Dehumanizing Stereotypes

[Uphill Battle]

and? I'm sorry, calling some religious people hateful bigots is hardly news!

 

[Uphill Battle]

there are always going to be some people for which a statement is true, but to say it is true of an entire group is the problem

exactly my point. I pointed out that stereotype in the thread.

the argument was "stereotyping is bad!" the next post agrees with that sentiment, and then goes on to stereotype with:The Christians are afraid, nothing but afraid of things they don't understand.

It makes them feel better to hurt others, makes them feel bigger, more powerful.

you can hardly put out a fire by using a flamethrower, don't you think?

 

[exxxys]

Gay denotes sexual practice. The hype and myth that it doesn't it silly in the attempt. It is recruitment and we all know it. That is why the lefties do not Christians in public schools. Isn't it interesting God was replaced with sexually explicit behavior? Hmm, I wonder why.

"Gay" refers to a man being attracted to a man. You still have not told me how Christians can love each other, but no one else.

The anus is not part of the sexual organs. No matter how you present your data.

Sex and the waste eliminating parts of the body are different body parts. Designed for different reasons.

The male G spot is located in the anus. Also is the spot for stimulating the prostate.

AND? Your point is what? Christmas is not a biblical celebration. It is a pagan one. How many people commit suicide during the "holidays?" Yet, within the Church, mental illness and suicides are low.

Wow, so now Pagans are so depressed that they must commit suicide? You realize being Pagan is a choice, and if Pagans wanted to be Christians, they would be. The birth of your God sounds pretty biblical to me.

You're joking right? Christian groups do not cause STD's. For starters.

Christianity is communicable, but it spreads no life threatening diseases. Except of course persecution of the believer. But that means a blessing and not a cursed thing.

Lmao. The highest rates of STDs occur among straight, teen females. Gays do not "create" diseases. Where is your info coming from? Honestly, you've had no scientific back for any of the things you've stated here.

Wow, this is hilarious.

 

[jamielindas]

exactly my point. I pointed out that stereotype in the thread.

the argument was "stereotyping is bad!" the next post agrees with that sentiment, and then goes on to stereotype with:The Christians are afraid, nothing but afraid of things they don't understand.

It makes them feel better to hurt others, makes them feel bigger, more powerful.

you can hardly put out a fire by using a flamethrower, don't you think?

agreed, using a stereotype to condemn a stereotype is poor logic and not terribly convincing as an argument

 

[AmericanCatholic]

Why do you insist on reducing homosexuality to a behavior? Homosexuality is an oritentation. There are celibate people who are attracted to members of the same sex. Are they no longer homosexual? Are heterosexuals only heterosexual during coitus?

Is the orientation defined by something other than the act towards which it is oriented? Is the "A" student an "A" student if he only gets "Bs"? Are the boys who play "army" real soldiers? Are there Christians that do not confess in Christ? It seems like what we do in life defines us; how can it be that homosexuality is different? It cannot be that someone is something when they do not conform to the nature of being that thing. "Orientation" is simply saying "I largely have these particular thoughts" -- but that does not preclude having other kinds of thoughts because unlike action, thoughts do not have to be consistent amongst other thoughts. You can think "I am gay" and "I am not gay" at the same time, but you cannot be both simultaneously because they are inherent contradictions. So thoughts in the first place become irrelevant to defining a person. How many homosexual thoughts/attractions/etc are required to make someone homosexual? One thought a day for 100 days? What if someone has 100 homosexual thoughts over 100 days, but then on the one hundred and first day, they have a heterosexual thought -- do they have to restart the one hundred days? I could likewise have 100 good thoughts in a day, but if I do a bad act, am I not a bad person? If I keep doing bad acts, is my own perception that I'm a good person relevant at all to who I am?

My point is that the act is inherent to the definition of homosexuality in the first place, and if we remove the act from it, we make the word irrelevant.

