www.sciforums.com

francois #homophobia sciforums.com

Is it wrong to be disgusted by homosexuals?

I’m not homophobic, but I’m not ashamed to say that I find many homosexuals to be obnoxious. I don’t have any problems with anybody who keeps his sexual inclinations to himself. However, I have a huge problem with homosexuals who impose their sexuality on me and others. Let me explain what I mean.

I don’t have a problem with women giving me the eye. What I mean by “the eye” is the look a person gives you when it’s clear that they’re interested in you, and they find you sexually appealing. When a person gives you the eye, a lot of communicated. When a woman gives a man the look, it means he can have sex with her if he puts in a little effort. It is unmistakable when it happens to you. Personally, I find it flattering, no matter who gives me the eye. Even if it’s an ugly chick, my ego gets a boost. If it’s a hot chick, it gets an even greater boost.

Usually men don’t give women the eye, because it’s presupposed that the man will have sex with the girl. A man giving a woman amorous eyes would be redundant. Thus, it is questionable when a man does it.

However, when I get the eye from homosexuals, I am put off. I don’t know why this would ever need to be explained to homosexuals, but here it is: Don’t ever assume a random person is gay. Don’t put the moves on another person, unless you’re sure he/she is also a homosexual. Heterosexual males don’t appreciate it when homosexual males hit on them. It is disgusting, because men know men. We know what they want to violate our corn holes and we are disgusted by it. It doesn’t just apply to being hit on. It also applies to compliments. If a homosexual man compliments me on my looks, I don’t take it the same way I would from a woman, or even a fat, ugly woman. I take it that he wants to violate my corn hole.

What pisses me off on top of that is sheer (I’m not talking about all homosexuals—I have no problems whatsoever with people who keep their sexualities to themselves, regardless of what they do in private.) audacity that some homosexual men have. One of my brothers told me a story about him in a bar one time. There was this one guy who joined my brother and his friends at a table. He was a nice enough guy who just wanted to make friends. Then the guy started talking to one of my brother’s friends. My brother’s friend was very drunk and the two of them were hanging out, talking and having a good time. And then suddenly, the guy said to my brother’s friend, “How would you like to give me a blow job in the bath room for 10?” Needless to say, the friend was stunned and stalled — completely caught unaware, not knowing how to respond. My brother then stood up and told the guy that he had to leave immediately. He did. Now, let's ignore the homosexual's lack of social graces. Let's say he was just hitting on him and he didn't actually ask him for a blow job for 10?” It’s still wrong because he was assuming he was gay. It’s stupid for a least a few reasons. One, heterosexual males hate being hit on by homosexual males. Two, chances are high that the male who is being hit on is heterosexual male. This is because we live in a world where most males are heterosexuals. There are a lot more heterosexuals than there are homosexuals. So why do they do it?

It’s arrogant. Do they think if they’re charming enough the heterosexual male might appreciate the effort? Do they think there’s a chance the heterosexual might turn into a homosexual? “Well, I’m not gay, but for you, I might make an exception.” No. Trust me, we don’t want your advances. We don’t appreciate your compliments. We don’t even like hearing you talking about sex in general.

I don’t care about what people do in private. If a man has raunchy dirty sex with another consenting man, that’s fine with me. But don’t talk to me about it. I can assure you, I’m not interested. You’re not special, and I’m not going to make an exception for you. While you’re at it, don’t tell me I’m good looking either. Don’t hit on me, and above all, don’t give me the eyes.

Am I wrong here?

[ Maybe you ping as fag on the gaydar, francois. ]

Perhaps you're right. However, that doesn't matter. The point is, gays should be sure that the person they're hitting on, complimenting or making some kind of advance on, is also gay. So hitting on and flirting with another person of the same gender is fine if you're in a gay bar or in some gay place. That's fine. That's what those places are for. But hitting on somebody or making some kind of advance on a person in a regular bar or any not explicitly gay public place should be absolutely, positively sure that the person he/she is hitting on is also gay. They should bend over backwards. Even if I do look gay (which I don't), a homosexual shouldn't hit on me. Unless a homosexual is in a gay bar, they should ask the people around "Hey, do you know if that person is gay/available for some man-on-man action?" And then when they've talked to enough people to be confident that the person in question is in fact, gay, then that person can go ahead and flirt and camp it up with said person.

