Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting how none of the right-wingers in this thread have responded to the OP's interesting point. Instead they've all changed the subject to religion.
Actually, we argued with the OP's presupposition that any disapproval of homosexuality = homophobia. He was begging the question with the original post.
Their job is to legislate within the bounds of the Constitution. Right-wing religious theocrats often ignore this, and unconstitutionally try and legislate their religious beliefs upon everybody. Thankfully our system was set up with checks and balances including a judiciary that remedies such injustices.
That sure does sound like the words of a Christianphobe, why do you hate Christians?
That sure does sound like the words of a Christianphobe, why do you hate Christians?
I'm not christianaphobic. I don't hate Christians. I've never once argued for treating Christians differently under the law. I've never once argued that Christians should have fewer civil rights than me . I don't believe we should discriminate against Christians (even the fundamentalist theocrats among them).
What I object to is legislating Christianity as the law of the United States. I object to their assault on our Constitution and the American principles of freedom and liberty. I don't want to live in West Iran.
Actually, we argued with the OP's presupposition that any disapproval of homosexuality = homophobia. He was begging the question with the original post.
In no way was he raising this question. Homophobia is a widely used term whose derivation is similar to xenophobia. "Phobia" is not always a clinical psychology term; hydrophobic molecules, for instance, are not afraid of water, they just don't interact with it.
It's a very dumb and tired argument that you have resurrected, but most importantly, it is OFF TOPIC. You and your fellow righties have HIJACKED this thread. Which, you'll note, is against TOS.
The study seems to draw a very flimsy conclusion based solely on the reactions of a single heterosexual control group. In the Abstract, it is not mentioned which types of sexual activity they were exposed to first. Point being, if men were sexually aroused by lesbian, and heterosexual activity prior to seeing homosexual activity in men, the already heightened arousal could explain a portion of their reaction, even if the increased penile circumference had been allowed to subside between tests. In essence, there is no evidence that the chemical reactions, which normally occur in the brain during arousal, had actually ceased between tests.
Question: Did the subjects view males in solo acts of masturbatory activity? If not, why? If they displayed only 'partnerships', perhaps the men were responding simply to 'the idea of sex', and were visually stimulated because of the responses or the arousal of those they were watching. Sexual stimulation is much more than what we view, its also hearing sexual sounds. Were these videos with, or without sound? A man is very familiar with verbal erotic expressions, likely included in the material presented, which is also very familiar to those who frequent pornography sites, or view pornographic DVD's/videos.
The Abstract suggests that they were exposed to 'explicit erotic stimuli' (videos). It doesn't tell you 'who was present', whether any of the researchers present were female, which would also potentially skew the results. We also don't know the time frame between videos, whether it was hours, minutes, or days. Did any of these men in homosexual videos resemble women? Was the hair long, and their mannerisms very effeminate, which may have allowed some of the men to easily translate the images mentally from homosexual to heterosexual imagery involuntarily? Was there an apparatus attatched to the men, which may have also provided a degree of physical stimulation? Something else is also missing from the Abstract. There are no results indicated. No numbers, no record of the responses of each subject, per video. Did all of the men respond, or did they simply group the most obvious responses?
Another question arises. If girls, age 12 to 14, engaged in sexual activity in videos, eventually producing an increased penile circumference, would this make the men 'closet Pedophiles' ? How about applying the same logic to viewing acts of Sadomasochism, or Geriatrophilia.
I contend that sexual arousal is what we see, what we hear, as well as what physically stimulates us. Let's take this a little further, (risque as it might be). If the testing had involved physical stimulation, lets assume, hand to genitalia, by both men, and women, I believe that this would also have produced significant changes in penile circumference, having nothing to do with the gender of the person making contact. Homophobia, (still a term which does not realistically apply to anyone), has little to do with the reactions of men in a sexually charged environment. The only thing these tests prove, is that psychologists, researchers, and activists, are still reaching for ways to negatively analyze those in opposition to homosexuality, by attempting to establish that the world is simply filled with homophobes oppressing the poor struggling homosexual, while side-stepping their inability to produce conclusive scientific studies. By intentionally confusing the public, the whole issue of homosexuality, slowly becomes little more than a 3 ring circus, having no consistent point of focus, but some of us are not easily confused, or deceived.
Last edited by Pennsylvanian1; 06-15-2011 at 12:52 PM..
Actually, we argued with the OP's presupposition that any disapproval of homosexuality = homophobia. He was begging the question with the original post.
Actually, the OP made no such supposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The OP's linked article
Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980).
The study seems to draw a very flimsy conclusion based solely on the reactions of a single heterosexual control group. In the Abstract, it is not mentioned which types of sexual activity they were exposed to first. Point being, if men were sexually aroused by lesbian activity, and heterosexual activity prior to seeing homosexual activity in men, the already heightened arousal could explain a portion of their reaction, even if the increased penile circumfrence had been allowed to subside between tests.
Question, Did they view males in acts of solo mastubatory activity? If not, why? If they did, perhaps the men were responding simply to the idea of 'sex' and were visually stimulated because those they were watching were becoming aroused. Sexual stimulation is much more than what we view, its also hearing sexual sounds. A man is also very familiar with verbal erotic expressions possibly included in the material presented.
The Abstract suggests that they were exposed to 'explicit erotic stimuli' videos. It doesn't tell you 'who was present', whether any of the researchers present were female, which would also potentially skew the results. What was the time frame between videos, days or minutes? Did any of these men in homosexual videos resemble women, causing the subjects to easily translate the images mentally into heterosexuality?
Another question arises, if girls, age 12 to 14, engaged in sexual activity in videos, which produced an increased circumference, would this make the men 'closet Pedophiles' ?
I contend that sexual arousal is what we see, what we hear, as well as what physically stimulates us. Let's take this a little further, (risque as it might be). If the testing had involved physical stimulation, lets assume, hand to genitalia, by both men and women, I believe that this would also have produced significant changes in penile circumference. Homophobia, (still a term which does not realistically apply to anyone), has little to do with the reactions of men in a sexually charged environment. The only thing these tests prove, is that psychologists, researchers, and activists are still reaching for ways to negatively analyze opposition to homosexuality, by attempting to establish that the world is simply filled with homophobes oppressing the poor struggling homosexual.
I believe you missed the point of the study. It was a comparison between an anti-gay group and a pro-gay control group. The anti-s had significantly more homosexual arousal. Explain that.
To determine constitutionality of law. My argument is that unfortunately they have been known to overstep their authority quite often.
My point was that using that fact to suggest something is moral because it's natural is a bad argument.
To the first comment not directed at myself, it is thier job to judge laws based on the Consitution.
To the second:
Basing laws on religous beliefs is stupidity at its finest, after all, whose religous beliefs do we chose, be careful what you wish for, that is MY pont. I prefer logic, science and justice.
Casper
First, there is no such thing as someone being a homophobic. Its's made up. Second, if someone thinks that being against homosexuality is caused by homosexual arosel , that person or persons that think like this are just projecting their own tendencies towards the same sex. They think that just because they feel this way that everybody else does.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
