriented towards people.

2: As has already been pointed out, not necessarily. There are instances of homosexuals who (in an attempt to appear "normal") enter marriages with people of the opposite gender, and sometimes engage in sexual activity within those relationships. In an ideal world, though, I'd say that yes, ideally people who enter into a sexual relationship with someone would first be physically and romantically attracted to that person.

3: Not necessarily. One can experience homosexual attraction to someone (or to a gender in general) without necessarily acting on that attraction. Even if one does act on that attraction, the action doesn't necessarily take the form of having sex with that person - in my personal experience, there's quite a long journey from a.) realising that you're attracted to people of a particular gender, through b.) meeting someone of that gender to whom you're attracted, c.) meeting someone of that gender with whom there's mutual attraction, d.) asking that person out, e.) getting to know that person over a period of time, and f.) getting married to that person, to g.) entering sexual relations with that person. Even allowing for the fact that large segments of modern society would regard f.) as optional, many people don't get anywhere near that far. The trouble with some of the opinions put about on these forums is that there's an assumption that homosexuality is dictated by whether a person has reached stage g.) of that list, which leads to the misunderstanding that if someone says "I'm homosexual", that necessarily means that they're sexually active. This is, of course, palpably untrue, but that doesn't stop people jumping to that conclusion.

So yeah, sure, ideally, if someone's having homosexual sex with an other person, that means there's mutual homosexual attraction between those two people. But it doesn't follow that if someone's homosexual, they're necessarily in a sexually active relationship with someone to whom they're mutually attracted.

4.) Women can, of course, be heterosexual too...

ETA: And just to clarify, I'm not remotely suggesting, by placing the act of physical sex at item 7 on the list, that it's necessarily the goal in all relationships, nor that it should be. It's definitely the most physically intimate, and therefore a wonderful, way of expressing mutual love, but on the other hand it's more than possible to have a rewarding, satisfying relationship (i.e. with a girlfriend/boyfriend, fiancé/fiancée, or husband/wife), without having physical sex.


David.

 

[OllieFranz]

Wrong. Fifty years ago the idea of homosexual behavior being normal was not the norm. It has since come a long way through them being more open about who they are, what they do and education.

Which is exactly why They were trying to keep their lives private. But the "watchdogs of society" sought them out.

What was the information? If it was that two men were having sex with each other, which was probably a violation of a state's sodomy law, then the information wasn't false, was it?

In the one case it was a false report of gunshots being heard, and in the other it was a warrant that, IFRC, was intended for a different person altogether. And you seem to be contradictting yourself, or if not quite, you are definitely moving the goalposts.

You said that there would be no problem if they just kept privately to themselves. But now you admit that there was a problem back when they tried that. People who thought like you passed laws against them and sent police in after them even if the kept their lives private.

Were there sodomy laws on the books that these clubs would have been in violation of?

That would be irrelevant to your initial statement that there would be no problem if they kept it private. In fact the sodomy laws only prove that privacy is not the issue, society seeks them out to be offended by them.

I'm not wearing blinders Ollie, so you can keep your little snide comments about me to yourself. How pathetic. You can't even remain civil through one post. I feel so sorry for you. What's it like to be so small that the only way you can feel better about yourself is to make snide and untrue remarks about people you've never met.

If you are not wearing blinders (speaking out of [possilbly willful] ignorance) then you are exhibiting an incredibly hypocritical attitude. I preferred to give you the benefit of the doubt. I stand corrected.

 

[Zecryphon]

Which is exactly why They were trying to keep their lives private. But the "watchdogs of society" sought them out.

And these "watchdogs of society" are who again?

What was the information? If it was that two men were having sex with each other, which was probably a violation of a state's sodomy law, then the information wasn't false, was it?
​

In the one case it was a false report of gunshots being heard, and in the other it was a warrant that, IFRC, was intended for a different person altogether. And you seem to be contradictting yourself, or if not quite, you are definitely moving the goalposts.

Oh, of course I'm the one moving the goal posts. Funny, seems all I did was ask a question about sodomy laws.

You said that there would be no problem if they just kept privately to themselves. But now you admit that there was a problem back when they tried that. People who thought like you passed laws against them and sent police in after them even if the kept their lives private.

People like me? Ollie, you don't know a thing about me. But hey if it makes you feel all better about yourself to hit me with accusations of passing laws against other groups of people who are just trying to keep their lives private then hey, knock your self out. It's clear that all you intend to do in this thread is to accuse me of doing things I've not done, and to lump me in with people I've never met. Do you have anything of substance or are you just going to wave the gay rights flag and tear down anyone who dares to disagree with you?

