Are people born to dislike and fear homosexuals?

There are no State laws that protect homosexual or heterosexual people from such discrimination by private individuals in Texas. You uninformed or dishonest? Were you aware that the rest of the state of Texas hasn't had a lesbian mayor for 6 years?

 

Girls in kindergarten and grade school had cooties. I wasn't taught that by adults. Boys and girls naturally tended to segregate. Girls were different than boys. Once puberty kicks in homosexuals are different than heterosexuals. Soon after I learned what heterosexual sex was, I learned that some men engage in homosexual sex, I was disgusted by the thought. I don't believe I learned that disgust, other than by observing the 100% of sexual relationships I am aware of to be heterosexual relationships.

 

In response to my assertion that
"We don't have such silliness in our state law."

that would prevent me in my business from discriminating against homosexuals, Doc responded

"Texas does, you cannot refuse regular services to a customer because of race, national origin, color, or sexual orientation"

when in fact, there is no such state law that applies to me in my part of Texas. But you will defend Docs bull (*)(*)(*)(*) because it fits with your homosexual agenda.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course I am.

 

Biggest part of that environment is the what appears to be 99.something% of sexual couples being heterosexual couples.

 

I am not defending anyone, if you live in a state / city that has no ordinances barring orientation as a cause then you can cite it as reason for termination for now. I have a feeling the SCOTUS will be intervening soon so enjoy your open bigotry while it lasts.

 

Were you aware than none of this makes any difference what so ever?

 

In reply to the original poster's opening...I'm sorry but your question and or 'theory is completely bunk and without any merit whatsoever and there is no scientifical or medical evidence that supports it. People are not born to hate or born with hate. Hate is a learned behavior period.

 

There's a central problem with your question; the term 'homosexual' is a very recent invention. Think about it.

 

It is a convenient label that makes detractors happy to lump people they hate into proper categories for easy hating and persecution.

 

Actually it directly contradicts Docs claim.

 

And how could you be aware of any homosexual relationships when the the kind of bigotry you represent kept all those indulging in the closet?
You'd be shocked to learn what Uncle Freddy and others got up to when nobody was looking.

 

Besides that you are wrong, what is your point? The word "homosexual" dates back to the 19th century. Previously, the terminology was "sexual inversion." The word used by the general public was "Sodomite."

"In English the word homosexual was first used in 1892 in the English translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia sexualis" a German reference work on sexual perversions. The original appeared in 1886 and was enormously popular, being reprinted about once a year!"(http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_did_homosexual_become_a_word)
"homosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from Ger. homosexual, homosexuale (by 1880, in Gustav Jäger), from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see homo- (1)) + Latin-based sexual. "Homosexual" is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it. It is, however, convenient, and now widely used. "Homogenic" has been suggested as a substitute. [H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897] Sexual inversion (1883) was an earlier clinical term for it in English. The noun is recorded by 1895. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?

"Gay" meaning homosexual men dates back only to the 1970s. Prior to that, "gay" in a sexual context meant "promiscuious" in sexual sense. Prior to this it had a even more general meanig of being a carefree party person.

Replacing "gay" for "homosexual" was a very specific campaign by early homosexual rights activists to try to find a nicer word without sexual context. Gay was desirable for that reason and because "gay" sounds happy and safe. However, in the history of the word "gay" also meant promiscuity. Thus, it should not be surprising that many people see homosexual men as sexually promiscuious - particularly to older people - as that is exactly what the word "gay" meant - and had for a very long time (about 500 years).

 

That's a lie. It was a technical, clinical definition. The word "gay" was a corrupting of the word that previously meant a promiscuious party person. The reason to try to redefine "homosexual" to "gay" was advocated to divert from the sexuality involved. This was particularly so because homosexual men were perceived publicly as dangerous and predatory.

 

It is not a lie,

A lie are the many outspoken Anti Gay spokesmen that yell, "All Gays are going to hell"
And those same men are discovered to have ruined many young boys lives by buggery.

 

Thank you for attempting to acquaint me with recent history. We have a different definition of 'recent. As to 'Sodomite' can we please put aside the absurd presumption that only homosexauls indulge and acknowledge not all homosexuals practice anal penentration?
As to terms used to describe male/male sexual preferences ( odd how love is hardly ever mentioned in these discussions) my preferred terms are 'poof' (sometimes 'poofta') and 'fairy'. Poof is an essensially Australian usage though now spreading, once with negative connotations, but these days If some idiot thinks they're going to insult me by calling me a 'poofta' I respond along the lines "Yeh mate, I'm a poofta and proud of it, so what ya gonna to do about it?" Mind you it pays to have a decent level of marial arts training to indulge in such usage. I do.

My second preference 'fairy' has almost gone out of use but it still appeals. Sometimes I use 'f.a.g.g.o.t.' because of it's origins in equating gays with the bundles of sticks placed around a pyre for burning witches. In the middle ages in England and elsewhere gays were tied to the base of such pyres as a 'support act'. Give the religious right enough rope and they'll be at it again.
And what was my original point? The notion of homosexual as a rigidly defined type is recent. If you explore attitudes to this question further back in time you'll find 'sodomy' was by and large the description of a type of behavior, not a particular classification of person. The recent fashion for rigidly defining such behaviors by type is an attempt by some to pretend being defined as 'heterosexual' removes all implication they might stray from the straight and narrow. How very comforting for you all until you're confined in all male environment such as prison and come to understand what I'm trying to say.

