It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why would the idea of a gay man frighten other males so much?

page: 16
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:16 PM
a gay man doesnot frighten me. i just dont believe in what they are. i dont like gay men. i dont want to be friends with them i dont even want them on my tv.

aslo I despise the way a lot of them talk. there is no need for that.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:23 PM
reply to post by the siren

Thats pretty stupid. is that a joke?

having desire for a woman, how is that gay?

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:39 PM

You were just telling the group that a gay men don't necessaily 'frighten' you it's just that you don't 'believe' in 'what they are' (whatever the frip that means) and that you don't 'like gay men' and you 'dont want to be friends with them' and furthermore, you 'don't even want them on [your] tv' and finally, that you 'despise the way a lot of them talk--there is no need for that.'

Well you might be a tad (shall we say) 'prejudiced', but at least you didn't hold back and you sure told us how you really feel !

I wonder, is this 'abominating of' er... I meant to say 'despising' of gay males based on (dare I say it), the prejudices placed into the Hebrew speaking mouth of the clan-god of the Jews in the Jewish Bible with its ridiculous ritual 'Toq'ebah' laws in the Scroll of the Book of Leveticus pertaining to e.g. the abominable practice of males cutting their forelocks (like the goyim did--I assume your forelocks are nice and long..) or the mixing of linen and cotton together in the same garment ('an abomination of the goyim') or cross dressing ('neither shall a woman put on a man's garments' i.e. like the goyim--so much for tight fitting Levi's on women !) and missionary position anal sex (like the goyim) colouring your views, or is this just some kind of random gut reaction to the whole 'scene'?

Just for the record, most 'gay males' feel exactly the same way about breeders.

Certainly gay men do NOT want to watch such 'unnatural acts' (to them) on their wide-screen colour Television Sets, especially now that High Definition Resolution is so common !!

[hint: 'breeder' means 'hetero-sexual', in case you're not in on the joke]

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Sigismundus]

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:03 PM
Not sure if anyone might have already mentioned this, but this is how I explained it to a homophobic friend of mine.
Gay men have the same sexual preferences as straight women. They're no more "perverted" or "sexually active" than women are (and we know there is a wide range among them too).

You have the same chances of being hit on by a gay man as you do by a straight woman. And let me tell you, none of these homophobes seem to have women lined up at their door, so I think they're safe from the gays.

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:07 PM
reply to post by andy1033

From the beginning of time, men have taught their sons that to be a sissy was a disgrace. Fear of gay men no doubt comes from that. Of course there is the ever present danger that some homos might do a saturday night drive by and redecorate your whole house while you are out.............

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:09 PM
Because a majority of straight men associate their masculinity with heterosexuality. When they see someone as being homosexual, they assume they are not masculine so they dislike the person and consider them "feminine". It's "not very manly" to be homosexual. Insecurity much?

As I have stated before, religion is a huge factor. If religions did not condemn it (they are misinformed I might add), then people would have absolutely no basis for being afraid and against homosexuals.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:14 PM
reply to post by MR BOB

Is it because your religion says it's bad? Or do you believe that every person should act and be just like you?

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:20 PM
i love gay men as friends they have found themselves and are at ease and women love to be around them.
straight men i think* need to want to be mascuiline and prove something, not all men tho!! its just way guys are i suppose they love to be dominant and manly and are worried of what other male friends might say or associate them with if they have a gay mate

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 11:13 AM
Hi Jibblin--

What about the 50% of males who consider themselves to be 'homosexual' (attracted to same-gender sex) who are super macho 'tops' who are (often) married with children to keep their secret...well, a secret?

What makes you think male homosexuals are 'feminine'? Or are you just parotting common misconceptions & prejudices for the sake of argument?

I know a lot of butch gays and a lot of very very feminine 'straight' (i.e. heterosexual) males - and let me tell you, you CANNOT TELL a person's primary sexual preference by the way he / she walks or talks.

The human condition is a complex matter, and not subject to neat labels.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 12:20 PM
Maybe this theory has been brought up already -- I didn't read the whole thread.

But, to the OP:

maybe one thing that bothered your schoolmates about your genuine disinterest in female bodies is that it undercuts the common propaganda that gayness is a "choice" and reminds them that most of us, gay or straight, do not get to choose what turns on on. Just as most straights never made a "choice" to start looking at the opposite sex as attractive, most gays never made a "choice" not to.