 

[exxxys]

Is the orientation defined by something other than the act towards which it is oriented? Is the "A" student an "A" student if he only gets "Bs"? Are the boys who play "army" real soldiers? Are there Christians that do not confess in Christ? It seems like what we do in life defines us; how can it be that homosexuality is different? It cannot be that someone is something when they do not conform to the nature of being that thing. "Orientation" is simply saying "I largely have these particular thoughts" -- but that does not preclude having other kinds of thoughts because unlike action, thoughts do not have to be consistent amongst other thoughts. You can think "I am gay" and "I am not gay" at the same time, but you cannot be both simultaneously because they are inherent contradictions. So thoughts in the first place become irrelevant to defining a person. How many homosexual thoughts/attractions/etc are required to make someone homosexual? One thought a day for 100 days? What if someone has 100 homosexual thoughts over 100 days, but then on the one hundred and first day, they have a heterosexual thought -- do they have to restart the one hundred days? I could likewise have 100 good thoughts in a day, but if I do a bad act, am I not a bad person? If I keep doing bad acts, is my own perception that I'm a good person relevant at all to who I am?

My point is that the act is inherent to the definition of homosexuality in the first place, and if we remove the act from it, we make the word irrelevant.

What do you propose homosexuality is then?

Main Entry: 1ho·mo·sex·u·al Pronunciation: \ˌhō-mə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\ Function: adjective Date: 1892 1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ho·mo·sex·u·al

Audio Help /ˌhoʊ

məˈsɛk

ʃu

əl or, especially Brit., -ˈsɛks

yu-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uh

l or, especially Brit., -seks-yoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1.of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality. 2.of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex. –noun 3.a homosexual person.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexual


Homosexuality is not an act. Homosexual intercourse is an act.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexual Homosexuality is not an act. Homosexual intercourse is an act.

The "orientation" itself is dependent upon the act by its own definition. If I am inherently a "good" person by "orientation", I am still defining myself by the acts towards which I assume I conform. But if I do bad acts, is my "orientation" towards being good at all relevant? I may certainly be confused if I can't understand why my self-perception is contradicted by my acts, but I'm still, in fact, a good person or not a good person. I can't claim to be a Christian and not do those things which make one a Christian -- sheer willpower simply does not suffice because often our actions do not match our ideas about ourselves.

So "homosexuality" becomes meaningless if we separate it from the acts which define it in the first place. You can think all day long that you are gay, but if you do not do those things which make one gay, it doesn't matter what you think about it. There are gazillions of examples of how acts define the person -- is the brave soldier awarded a medal because he thought he was brave or because he did brave acts? Is the nurse a nurse because she cares for people or because she takes care of people? Is a man masculine because he is a man or because he does masculine things? Why is homosexuality exempt from this logic which applies to nearly every other way we define ourselves?

 

[exxxys]

The "orientation" itself is dependent upon the act by its own definition. If I am inherently a "good" person by "orientation", I am still defining myself by the acts towards which I assume I conform. But if I do bad acts, is my "orientation" towards being good at all relevant? I may certainly be confused if I can't understand why my self-perception is contradicted by my acts, but I'm still, in fact, a good person or not a good person. I can't claim to be a Christian and not do those things which make one a Christian -- sheer willpower simply does not suffice because often our actions do not match our ideas about ourselves.

So "homosexuality" becomes meaningless if we separate it from the acts which define it in the first place. You can think all day long that you are gay, but if you do not do those things which make one gay, it doesn't matter what you think about it. There are gazillions of examples of how acts define the person -- is the brave soldier awarded a medal because he thought he was brave or because he did brave acts? Is the nurse a nurse because she cares for people or because she takes care of people? Is a man masculine because he is a man or because he does masculine things? Why is homosexuality exempt from this logic which applies to nearly every other way we define ourselves?

So a person who is inherently gay, has accepted this, and is open about it, but acts straight, is straight? That doesn't make much sense. If you are defined by your actions, a person can be both straight and gay?

 

[AmericanCatholic]

So a person who is inherently gay, has accepted this, and is open about it, but acts straight, is straight? That doesn't make much sense. If you are defined by your actions, a person can be both straight and gay?

If a person claims to be homosexual, but takes part exclusively in heterosexual acts, then there's strong reason to believe that said person is in fact heterosexual. Now the scenario you provided further suggests that homosexuality is nothing more than a thought/attraction which can pass because a person is able by choice to do something in contradiction to it. If someone is truly homosexual, why would they do heterosexual acts in the first place? How does that make any sense?

If you are defined by your actions, then you cannot be both "straight" and "gay" because the definitions contradict one another. You can certainly have thoughts of both because, as I said previously, there's nothing inherent in thoughts of themselves which prevent contradictions from forming. From one minute to the next I can think anything I like regardless if those thoughts are related or compatible at all. But I cannot by definition be a thing if I do something different than what that thing is. Just as it's an absurdity to suggest that some is brave if they do cowardly things, it is absurd to suggest someone is gay if they do not do gay things. You have not explained how homosexuality is an exemption to how we define ourselves in other ways.