 

I really don't understand your point. They are thousands of different cultures historically. In the West, relationship and sexual behavior to correct social norms are often fairly strict. Other times and other places not so.

I don't see the word homosexual as having any negative context. To those it does have a negative context they will have negative sentiments regardless of the word choice. It has only been very recently that some now claim that the word homosexual is a slur, when it is not. Nor do I have any problem with the word gay. (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) has always been used on the context of a slur and condemnation, so see it as an unacceptable word.

Curiously, homosexuals also often were and still are sometimes called "queers" as an insult/slur, while also now as become defined as a sexuality or identity - though I've never really figured out exactly what that is supposed to mean other than somehow different in ways none of the other 10, 20, 50 words now apply?

The purpose of my OP was an inquiry and speculation, not a declaration and certainly not as an anti-gay declaration. Rather, I suspect it is very likely that it is within human dna/natures to fear and be apprehensive towards people who are "different" - regardless of how. This also seems common among the animal kingdom. That is neither a justification nor condemnation, just an observation. People also are conditioned from birth as to what is odd, different or unacceptable - so seeing LGTBs as "different" in a negative sense may be due to conditioning defining such people as different in the sense of being a "them" rather than an "us."

 

That's just a weird message. Most people can get past mistreatment or lack of acceptance in their youth. It seems that you are fixated on your past.

My childhood and youth was of levels of abuse few people could even wrap their head around. But it is just my past and the past is gone. To leave the bad of it behind and anything positive acquired out of it brought forward. Too many people mess up their own lives and own heads unable to advance out of the past into the future. Your messages seem of that nature.

 

Cicero felt otherwise about remaining ignorant of the past you seem all to happy to bury, I say Never Again, to past atrocities that are often repeated if one ignores past history, another Hitler could rise to power.

 

isn't it then possible that some people are born to dislike and fear homosexuals over which the person has no choice or control?.......>>

There seems to be a genetic revulsion to sodomy in addition to the various influences from society in general.

 

You seem fixated on projecting your own ideations, you know nothing of my accomplishments or triumphs in life.
I am merely relating past experiences that may serve to prevent these things from happening to others.
If the Vatican had dealt with these issues head on, not simply shuffling the deck, many young lives would have been spared from needless suffering.

 

We cannot generalise from how we reacted to truama in our youth to assert others 'should get over it'.
We know from clinical studies early childhood trauma and deprivation can have permenent organic effects on the brain and autonomic nervous system. The other side of this coin are those individuals raised in loving families who go on to become totally dysfunctional as adults. We don't as yet have all the necessarly knowledge to explain all of this but studies carried out on identical twins are starting to shed light on it.
I experienced what I can only describe as pure evil when studying the pipe organ as a youth in a Catholic cathedral. I survived fairly intact on the psychological side but have retained an eternal loathing for the hypocracy of the priesthood. A fellow student subject to similar treatment I received committed suicide at 19. Another issue we should face is the very controversial idea that not all adult/child sexaul relations are necessarily traumatic. Many are but many are initiated by the young without negative consequences. Young males can be unbelievable aggressive in the pursuit of erotic experience. None of this justifies any adult forcing themselves on children though.
As to inate aversion to homosexuality I suppose from an evolutionary perspective such instincts had a place in the survival of the species but given what I've seen of tribal behavior in New Guinea natives I doubt we can claim this 'natural aversion' is anything like universal.

 

I postulate that there is deep seated resentment of many groups, gun owners for example, Anti Gun advocates resent gun owners independent spirit, their tendency to dissent and split from the Political Party main on many issues.

This seems to be a common issue, if you do not conform to what society views as "normal" or conventional, you are an outcast in their myopic views.

Many people are made uncomfortable when I relate issues, I feel these issues are important disscusion so others can understand they are not alone and others have suffered these evils too.

I too have witnessed the acts of predatory young males against other young males as far as acts of sexual predation, these were otherwise heteosexual males, exerting power and control over weaker males.

Some people would rather others to simply shut up and go away, or as many used to say; Dry up and blow away, this serves no useful purpose, except to ignore evil and allow it time to flourish.

 

***Where in hell did you come up with this ridiculous concept of yours***? The onset of puberty has nothing to do with how one is attracted to others. It may intensify their feelings, but more often than not ones sexual orientation is innate. Most all of my gay friends knew of their 'feelings' all of their lives, before they started puberty.

 

I can assure you it does for 90 something% of the population.

 

I know this from personal observation and personal experience, these feelings are well established before onset of puberty sans external influences.
One small item of interest, the intensity of those feelings in my case, were off the chart to start with, puberty did not affect them in any significant manner, libido may increase, not actual attraction or desire for physical contact, that begins at the earliest ages of self awareness and self discovery.