If homophobes of this specific type (tend to believe that gays are in it for the supposedly more promiscuous lifestyle, a choice they make) are confronted with someone very earnest pointing out that no, it's not that they don't have access to enough women, it's that no matter how many women they had access to they just aren't interested, that forces them to question the judgements they've been so comfortable making.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 12:36 PM
reply to post by americandingbat

Nice responses, from mainly open-minded people.
But putting the onus back on the "homophobe" as a "persona" and "type" of person, I've been on various of these sights and find one thing:
Some people are born to hate.
Yes, its true, if all the gays disappeared right now they would turn to another group to hate.
They always speak of "choice", but if one examined their attitudes it would lead to issues that have very little to do with "choice".
They prove an environmental or genetic proclivity to hate.
They always beg the question: where does choice come from?
Therefore saying "choice" has no meaning outside begging the question of what governs our behavior. Because it always leads back to non-chosen influences, "choice" is the kind of anodyne statement that has no meaning outside its own reference.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 12:57 PM
reply to post by Sigismundus

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. That whole first paragraph was what heterosexual men think, even though their perception is wrong. It wasn't my opinion - it was my opinion on why so many heterosexual men falsely fear homosexuals because, your right, there are so many gay people who would not fit into the typical stereotype of gay men (girly, flamboyant). Those are the ones that are loud and proud, so they are more visible in society.

So read my post again...I was not being anti-gay.

I completely support homosexuals. I think that people are ignorant to downgrade them. The fact is, they are humans just like all of us. They have feeling, emotions (yes men, you have emotions too - stop trying to hide them), thoughts, and the like, so they do not deserve the filth they have to put up with!

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:09 PM
Hi Jibblin--

Thanks for the clarification. What is often not discussed is the Kinsey and Hite Report discoveries over the years which delved into the (often hidden but actual) sexual activities of human terran males and females vis a vis same gender sexual activity, regardless of 'inclinication' or 'preference'.

People think that 'straight men' are 'straight' all the time and 'gay men' are 'gay' all the time, but this also is not the case, as you probably also know. There are many variables and nuances in human sexual activity.

Some gay men would never ever ever think of even looking at a female but one day, they find themselves oddly attracted to one (for whatever reason) and sometimes pursue it. Ditto for 'straight men' who never ever thought they would ever be looking at another male sexually, then wham ! bam ! they start to have 'feelings' for that one person who just happens to be of the same gender as they are.

Sometimes they pursue their feelings, sometimes they do not. Or they put it off for years or decades and then decide to do something about it (i.e. experiment).

Sometimes they experiment and realise they like 'both' equally as well, sometimes they experiment and realise they do not like it at all, sometimes they experiment and realise they like one a little or a lot more than the other, but not any one ruling out the other.

I suppose all terran human males and females are 'potentially' bi-sexual, but (as you suggest) religion and society (to propagate the species) always try to push them (both conciously or unconsciously) into heterosexual unions...even in ancient Greece, when a man had a boy toy lover (or three...), he still was more or less expected to get married and father children i.e. have a family ('get married, produce sons, and do what you want with your boys on your own time !')

But as you suggest, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic (i.e. monotheistic) religious dogmatic Weltanschauung along with its concomitant elements of fear and supersitition does indeed play a major part in people's hangups with respect to human sexual expression - including the pinning of 'sin' on to women (and the related images of women being evil, sinful, dirty, weak, susceptible to daemons, not having souls (as the Rebbes say since ONLY ADAM had the 'breath of life' breathed into him by YHWH, at least according to Genesis chapter 2, unlike Genesis chapter 1 where 'male and female' are created together and 'he called THEIR name Adam' (e.g. Gen chapter 5:2 where the author of chapter 1 re-appears again)

And it is about time all this superstitious nonsense stopped, if you ask me !

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 11:01 PM
reply to post by Sigismundus

Good post! You said what I couldn't put into words. Haha.

If I do remember right, religion was used in some instances to deny women and blacks the right to vote. We can't take the Bible literally. If we did, man would have superiority over women, if children said fowl words to their parents, they should be killed, those who mary divorced women, they should be killed too, etc could go on all day. So the passages that are used against homosexuals shouldn't be taken literally AND we should go back to the original Bible and translate it again. I guarantee that it could be translated without any mention of homosexuality. Thats what happens when you translate it from Hebrew to Latin to English - things may get a little messed up! My opinion at least.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:35 AM
reply to post by Deebo how do you think gay people feel having to listen to you talk about what your and YOUR other half did over the weekend? or to have to listen, in silence, to your nasty homo jokes? HUH???????

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:35 AM
I think it mostly has to do with the fact
that gays are less likely to have children.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:49 PM
i think OP¨trolled you guys.
Well anyway, dont feed the trolls and deny ignorance

posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 05:21 PM
If everybody drunk water? we would live so water is good right. If everybody ate rocks we world die so rocks is bad for us right? If everybody was gay then what? its obviously wrong and very disgusting to even just think about.

posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 05:55 PM
a reply to: MR BOB

Are you serious? or is this sarcastic?

top topics

<< 13  14  15   >>

log in