[ You seem to have double standards. You're quite ok with heterosexual men "hitting" on girls in bars, it seems, trying to pick them up. But when it comes to homosexual men hitting on men in bars to try to pick them up, then you get all offended. ]

I don't have a problem with homosexuals going to gay bars to pick up homosexuals. That's fine. That's what gay bars are for. Heterosexuals picking up heterosexuals at a non-gay bar is what non-gay bars are for.

[ I can only assume that you feel somehow threatened by homosexuals showing interest in you. ]

You can safely assume that.

[ Yet, at the same time, you can't comprehend that a woman might equally feel threatened by your uninvited interest in her. ]

I can comprehend that, completely. However, it's different, because heterosexuals are a majority. Not only is heterosexuality more common, but heterosexuality is generally deemed less disgusting. A boorish heterosexual male hitting on a poor heterosexual girl is different from a boorish homosexual male hitting on a poor heterosexual male. The difference is huge.

You can call it a double standard if it pleases you. But I really don't see it as such. In the third page of the thread I introduced an analogy with the floggers/fuckers and the tour bus driving driving his sick friends across the country.

I agree with you that some women are disgusted by some males who hit on them. But let's compare that to the tour bus analogy. Sure those few women may suffer from these stupid men hitting on them. But those women are like the three or four out of the 25 people on the bus who are sick from the bus driver who is driving fast. The boorish man who is hitting on the poor girls are the bus drivers.

The homosexuals who are hitting on the horrified heterosexuals are like the bus drivers when the bus is full of 25 sick people. And those people are sick because of the speeding. The bus driver continues speeding, ever merrily to his destination, without a care in the world about the 25 people in the bus who are doubling over in their vomit. It's very inconsiderate in my opinion.

If you were that bus driver wouldn't you slow the bus down for your sick friends if it would make them more comfortable? Even though the bus driver is a minority, he should still take his friends' into consideration. It's really simple utilitarianism. You do what makes the most people comfortable.

[ And yet, you seem quite willing to impose your sexuality on other people. And you also seem quite happy for others to impose their sexuality on you - provided that you welcome their advances. ]

Well, there is a huge difference between assuming that a given person is a heterosexual and assuming he is a homosexual. Huge difference. If homosexuals were a majority, I would probably still hate being hit on them, but I would probably get used to it and eventually learn to tolerate it out of simple necessity. However, they are not the majority. They should try to make the majority comfortable by inhibiting their sexualities in our presence because it sickens us. It's simple utilitarianism.

[ So, it seems to me that what you really want is for people to read your mind and magically deduce whether you want sexual attention or not. If they are a "hot chick", then bring it on. But if they are a "hot guy", they should somehow just know that you're not into that ]

Lol, no. That's not what I want. I already explained what I want. What I want is really quite reasonable. I want homosexuals to find out whether or not I am gay before they grope, give me the eye, or make some kind of advance on me. That's what I want. Let me know if you're still confused. I don't know if I can make it any clearer to you. I have Skype. It might be easier to explain it that way.

[ If you're claiming that men never make sexual advances to girls - that it's always the other way around - you're living in a fantasyland. ]

Luckily, I never said or implied anything of that kind. Males are constantly throwing themselves at women in the hope of a favourable response - much moreso than vice versa.
It's called "trolling." It's a tried and true method.

[ But you're happy to "put the moves on" any women, I suppose. ]

Hold on now. You're being hasty and presumptuous. I'm not happy to put the moves on any woman. I'm not a prick. I only hit on women if they are receptive. I can usually tell very quickly in my interactions with women whether or not they are receptive. If they aren't, I don't waste my time or hers.

