How Homophobic Are You?

[Avatar]

Well I tried desperately to get a 100 and finally did. This little survey does nothing but show the prejudice of gay people against those who agree with God's Word about the sin of homosexual acts.

If we replaced every instance of gay or homosexual with something else, would it make people phobic of that thing too?

I don't know. Are you phobic of that something else?

I just answered the questions honestly - they were specific. Don't see the problem. If you'd like to do a counter quiz, knock yourself out.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

And what about me? I have an aversion to any PDAs by other folks regardless of orientation. Is two guys making out something I'd rather not see? Uhuh. Guy and a girl too, equally. Just me. And I guess that's why I scored a 13 instead of a zero. I could care less what someone's orientation is - just don't want to see tonsil hockey from anyone, lol.

Well...it isn't what you are averse to seeing, it's what you are averse to doing.

I'm not a fan of PDAs either...

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Regularguy,

Actually an aversion to same sex erotic activity, coupled with an attraction to members of the opposite sex, shows that one is heterosexual in orientation. It doesn't show anything about a knowledge of error.

For you it might but not for me as for me my focus is on what God’s word says and not on my sexual desires. Evidently with different benchmarks as a basis for truth and knowledge there will be different views and conclusions.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Chalice_Thunder,

It is indeed natural for YOU to have an aversion to it. You are heterosexual.

On the contrary, my basis is who I am in Christ, not what my sexuality is. Before I was a Christian I did not have an aversion to it, nor did I have an aversion to heterosexual adultery,now I do.

However, please do not project your aversion to sexual activity with another male on me or onto any other gay man.

I will tell you what the word of God says and my testimony, if that’s a problem for you that’s your problem

For us, it's totally natural - just as God designed it.

On what basis? All the passages discussed such as Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Romans 1 specifically say its totally un-natural and God didn’t design it.

 

[Where]

I got a 74.....

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Well I tried desperately to get a 100 and finally did. This little survey does nothing but show the prejudice of gay people against those who agree with God's Word about the sin of homosexual acts.

If we replaced every instance of gay or homosexual with something else, would it make people phobic of that thing too?

The fact that you tried "desperately" is very telling.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I scored "7 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."

The only 'homophobic' thing I would do is find out if a person I met was gay or straight: straight people are hard to date .

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Well I tried desperately to get a 100 and finally did. This little survey does nothing but show the prejudice of gay people against those who agree with God's Word about the sin of homosexual acts.

If we replaced every instance of gay or homosexual with something else, would it make people phobic of that thing too?

How do you know what "God's word" on the issue is?

 

[D.W.Washburn]

To Regularguy,
For you it might but not for me as for me my focus is on what God’s word says and not on my sexual desires. Evidently with different benchmarks as a basis for truth and knowledge there will be different views and conclusions.

This began with your statement...

yes there is something, an aversion to erotic activity between men is healthy and good because it shows one knows it is error.

...which sounds very general, as if everyone who is averse to same sex erotic activity "knows that is is error."

I accept that you are amending that from the general to the personal, that you are averse to same sex erotic activity because you "know it to be error." I often mistate my points and want to amend things I say. It would be churlish of me to deny you that courtesy.

I don't, however, think that you know same sex erotic behavior to be error. I think you believe it to be error. This is a fine distinction as, often, the things we believe seem to us as facts. But we are dealing here with articles of faith, not knowledge.

 

[Avatar]

Well...it isn't what you are averse to seeing, it's what you are averse to doing.

Really? I am averse to performing homosexual acts myself, because I'm not homosexual. Does that make me phobic? I rather doubt it.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Really? I am averse to performing homosexual acts myself, because I'm not homosexual. Does that make me phobic? I rather doubt it.

You do know that you and I are saying the same thing, don't you?

 

[Avatar]

You do know that you and I are saying the same thing, don't you?

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong then. Happens.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong then. Happens.

Happens to me, too.

I think I see the problem...

When I wrote, "It's not what you are averse to seeing, but what you are averse to doing" I should have been clear that I meant as an indicator of your sexual orientation, not whether you are a 'phobe.

I ought to have been clearer.

 

[Avatar]

Happens to me, too.

I think I see the problem...

When I wrote, "It's not what you are averse to seeing, but what you are averse to doing" I should have been clear that I meant as an indicator of your sexual orientation, not whether you are a 'phobe.

I ought to have been clearer.

Ah, okay. If only all honest misunderstandings on the internet ended so amicably, lol.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Regularguy,

I accept that you are amending that from the general to the personal, that you are averse to same sex erotic activity because you "know it to be error."

Well yes and no, ultimately I know that God’s word says it is error, but basic biology tells me so as well. So yes in that respect I believe it to be error.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

but basic biology tells me so as well.

