Are members of the gay community better adjusted, in a moral sense; than homophobes?

Forums: Religious
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Are members of the gay community better adjusted, in a moral sense; than homophobes?

Gays place love above sex, while homophobes place sex above love.

Jesus would say that gays are closer to his heart than homophobes, and this shows a higher moral sense in Gays.

I am not gay, but hey, like Jesus; I can tell you homophobes that gays (all) still love you, and hope you get closer to love and Jesus someday.

Gayness is nature, not nurture. Nature and the Jesus archetype are showing us how to love more deeply.

This is a Gnostic Christian view and is in full accord with my Mother Goddess, so it must be true.

Regards,
DL

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 1,763 • Replies: 31

@Greatest I am,

Yes

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Yes

I agree.

Regards
DL

0 Replies

@Greatest I am,

Who says "gays place love above sex"? That seems like an awfully broad stereotype.

There have been many times I have looked for sex when I was at a place in my life where I wasn't ready for a committed loving relationship. I can't imagine that sexual orientation has anything to do with this.

Sex is important. I would think that understanding this would be a part of being "better adjusted in a moral sense".

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Who says "gays place love above sex"? That seems like an awfully broad stereotype.

There have been many times I have looked for sex when I was at a place in my life where I wasn't ready for a committed loving relationship. I can't imagine that sexual orientation has anything to do with this.

Sex is important. I would think that understanding this would be a part of being "better adjusted in a moral sense".

Sure sex is important, but not as important as love. Right?

Regards
DL

2 Replies

@Greatest I am,

That depends on what you mean by love. There are people that I love dearly with whom I have no intention of ever having sex. If you mean love of your family, or love of your pets, then love has nothing to do with sex.

If by love you mean a serious romantic relationship, then it depends on your life circumstances.

Sometimes people want sex without any long term romantic commitment. This has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation.

2 Replies

@Greatest I am,

Maybe I'm mistaken but I read your question as indicating 'homophobes' are maladjusted and can't stop worrying/disapproving of what they think gay people are doing in the privacy of their own home...and that keeps the homophobes unbalanced////however the gay community doesn't hate non-homosexuals for their sexual orientation.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

max, go back and read the opening post. Read the thread topic title again.

The subjects are: sex, love, gays and homophobes. Are you saying you're homophobic?

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

No Sturguis. You should read the post again. The thread is about "moral sense" (specifically being better adjusted).

The thesis seems to be that there is some spectrum of moral sense... and that "members of the gay community" (as a group) are pretty high up in the rankings of moral sensitude.

The word "homophobic" is an insulting label that you attach to another person. There is a wide range of reasons people are uncomfortable with homosexuaility including religious and cultural reasons. I don't think lumping a wide range of cultures into a psuedo-medial diagnosis helpls. I don't believe this is in the DSM.

I am horribly linonaphobic and (most importantly) nomophobic. But I am not sure what my phobias have to do with the topic.

0 Replies

@Greatest I am,

Quote:

Gays place love above sex, while homophobes place sex above love.

I've worked in industries that attract a higher percentage of gay people, and some were extremely sexually prolific, while a few were for long term relationships. Then there is the inbetween - one particular trio were all in long term relationships, and all sleeping with each other. That is not a criticism of their conduct - but said to point out that your opening statement has a glaring flaw.

It could be reworked to "many gays plays love above sex", and it would be accurate, but the broad brush you used achieves the same as racism etc - to paint all people of a particular group a certain way, rather than the truth of the matter - that some, many, or most of a certain group are a particular way.

The danger is that such simplified thinking then becomes a guiding thought in a persons...when part of the initial premise is fatally flawed. We as humans tend to vary greatly. Arguments or beliefs that place all people of a group into a certain category is the very same problem that broadminded people argue against.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

I would suggest that homosexuals are no different than other human beings in this regard. For that matter, I am sure there are "homophobes" who put love over sex (I don't believe the word "homophobe" is meaningful).

I don't think the premise of this thread is valid.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Probably Max. There are influences of both genetics and cultural (as in the broad gay community culture) that might result in some differences. But in the end what they do with their time is for them to decide, so long as no one is being hurt (same goes for all people).

If he'd used qualifiers remove the flaw from his statement (and so - included the word 'many'), then there would be no need for debate. Even if you then somewhat disagreed, there'd be little reason to bother posting.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

I read it as the worl being divided into two camps, gays an homophobes. Shaky bits of thinking ,Id say.

The two members arent even on the same spectrum.