 

[exxxys]

If a person claims to be homosexual, but takes part exclusively in heterosexual acts, then there's strong reason to believe that said person is in fact heterosexual. Now the scenario you provided further suggests that homosexuality is nothing more than a thought/attraction which can pass because a person is able by choice to do something in contradiction to it. If someone is truly homosexual, why would they do heterosexual acts in the first place? How does that make any sense?

What about gay men who have stayed in the closet, and have married or dated a woman? They are gay, but are engaging in heterosexual acts.

What about openly gay men who participate in activites that are considered "Straight"? What about a gay man in construction? Not in the fashion industry. There was another poster on a different thread that implied most gay men were in the fashion industry.

 

[jamielindas]

Is the orientation defined by something other than the act towards which it is oriented? Is the "A" student an "A" student if he only gets "Bs"? Are the boys who play "army" real soldiers? Are there Christians that do not confess in Christ? It seems like what we do in life defines us; how can it be that homosexuality is different? It cannot be that someone is something when they do not conform to the nature of being that thing. "Orientation" is simply saying "I largely have these particular thoughts" -- but that does not preclude having other kinds of thoughts because unlike action, thoughts do not have to be consistent amongst other thoughts. You can think "I am gay" and "I am not gay" at the same time, but you cannot be both simultaneously because they are inherent contradictions. So thoughts in the first place become irrelevant to defining a person. How many homosexual thoughts/attractions/etc are required to make someone homosexual? One thought a day for 100 days? What if someone has 100 homosexual thoughts over 100 days, but then on the one hundred and first day, they have a heterosexual thought -- do they have to restart the one hundred days? I could likewise have 100 good thoughts in a day, but if I do a bad act, am I not a bad person? If I keep doing bad acts, is my own perception that I'm a good person relevant at all to who I am?

My point is that the act is inherent to the definition of homosexuality in the first place, and if we remove the act from it, we make the word irrelevant.

Is a celibate homosexual, still a homosexual?

 

[jamielindas]

Why is homosexuality exempt from this logic which applies to nearly every other way we define ourselves?

...because we've defined sexual orientation as desire or inclination, not the act!
would it be less confusing for you if we used the word desire or inclination?

That's the whole point of talking about sexual orientation and not talking about the actual act.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

What about gay men who have stayed in the closet, and have married or dated a woman? They are gay, but are engaging in heterosexual acts.

You claim they are gay on the basis of how you define gay (by "orientation"). But I have previously stated that even the orientation is based upon the acts towards which the orientation is directed. I am suggesting that your claim is an absurdity in the first place because already orientation presupposes act. Can you think of a single orientation, inclination, or passion that is separated from some kind of material, actionable, or objective end? To be a Christian means to do those things which make one Christian. To be brave means to do those things which make one brave. To be an 'A' student means to do those things which make one an "A" student. I cannot simply think I am a Christian, or brave, or an "A" student and make myself so if, by my acts, I am something different. How many brave thoughts does it take to become brave? How many brave acts does it take to be brave? How many homosexual thoughts does it take to have a homosexual orientation? How many homosexual acts does it take to be homosexual?

What about openly gay men who participate in activites that are considered "Straight"? What about a gay man in construction? Not in the fashion industry. There was another poster on a different thread that implied most gay men were in the fashion industry.

Those examples are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with the inherent definition of homosexuality. There can certainly be associations, but then we start wandering into generalities. I'm interested in the specifics, so I'll ask my questions again: 1) can a person be a thing if they do not meet the conditions which define that thing? 2) Why is homosexuality exempt from that answer?

 

[exxxys]

The way you're defining it, it seems like you are trying to say that what you do defines you. But consider this.

What about a person who does nothing? What about a vegtable? Are they still human?

A person is gay because they have feelings of attraction to the same sex. Whether or no they act on them does not define their orientation.

But if what you're saying is to be interpreted as fact, why can't it work in reverse? Say I choose to remain celibate and have no sex life at all. Am I straight?