Nonsense. Basic biology demonstrates that homosexuality is beneficial to communities in which it occurs, and is perfectly natural.

Complex biology further explains this.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

Nonsense. Basic biology demonstrates that homosexuality is beneficial to communities in which it occurs, and is perfectly natural.

Nonsense, and that would depend on the research. Basic biology tells me the man and the woman are compatible sexually, man and man or woman and woman aren’t. Basic biology the male and female are identified by the reproductive organs. As soon as you mention homosexuality you are talking by definition about sexual attraction which in the case of heterosexual is obviously ordered and in the case of homosexual is obviously disordered.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To EnemyPartyII
Nonsense, and that would depend on the research. Basic biology tells me the man and the woman are compatible sexually, man and man or woman and woman aren’t. Basic biology the male and female are identified by the reproductive organs. As soon as you mention homosexuality you are talking by definition about sexual attraction which in the case of heterosexual is obviously ordered and in the case of homosexual is obviously disordered.

Well luckily for the scientific community, biology does not rely on what you think is "obvious". The evidence strongly suggests that there is a genetic component to homosexuality, which suggests that there is an evolutionary imperative behind it. It is endemic to all species of higher mammal, which again, suggests there is some sort of population-wide benefit confered by homosexuality. Then there are the anatomical structures which make more sense when homosexuality is considered as a factor to their development.

Thats what basic biology REALLY consists of, observation of evidence. Not only looking at things through the myopic view of "my daddy dun tole me its evil!", but objective observation of all available material.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII
Nonsense, and that would depend on the research. Basic biology tells me the man and the woman are compatible sexually, man and man or woman and woman aren’t. Basic biology the male and female are identified by the reproductive organs. As soon as you mention homosexuality you are talking by definition about sexual attraction which in the case of heterosexual is obviously ordered and in the case of homosexual is obviously disordered.

Well luckily for the scientific community, biology does not rely on what you think is "obvious".

Nonsense I was referring to what the scientific community think is obvious, not what you think I think is obvious.
A man is a male because he has a male reproductive organ. A woman is a female by nature of having a female reproductive organs. That’s basic biology. When a baby is born one can tell by biology whether it is male, a boy, or female, girl. They can’t tell what sexual attractions the baby has nor can they define it by them, so that’s not basic biology.

The evidence strongly suggests that there is a genetic component to homosexuality,

that depends on the research but what might be the case is hardly basic biology! You have lurched onto something else.

which suggests that there is an evolutionary imperative behind it.

which is a contradiction in terms, how could something evolve that couldn’t reproduce itself. Same-sex cant reproduce.

It is endemic to all species of higher mammal, which again, suggests there is some sort of population-wide benefit confered by homosexuality.

Yes extinction. It sounds like a disease if the male and female of the species increasingly don’t want to couple to reproduce.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Nonsense I was referring to what the scientific community think is obvious, not what you think I think is obvious.

Please, cite your sources. As far as I am aware, the scientific community does not think homosexuality is 'obviously wrong'. They believe, and the evidence shows, homosexuality has a societal role to play, and the human species has evolved as such.

A man is a male because he has a male reproductive organ. A woman is a female by nature of having a female reproductive organs. That’s basic biology. When a baby is born one can tell by biology whether it is male, a boy, or female, girl.

What about hermaphrodites? People with female genitalia but XY sex chromosomes? Sex is anything but simple.

They can’t tell what sexual attractions the baby has nor can they define it by them, so that’s not basic biology.

Then you have a warped view of biology. 'Basic' biology are things like the cardiopulmonary system, or the nature of DNA, or how enzymes work. You can't tell that just by looking at someone. I think you're conflating biology with extremely rudimentary medicine.

which is a contradiction in terms, how could something evolve that couldn’t reproduce itself. Same-sex cant reproduce.

Simple: kin selection. Though homosexuals themselves can't naturally reproduce, they do help their kin to reproduce. Since their kin have essentially the same genes that they do (compared to their kith), it is advantageous to 'boost' the reproductive chances of said kin. It is simply a question of finding the best proportion of homosexuals to heterosexuals (in humans, we've evolved a 1:19 ratio).

Moreover, homosexual couples act as a sort of natural adoption agency: orphans that would otherwise die in the wild can be taken in by homosexual couples, since they are guaranteed to not have kids of their own.

Yes extinction. It sounds like a disease if the male and female of the species increasingly don’t want to couple to reproduce.

Nonsense. First, heterosexual couples use vast amounts of contraceptives and birth controls. Second, people don't 'choose' to be gay; I, a fully-fledged homosexual, can't wait to become a dad.

You know 'endemic' has meanings outside of pathology, right?