[ What if she is homosexual? Shouldn't you check, first, like you expect men to check your sexuality? Tell me - how do you propose that will work? "Hi, I'm Bernard." "Hi, I'm francois." "Just checking, francois - are you homosexual?" ]

Once again, I think you think it's a double standard. But it's really not. It's because homosexuals don't find heterosexuals nearly as disgusting has heterosexuals find homosexuals. That's reason number one. Reason number two is this: there are way more heterosexuals than there are homosexuals. Simple utilitarianism. Are you familiar at all with hedonistic calculus?

[ Why? There's no "violation" between consenting adults. ]

You took that too literally. I was just writing colorfully. I try not to bore the shit out of my readers. I am courteous. I consider others. I wish some homosexuals were the same way.

[ And you think that there aren't equally audacious heterosexual men who go around propositioning every woman they see and think might be fair game? ]

Not really that many guys do that. And yes, those kinds of guys are obnoxious, especially if the attention is unwanted. However, it's not on par with that of homosexuals hitting on heterosexuals. It's really not. I think I've already explained my reasoning to you. I think you can anticipate what I would say to that. If you need it again, let me know.

[ How hard is it to say "Thanks, but I'm not interested"? ]

It's not hard at all. My real problem is homosexuals that give me the look or grope me. Or homosexuals that make out in public places. Homosexuals making out in a public place is not the same as heterosexuals making out in a public place. Once again, I don't give a shit about what people do in private. However, in public, I think homosexuals should still be courteous and yielding to the horrified majority.

Well, it might be a 7 to 1 ratio, or something like that. Not terrible odds. From what I've heard and read, it's more like 1 out of 20, or 5%. They are a minority.

[ Do the men who proposition women think the same thing? ]

Get real man. A homosexual man hitting on a heterosexual man is not the same thing as a heterosexual man hitting on a heterosexual woman. If you think it's the same thing, you need to get outside. Take a walk.

[ I don't think many homosexual men would have a problem with that. They would be quite happy to avoid you. ]

Once again, I don't want them to avoid me. I've had gay friends. I'm not a homophobe. I've made it clear what I want many times, but you keep ignoring it, because you know that what I want is actually quite reasonable. Let me reiterate: I want homosexuals to find out whether or not I am gay before they grope, give me the eye, or make some kind of advance on me. They should be yielding to the horrified majority.

Still confused?

[ In fact, I wonder what francois's religious views are. ]

I have none. I'm an atheist. My disgust for homosexuals imposing their sexualities on non-homosexuals is natural and based on several bad experiences with homosexuals. It has nothing to do with Leviticus, as I'm sure you would love to think.

[ Do you think homosexuals have been accepted as a "norm"? I'll bet Prince_James and francois and Baron Max don't think homosexuality is "normal". ]

Then you would have lost money. That you would so flippantly assume that I would think that homosexuality is not natural or normal speaks volumes about you.

[ You rank people giving you the eye above people dry-humping you? Maybe you meant "and lastly"? ]

Strangely, yes. I've been groped, hit on, and stared at by homosexual men. And I think getting the eye is the worst.

Like this one time I got groped it was by this homosexual whom I know. It was at school. We weren't really friends, per se. But we were on a friendly basis with each other. He is openly gay and I knew he was gay. No problems.

However, one day, I was bending over to get a CD from my bag, and he couldn't resist apparently. He grabbed my ass. And I can completely understand my brother's friend at the bar, who was just completely shocked and stunned and didn't know what to do. I was just shocked and appalled for a good 20 seconds or so. After that, however, I composed myself and calmly told him to never do it again and that if he tried to do it again, I would likely beat the shit out of him. Overall, it was a pretty bad experience. But it wasn't the worst. The worst is getting stared at.

Like this one time I was working. And this homosexual who was buying something was staring at me, giving me the creepiest, depraved smile I've ever seen. Words can't describe how it made me feel. All I can say is that it made me feel really dirty. I felt like I needed to take a shower. I felt like I needed to peel off the first layer of skin cells that were infected by the treacherous photons which bounced off my pure, virgin skin and into this asshole's depraved pupils. Worst experience ever. This happened to me a few weeks ago in the bar. It wasn't quite as bad, but it still made me uncomfortable.