Were there sodomy laws on the books that these clubs would have been in violation of?
​

That would be irrelevant to your initial statement that there would be no problem if they kept it private. In fact the sodomy laws only prove that privacy is not the issue, society seeks them out to be offended by them.

Hardly. If people are breaking the law, they're breaking the law. You provided no evidence to support your statements. You said the police went in there illegally and responded to false charges, but you never said anything about what the charges were or what the illegality of the police raid was. You just said, it so forgive me your highness for asking a simple question in the absence of supporting evidence for your claims from you. I'll never do that again.

I'm not wearing blinders Ollie, so you can keep your little snide comments about me to yourself. How pathetic. You can't even remain civil through one post. I feel so sorry for you. What's it like to be so small that the only way you can feel better about yourself is to make snide and untrue remarks about people you've never met.
​

If you are not wearing blinders (speaking out of [possilbly willful] ignorance) then you are exhibiting an incredibly hypocritical attitude.

Oh do tell what they hypocrisy here is. Can't wait to hear this.

I preferred to give you the benefit of the doubt. I stand corrected.

No you just stand up to your eyeballs in lies about me. But hey, nothing new there. That's just who you are.

 

[OllieFranz]

You said homosexuality isn't oriented towards an act. My question to you seems very relevant. Must people who engage in homosexual sex, first be attracted to people of the same sex? In other words, a person must be homosexual, which has been declared in this forum to being innately attracted to someone of the same sex, before having homosexual sex with another person. In other words, the orienation or the nature, dictates the action. You have sex with people you are attracted to. Heterosexuals have sex with women, because they are first attracted to them. Is the same not true for homosexuals?

Not true. Sex does not, in itself, prove either orientation or attraction.

A lot of people have sex outside their orientation. In some cases because orientation is a continuum and they are somewhat bisexual, but also for other reasons. Many street hustlers are straight, but would never be able to make a living as gigolos catering to women, there just aren't enough. In prisons many straights find trading sex for protection preferable to gang rape. And there are at least a dozen other scenarios for having sex without feeling an attraction.

 

[Zecryphon]

I'm sorry. I was working with the presupposition that we were talking about people who are not wards of the state or sex workers. Silly me.

 

[OllieFranz]

People like me? Ollie, you don't know a thing about me. But hey if it makes you feel all better about yourself to hit me with accusations of passing laws against other groups of people who are just trying to keep their lives private then hey, knock your self out.

I got the impression from the way you phrased the question, and from your previous post that you agreed with the sentiments of those who passed and enforced sodomy laws. If I was wrong, as you now claim, and you disagree with the laws, then I apologize and am glad to have you on our side. Just tell me that you are OK with homosexuality and I'll believe you. Otherwise, ....

Hardly. If people are breaking the law, they're breaking the law. You provided no evidence to support your statements. You said the police went in there illegally and responded to false charges, but you never said anything about what the charges were or what the illegality of the police raid was. You just said, it so forgive me your highness for asking a simple question in the absence of supporting evidence for your claims from you. I'll never do that again.

And you have the audacity to call me snide? I said the men were having sex in the privacy of their bedrooms, and were arrested for that. I also said that the basis for the police breaking into their homes proved false. If it was a warrant based on sodomy, it would not be false. You did not simply ask for more information, or even demand evidence. You assumed, despite my statement that the reasons proved false, that they were related to sodomy: that is effectively calling me a liar.

​

​

​

Oh do tell what they hypocrisy here is. Can't wait to hear this.

​

Your initial statement that there would be no problem if it were kept private was incredibly naive or incredibly hypocritical, since it is so easily proved false. As I said, I preferred to believe that you were being naive. But you have disclaimed the option of being naive, and have shown your knowledge of and support for the laws that sought out these men even in their private bedrooms. Tell me again how that is neither naive nor hypocritical.

No you just stand up to your eyeballs in lies about me. But hey, nothing new there. That's just who you are.

Either produce evidence of this slur on my character or retract it.

 

[OllieFranz]

I'm sorry. I was working with the presupposition that we were talking about people who are not wards of the state or sex workers. Silly me.

No, you were working with the assumption that orientation, sexual attraction and the sex act were all the same thing.

These are only the most obvious counterexamples. There are gays who marry women either for appearance' sake or because someone has convinced them that if they act straight, they'll become straight. There are women who marry men that they are not attracted to in order to provide security for their children, there are, as I said dozen of situations where sex does not prove orientation and/or attraction.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

No, you were working with the assumption that orientation, sexual attraction and the sex act were all the same thing.

These are only the most obvious counterexamples. There are gays who marry women either for appearance' sake or because someone has convinced them that if they act straight, they'll become straight. There are women who marry men that they are not attracted to in order to provide security for their children, there are, as I said dozen of situations where sex does not prove orientation and/or attraction.

