"Those who hold anti-gay prejudices" in their equation by all appearances includes absolutely everyone who has any moral or social or practical objections to considering even foolish promiscuous homosexual bathhouse behavior to be just as preferable and good and desirable as monogamous marital behavior.
IN RESPONSE TO "BIGOTRY THEN AND NOW":…
Article comments
76 - Al Barger
Relevant to this discussion, I found THIS ACCOUNT of the last hours of Strom Thurmond's life.
77 - A.J.
Good morning all. There's a lot to read here and I wanted to offer something that hopefully is not a redundant thought.
I think much of the problem that comes with the acceptance of homosexuality stems from how people view gender roles.
Ask most straight men if they would look at your typical Penthouse lesbian spread and they wouldn't blink. Two girls gettin' it on? Most men aren't turned off by this. It's erotic, men live the fantasy and project themselves into the photo, video, etc. Somehow two women together can still be seen as feminine. Break the Penthouse mold, beef a girl up, cut her hair really short, throw on a flannel shirt and now that the guy isn't physically attracted to her she's a dyke. Personally, I don't know any lesbians that own "Where The Boys Aren't 69". That's why they call it "Gay For Pay".
Now ask any man or woman what they think of viewing male porn. For some reason both straight men AND women are turned off by this. Why? I feel it's because two men together can't be seen as masculine. If Britney & Christina were caught in liplock, instant chubby for most of the male population. How many women fantasize about seeing Brad Pitt & Tom Cruise having hot sex? "Ewwww!" says the straight crowd. Even in a straight threesome, put two girls with a guy and everybody licks & sticks no rules. Put two guys with a girl and Tom better not be stickin' it to Brad while he's stickin you.
I think people who are gay while being defined by gender roles also have the clarity to see through them. My sister is bisexual and it occurred to me when she dates men while they're physically strong, they're personalities are submissive, however, when she dates women she's not as dominant. I think my sister's softer side comes out when she is dating a woman.
I hope for the day when there is more acceptance of homosexuals in the mainstream. If you think about it take away the physical act of sex (which REALLY is people's problem right?) and you can't logically argue that same sex couples are wrong.
Bestiality - WRONG. Animals have no soul. While God will most certainly allow Fido a place by your side in Heaven, he won't be speaking there either.
Pedophilia - WRONG. Children do not have the physical, mental or spiritual maturity for a committed relationship let alone sex.
(For all you atheists animals & children cannot legitimately consent to sex)
Two adult men or women spending their lives together, sharing with one another, moving towards a common goal... seems odd that anyone could consider that wrong.
78 - Eric Olsen
Excellent points AJ, and pedophilia and bestiality are 100% wrong, never okay, should have legal penalties against them, was just too tired to point it out when the comment was made. I'm not too keen on people who are turned on by feces and urine either, but ... no blood no foul.
79 - Phillip Winn
Sorry, A.J., but the factual basis for your post is simply wrong. According to recent research, while men are aroused by the gender in which they are interested, women are aroused by either gender, including watching two men.
Note that arousal is not the same as mental acceptance. A woman might (and in the case many that I know, does) cringe at the thought of watching two men, but the change in reflectivity of her nether regions demonstrates that her repugnance is not as complete as she might think.
Generally speaking, of course.
80 - A.J.
Phillip,
The research you linked points towards women being more open to bisexual orientation so I'm not sure where you disagree with me.
I was not attempting to establish my observations as fact, but I do think said opinions are valid in this dialogue.
81 - Doctor Slack
A.J.:
I agree with Phil Winn. Also with the secular bases of your arguments against bestiality and pedophilia, which are non-controversial. As to this:
"(For all you atheists animals & children cannot legitimately consent to sex)"
It reveals something about your thinking that you imagine "atheists" as a blanket category who wouldn't understand this. You've basically implied in the above sentence that any "atheists" reading your post were routinely practising bestiality and pedophilia before you enlightened them.
Or were you saying that "atheists, animals and children cannot legitimately consent to sex"? Whatever the case, it seems a primer or two is in order.
82 - Eric Olsen
Actually, I think AJ was saying that if the religious reasons for banning pedophilia and bestiality weren't applicable (ie to atheists), then here are the secular reasons...
83 - Phillip Winn
A.J., did you not bother to read the linked articles? The research did not at all suggest that women are "more open to bisexual orientation," but rather that their orientation seem to be generally unrelated to physical arousal.
You said: Now ask any man or woman what they think of viewing male porn. For some reason both straight men AND women are turned off by this. I offered evidence that suggests that you are incorrect, or at least that how someone answers a question about a given visual stimulus apparently does not reflect the actual physical effect of that visual stimulus.
The obvious implication is that negative verbal responses you might receive when asking women the question you suggest are either (1) because you're asking a personal question they don't want to answer or (2) societal, exactly the subject at hand.
So I'm essentially accusing you of circular reasoning, though I presume innocence since you were apparently unaware of the research I cited.
84 - A.J.
Doctor Slack - Eric was correct. My grammar sucks. By no means was I suggesting atheists are sexual deviants.
Phillip - I stand corrected on the articles, but I was not attempting to comment about orientation/arousal in my post. My point was in regards to how society in general views gender roles and maybe this perception is a factor in how people accept homosexuality. While I have no formal research I've been to plenty of events where two girls were holding hands and nobody looked twice. I would venture that such an act doesn't necessarily make them any less feminine. However, if it were two men holding hands I think the straight crowd would not consider such behavior masculine. Beyond sex, I feel when gay men or women act opposite of society's gender expectations the straight crowd gets uneasy.
And I wasn't really concerned about being right or wrong. I only intended to offer another idea to this conversation.
85 - Brian Flemming
Yay!