[ It's as wrong as being disgusted by heterosexuals, bisexuals, or asexuals.
It's a form of prejudice to be disgusted by a general group of people in that manner. You have to look at things on an individual basis.
]

I'm not disgusted by all homosexuals: just the ones that make it very apparent that they're sexually interested in me, and those who kiss their boyfriends in public and talk about their sexcapades in public. Normal homosexuals, I don't mind at all. Rude ones piss me off.

wellwisher #fundie sciforums.com

The atheist would have a much more difficult time with immortality, because they build their philosophy around the assumption of a short life. They don't put off things beyond this perception of the future, like immediate gratification. The religious people train their mind with the goal of immortality in mind, albeit, in another realm.

wellwisher #fundie sciforums.com

Abortion is more popular among atheists because people don't have the time and don't wish to miss the games of life. The religious don't see this as a sacrifice of their personal gratification, because there is plenty of time for that in paradise. They don't have the same philosophical cancer called death.

Buddha1 #fundie sciforums.com

The essential thrust of heterosexuality in the male is return to the womb. Since the vagina is the only pathway to the uterus, the vagina becomes the center of sexual attention. Sexual concern with other anatomical structures (such as breasts for the rectum) is quite beside the point, and a substantial segment of the heterosexual subculture looks askance at nonvaginal sex. The heterosexual male thrusts fingers, tongue, and penis into the vagina in a desperate, irrational attempt to find again the security of the womb, to return physically to the womb. Since that attempt can never succeed, heterosexuality is inevitably unsatisfying. But to the extent that the male can re-enter the vagina, through which he traveled when he was expelled by his mother at his birth, heterosexual sex approaches satisfaction. This explains why coitus is the preferred form of heterosexual sex: the tongue cannot penetrate very far into the vagina (and besides, the vagina is a very unsatisfactory object of oralism, for the essence of oralism is taking things into the mouth, not straining the tongue to reach out). Nor can a finger penetrate far. Of the parts of the male body, and the thrust into the vagina, the penis reaches farthest toward the ultimate object, the womb. This fact, combined with the fact that many heterosexual males find pleasurable the sensation arising from the penis's contact with the walls of the vagina, works to push coitus as the prime form of heterosexual sex.

Buddha1 #fundie sciforums.com

In fact sex between the 'same' is the most primitive kind of sex practised by living organisms. That shows well beyond doubt that the basic purpose of sex is not reproduction and the pleasure or bonding part is more essentially ingrained for the same sex. It does seem that after sexual dimorphism occurred, nature chose to ride piggy back upon sex between male and female to achieve procreation. But as can be seen from the wild life, it still did not result in heterosexuality.

There are some examples from higher animals too who don't reproduce sexually, but they still have sex with the same-sex.
SEXUAL NEED FOR THE SAME-SEX IS THE BASIC PURPOSE/ DRIVE OF SEX, EVEN BEFORE REPRODUCTION STARTED HAPPENING SEXUALLY

Buddha1 #fundie sciforums.com

Widespread prevalence of sexual bonds between males (I insist not homosexuality) has been proved beyond doubt amongst wild animals.

Now, the ball is in the court of self-defined heterosexuals. It is their moral duty to prove that heterosexuality indeed does exist in nature.....when all the evidence emphatically points otherwise.

And if they cannot validate it through nature, then the practise of 'dating' (that is neither found in the nature nor in non-western societies) should be banned. Male-female relationships should be limited only to procreation. Casual male-female relationships or love affairs should be made entirely illegal. And all intrusions in the male-only societies by planting females into them, in order to establish a heterosexual order, should be removed. So that we can live in the way that nature has meant us to.