If anything, your examples illustrate the uselessness of the concept of "orientation".

 

[Zecryphon]

I got the impression from the way you phrased the question, and from your previous post that you agreed with the sentiments of those who passed and enforced sodomy laws. If I was wrong, as you now claim, and you disagree with the laws, then I apologize and am glad to have you on our side. Just tell me that you are OK with homosexuality and I'll believe you. Otherwise, ....

I'd have to go back and read the sodomy laws and what they stated again to refresh my memory. My opinion on the government is smaller is better.

Hardly. If people are breaking the law, they're breaking the law. You provided no evidence to support your statements. You said the police went in there illegally and responded to false charges, but you never said anything about what the charges were or what the illegality of the police raid was. You just said, it so forgive me your highness for asking a simple question in the absence of supporting evidence for your claims from you. I'll never do that again.
​

And you have the audacity to call me snide? I said the men were having sex in the privacy of their bedrooms, and were arrested for that. I also said that the basis for the police breaking into their homes proved false. If it was a warrant based on sodomy, it would not be false. You did not simply ask for more information, or even demand evidence. You assumed, despite my statement that the reasons proved false, that they were related to sodomy: that is effectively calling me a liar.

Ollie, the fact that you're a liar is already well established. And yes I will call you snide when you make such remarks. Deal with it.

Oh do tell what they hypocrisy here is. Can't wait to hear this.
​

Your initial statement that there would be no problem if it were kept private was incredibly naive or incredibly hypocritical, since it is so easily proved false. As I said, I preferred to believe that you were being naive. But you have disclaimed the option of being naive, and have shown your knowledge of and support for the laws that sought out these men even in their private bedrooms. Tell me again how that is neither naive nor hypocritical.

I'm not gonna tell you anything again as you are not a person who can engage in civil debate. You have not proved anything I have said is easily proved false. You're just talking out your butt again and not saying anything of value or relevance.

No you just stand up to your eyeballs in lies about me. But hey, nothing new there. That's just who you are.
​

Either produce evidence of this slur on my character or retract it.

You have to have character before someone can slur it, since you don't have any character, so there is no slur against you. There is just the truth.

From post # 54: Then maybe you can put the blinders back on.

This suggests I'm wearing blinders. Since I'm not, this is a lie.

From post # 71: People who thought like you passed laws against them and sent police in after them even if the kept their lives private.

You're saying that I am like the people who passed the sodomy laws and sent police after homosexuals. Since I have done neither, you are lying about me. Face it Ollie, you have willingly told lies about me which makes you a liar. You have also broken the rules of this forum by focusing on me and not the topic of homosexuality.

So no, I will not retract anything I've said about you. I can back up my claim of your telling lies about me. Your own statements prove that you are what I have said you are and it's your own fault. You don't like being called a liar? Stop telling lies. The problem is easily solved.

This post ends all of my communication with you. You are now being ignored by me. You're just not capable of behaving in a civil manner towards those who disagree with you.

 

[OllieFranz]

If anything, your examples illustrate the uselessness of the concept of "orientation".

While I will go so far as to agree thar orientation is a "slippery" concept, it is no more "slippery" than race*. Gender, while far less so, is also somewhat "slippery." Just because a concept is "slippery," it is not therefore useless. You just have to use it in the appropriate situations but not rely on it in others.

*It is actually easier to scientifically define the differences between the different sexual orientations than to define the differences between the different races.

 

[OllieFranz]

From post # 54: Then maybe you can put the blinders back on.

This suggests I'm wearing blinders. Since I'm not, this is a lie.

I retracted that statement as soon as you let me know that you prefer to be exposed as a hypocrite than to be assumed to be naive. It was my honest assessment of your position. And I would still call such a statement by anyone else naive. There was no lie

From post # 71: People who thought like you passed laws against them and sent police in after them even if the kept their lives private.

You're saying that I am like the people who passed the sodomy laws and sent police after homosexuals. Since I have done neither, you are lying about me. Face it Ollie, you have willingly told lies about me which makes you a liar. You have also broken the rules of this forum by focusing on me and not the topic of homosexuality.

You have affirmed that you agree with the people who passed these laws. How is my stating that you agree with them a lie?

And I only "focussed" on you because of your accusations against me. Am I not allowed to challange your viscious attacks?

So no I will not retract anything I've said about you. I can back up my claim of your telling lies about me. Your own statements prove that you are what I have said you are and it's your own fault. You don't like being called a liar? Stop telling lies. The problem is easily solved.

This post ends all of my communication with you. You are now being ignored by me. You're just not capable of behaving in a civil manner towards those who disagree with you.

I have been patient with you for months. However (except for the fact that I feel using the ignore button is admitting defeat) everything in this last paragraph applies far more to you than it does to me.