 

[jamielindas]

You claim they are gay on the basis of how you define gay (by "orientation"). But I have previously stated that even the orientation is based upon the acts towards which the orientation is directed. I am suggesting that your claim is an absurdity in the first place because already orientation presupposes act. Can you think of a single orientation, inclination, or passion that is separated from some kind of material, actionable, or objective end? To be a Christian means to do those things which make one Christian. To be brave means to do those things which make one brave. To be an 'A' student means to do those things which make one an "A" student. I cannot simply think I am a Christian, or brave, or an "A" student and make myself so if, by my acts, I am something different. How many brave thoughts does it take to become brave? How many brave acts does it take to be brave? How many homosexual thoughts does it take to have a homosexual orientation? How many homosexual acts does it take to be homosexual?

You are missing the point entirely. We use the word orientation because we're NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT THE ACT of homosexual sex. We are talking about orientation... inclination... which direction are you likely to act in...
though...
You've actually touched on an important caveat... sexuality, is often considered a continuum.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

Is a celibate homosexual, still a homosexual?

It depends. If by "celibate" you mean simply to refrain from sexual activity, then it is a possibility that one can still be homosexual without taking part in homosexual sex if we are to accept that there are other things by which we can define homosexuality. That is, if watching homosexual pornography makes one homosexual for example, but said person does not take part in homosexual acts himself, then it is not an absurdity to suggest that celibacy does not necessarily prevent one from being homosexual. I suggest, however, that a key problem in this debate is the failure of the homosexual community to find a workable and universal definition on what it means to be homosexual. Certainly, many will say "orientation", but that word of itself is useless. Does having one homosexual thought in one's entire lifetime give a person a homosexual orientation? There's no meaningful way to define extent and so we're left with a useless concept. "Orientation" therefore only says "I have/had these category of thoughts" -- but it doesn't provide anything substantial except to describe what kind of thoughts people may have. But we also know that thoughts change from hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and year-to-year, and so the definition of "orientation" becomes relative to time and place. Someone may have depression every other week for a year and be called a depressant, but do they remain a depressant for the rest of their lives? What if they live for another 60 years without depression? Is someone who has depression once automatically a depressant? Where does the definition start and where does it end? That's the problem with using "orientation" to define a person. It assigns a categorization that has no objective value. So what if you have a gay thought or for the rest of your life? It means absolutely nothing until its acted upon in some way -- it can be as mundane as someone changing their daily behaviors to conform with their perception, or it can be as explicit as homosexual sex. The point is that it's materialized into some kind of action.

 

[jamielindas]

Certainly, many will say "orientation", but that word of itself is useless.

YOU find it useless it seems. It seems to make sense to most of us.

as for the rest of your comment... i repeat the word continuum.

I have, and probably will have again, sexual feelings towards a women... they are few and far between, but they do not make me heterosexual. If I had enough, I might consider myself to be bisexual (this happens to not be the case for me, but for some).

It is about which direction, for which sex, are you naturally inclined to show/express/desire physical and emotional intimacy.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

The way you're defining it, it seems like you are trying to say that what you do defines you.

Is there any other way people are measured? How do you measure bravery, faith, work ethic, academia, sports, art, film? You don't say someone is a good actor if they consistently make bad films. You don't say someone has a strong faith if they are constantly doubting God. You don't say someone is brave if they do cowardly things. Why do you say someone is homosexual if they do not do homosexual things?

We are talking about orientation... inclination... which direction are you likely to act in...

If you are to define someone by something they are "likely" to do, isn't that stereotyping? An impoverished person is statistically more likely to steal. Does that mean all impoverished people steal? A black person in America is statistically more likely to be impoverished. Does that mean all black people in America are impoverished? Worse yet -- does that mean all black people steal? So how can we even begin to define what "likely" means in the first place if its based on something as subjective as our own fleeting thoughts? Does having one homosexual thought in one's entire lifetime make that person "likely" to take part in the act. You admit as much that action is involved. What if a person acts on one thought once? What if someone has millions of thoughts but never acts on it once? What happened to likelihood? Isn't the former person less likely than the latter? So again we enter into generalities which give us meaningless terms and unworkable concepts.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

YOU find it useless it seems. It seems to make sense to most of us.

I explained why I think it's useless. You did not refute my reasoning. Simply exclaiming something in contradiction does not refute something.

 

[catlover]

By the way:

My parents fully support the gay pride parade, and they're fairly decent I'd say. They taught me to accept others as they are, not discrimate because they're not like you.

..they did a good job raising you