Aborted_Fetus #homophobia sciforums.com

I brought up the topic of homosexuality as a disease in a chat room the other day, and i was almost kicked out of the room...it was like more taboo that abortion. I found this quite interesting. I think that is the reason there has not been a cure for homosexuality. Can you imagine what the media would do to a story like that? The public would go nuts if they found out that a cure for homosexuality was being worked on. Is it really that bad? Damn MTV and gay rights activists are so hellbent and proctecting the rights of gays and brainwashing them to think that it is completely natural and that it is OK. It is not OK. Homosexuality is the complete opposite of the natural human reproductive process. Humans are not supposed to be attracted to the same sex. Our bodies were designed perfectly for one male and one female. Homosexuality is a chemical imbalance in the brain (just like bi-polarity, depression, etc) and a cure should be researched. Of course it wont actually be worked on for a while, if ever, because of these brainless activists.

lixluke #fundie sciforums.com

1. Atheists are resentfully anti-religious.
2. Atheists incorrectly believe that they are not a religion.
3. Atheists incorrectly believe in the ‘absence of belief’ myth.
4. Atheists are self righteous.
5. Atheists impose their beliefs and doctrine upon others more than any other religion.
6. Atheists are blind fanatics.
7. Atheists argue for the sake of winning without intention of coming to conclusion.
8. Atheists cry and complain about anything religious.
9. Atheists are emotionally unstable.
10. Atheists discriminate against religious.
11. Atheists are control freaks.
12. Atheists are closed minded and ignorant.
13. Atheists have little grip on reality.
14. Atheists have no concept of logic.
15. Atheists only wish to attack without intention of coming to conclusion.

Baron Max #fundie sciforums.com

Yeah, exactly. We can set aside fenced off areas for each and every weirdo group in the society ....the cocksuckers area, the breastfeeding area, the fuckers area, the pot smokers area, the heroin freaks area, the booze hound area, the murderers gathering place, the rapists groups, the pedophile group, ........., and any and all such groups ..we just set aside those areas and anyone who wants to do or see the fun can just join right in.

After all, a society should be forced to accept any and all people, with any and all weird and strange ideals and habits, right?

Mosheh Thezion #fundie sciforums.com

ive seen lots of women breast feeding in public...

decent women who put a blanket over the general area so it was private and not a public specticle.

those women I can respect.

but without the blanket... shes putting on a show for every sicko man.

thats the reality... men are pigs.

she knows it.

she should of covered up.

MattMarr #fundie sciforums.com

Space Shuttles are normal planes.
A dummy is launched each time.
The real Space Shuttle takes off two hours from what is supposed to be the landing.

New Identities were given to what was supposed to be the Challenger crew, as the rocket exploded on launch in 1986.

The Columbia crash was staged to make the hoax credible.
There is only one more question to be answered:

1. What is the role of Russia in all of this?

I will answer this later, if nobody comes with the right answer.

BTW, you do know what the proof that all of the above is TRUE, right?

----- I have to post this now, because the latest "news" clearly show that the end of this Hoax is being staged right NOW! (1)
(1)NASA checks into potential hit on shuttleSensors on Atlantis’ wing edge set off; station spreads solar wings
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19189731/

Muslim #fundie sciforums.com

Because most of these people do not understand, for a start there is no such thing as the "stone age" humans have been civilized from the start. Even what you class as the "stone age" humans had tool, I can show you tools which are 12,000 year old. which "primitive" man made. Hay I can show you flutes that date back to about 95,000 years ago. Tell me is this "primitive"?

These pseudo scientists come and talk a whole load of shit and claim they have made a "discoveries" and then add there own shit and make it into a philosophy. Its all the fault of scientists they remind me of the Greeks like they used to talk a hell load of bullshit too. Uncivilized swine eaters.
[....]
I don't disagree with micro-evolution, thats a fact. But talking about humans evolved out of genetic garbage is a load of b.s.

Creationism should be taught in schools not crap about "dinosaurs" and "primitive man" and the "stone age" all this is a load of crap. The supreme reality is the Abrahamic faiths are the absolute holders of all truth written in riddles only the wise will understand. There should be a law anyone opposing this should be hanged.

Scientists have killed more people then anyone on the planet. While knowing what they are doing, science is going to be the downfall of humanity.