When I was in art school there were numbers of faculty and students who were openly gay and merely out for uncomplicated and often dangerous sex. How he can miss this point of history is, to me, revisionism at its best.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Not all straights are homophobes..but I read the question as comparing a group of people who hate gays with a group folks of who are gay. Not all homophobes are violent, but violent people who do terrible harm to people because they are or might be gay are Grade A Homophobes. There MAY be dangerous gangs of furious gay men or women who get lit and go looking for straight people to punish.......maybe I need to do a little research.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

That depends on what you mean by love. There are people that I love dearly with whom I have no intention of ever having sex. If you mean love of your family, or love of your pets, then love has nothing to do with sex.

If by love you mean a serious romantic relationship, then it depends on your life circumstances.

Sometimes people want sex without any long term romantic commitment. This has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation.

All true.

We are talking of the kind of love that has gays wanting to be married so that they can solidify their love connection to their partners just as heterosexual do.

Homophobes would deny gays that love.

Regards
DL

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Maybe I'm mistaken but I read your question as indicating 'homophobes' are maladjusted and can't stop worrying/disapproving of what they think gay people are doing in the privacy of their own home...and that keeps the homophobes unbalanced////however the gay community doesn't hate non-homosexuals for their sexual orientation.

No. You have it about right.

I did not want to add a bunch of cause and effect so as to KIS.

You are correct on homophobic fixations. They look at the physical short duration part of life while ignoring that mental love that is a lot more important to many, while sex is just a small bonus.

Homophobes are shallow thinkers while the better adjusted think deeper.

Regards
DL

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Gays place love above sex, while homophobes place sex above love.
I've worked in industries that attract a higher percentage of gay people, and some were extremely sexually prolific, while a few were for long term relationships. Then there is the inbetween - one particular trio were all in long term relationships, and all sleeping with each other. That is not a criticism of their conduct - but said to point out that your opening statement has a glaring flaw.

It could be reworked to "many gays plays love above sex", and it would be accurate, but the broad brush you used achieves the same as racism etc - to paint all people of a particular group a certain way, rather than the truth of the matter - that some, many, or most of a certain group are a particular way.

The danger is that such simplified thinking then becomes a guiding thought in a persons...when part of the initial premise is fatally flawed. We as humans tend to vary greatly. Arguments or beliefs that place all people of a group into a certain category is the very same problem that broadminded people argue against.

"The danger is that such simplified thinking then becomes a guiding thought in a persons..."

Compare what I said to what religious homophobes use as their guiding light.

To lay with another man is an abomination.

That is discrimination without a just cause.

Care to tell us what you think is a just cause to prevent gays from being exactly what god created them to be?

You should also know that I intentionally KIS so homophobes could not deflect all over the map and ignore that this is a moral question.

Regards
DL

1 Reply

@Greatest I am,

I think the point of this thread is that your religion is better than their religion. Of course, this type of moral hierarchy is always subjective and everyone thinks their religion is better than other religions.

I will point out the flaws in your particular judgment.

1) You are using the word "homophobe" without defining it. Was Obama a homophobe in 2016 (at that time he opposed gay marriage)?

2) You are then reading the minds of these purported "homophobes" telling us with certainly what they think and why. This of course assumes that everyone in this group thinks exactly alike.

I get it, the purpose is to show that your religion is morally superior... but still, this is the definition of a strawman.

3 Replies

@Greatest I am,

Quote:

Compare what I said to what religious homophobes use as their guiding light.

To lay with another man is an abomination.

You're engaging in logical fallacy. Just because I point out there's a flaw in your reasoning, does not mean I agree with 'the other side'. Nor does the wrongs of another side justify your making statements that lump all gay people together in placing love above sex - the statement is simply not true, and likely not even close to true (in terms of all).

Quote:

You should also know that I intentionally KIS so homophobes could not deflect all over the map and ignore that this is a moral question.

As I said - your initial premise is seriously flawed. As and I said after that - if you had qualified it by using the word 'many' (as in many gays), then there would be little to disagree with in the title of your post. Slanted maybe, ignoring different areas of morality maybe, but but in the end, minor flaws in perhaps an overall true statement...if you'd qualified your statement.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

1) You are using the word "homophobe" without defining it. Was Obama a homophobe in 2016 (at that time he opposed gay marriage)?

Another one word qualifier, such as militant?

After all, even 'moral sense' is not defined well. It can include:
- respect for property (no theft, damage of others property, etc)
- respect for others (manners, consideration etc)
- value placed on the environment
- animal welfare
- and many, many other areas of morality

In both your example, and mine - some very simple qualifiers by our OP would avoid the broad painting of groups.

He later goes on to narrow it down, to specific examples, which is much better. And no one is disagreeing with those.

0 Replies

Are members of the gay community better adjusted, in a moral sense; than homophobes?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know