>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^A10anis:
>> ^VoodooV:
Look, I think the video itself is quite annoying because yes, I do feel it's a bit preachy.
but the message itself, is quite accurate.
And if it's so obvious, you won't mind stating why homosexuality is not normal.

I totally agree, the video IS "quite accurate," but I stand by my comment. Gays now -quite rightly - are protected by the law, have civil rights and will soon, hopefully, be allowed to marry. They worked hard for their rights, just as woman, and other persecuted minorities, did. My salient point, regarding the video, is that it preaches to the converted, will not change those bigots who will always hate, and that maybe it's time to enjoy their well earned rights and allow time to change the entrenched opinions of the minority. Sadly, going by the comments, ANY criticism of videos like this is tantamount to homophobia, which could NOT be further from the truth.

That's nice...but you're not answering my very simple question.

You deliberately miss my point. I'm guessing, but you seem to lack simple cognative thought. If you need to understand "normal" look it up my friend. I have neither the time, nor the patience to get into semantics.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^VoodooV:
Look, I think the video itself is quite annoying because yes, I do feel it's a bit preachy.
but the message itself, is quite accurate.
And if it's so obvious, you won't mind stating why homosexuality is not normal.

I totally agree, the video IS "quite accurate," but I stand by my comment. Gays now -quite rightly - are protected by the law, have civil rights and will soon, hopefully, be allowed to marry. They worked hard for their rights, just as woman, and other persecuted minorities, did. My salient point, regarding the video, is that it preaches to the converted, will not change those bigots who will always hate, and that maybe it's time to enjoy their well earned rights and allow time to change the entrenched opinions of the minority. Sadly, going by the comments, ANY criticism of videos like this is tantamount to homophobia, which could NOT be further from the truth.


That's nice...but you're not answering my very simple question.

>> ^VoodooV:

Look, I think the video itself is quite annoying because yes, I do feel it's a bit preachy.
but the message itself, is quite accurate.
And if it's so obvious, you won't mind stating why homosexuality is not normal.

I totally agree, the video IS "quite accurate," but I stand by my comment. Gays now -quite rightly - are protected by the law, have civil rights and will soon, hopefully, be allowed to marry. They worked hard for their rights, just as woman, and other persecuted minorities, did. My salient point, regarding the video, is that it preaches to the converted, will not change those bigots who will always hate, and that maybe it's time to enjoy their well earned rights and allow time to change the entrenched opinions of the minority. Sadly, going by the comments, ANY criticism of videos like this is tantamount to homophobia, which could NOT be further from the truth.

The kid was right. Aint no homos going to heaven. Aint nobody else going to heaven either mind.

Is there any point quoting bible verses back to these people? Homophobia is grounded in something more real and primal than the teachings of the Bible. Their interpretation, their projection is sculpted by their fears. While they still fear homosexuality is there any hope of persuading them to interpret their holy book any differently?

Shit oh howdy.

Where the bloody hell did I use the word "homophobe" in the video description?

And he didn't try to kiss him on the mouth, he went for his cheek, which is the culture in France, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and many other countries. Will said he went for his mouth, but he didn't. At least, I didn't see it. He kissed him on the cheek.

What is interesting to me is that the first description I wrote did use the word "homophobe" but then I removed it. Because it was too strong. Will Smith does promote gay marriage. He clearly isn't a homophobe.

And -- man, did he react strongly to being kissed by a man. Instinctively. As an American man, not as a French man, or a Saudi. I don't believe a French man or a Saudi would have slapped a man who kissed him. I don't think that Will Smith would slap a woman who kissed him on the cheek. But he is an American man and there are strong boundary issues between American men.

You can be angry at me for pointing that out. It doesn't make it any less true.

What I find remarkable -- as I noted in the video description -- is how difficult it must be to be a celebrity and people want to touch you. Hug you. And yes, kiss you. That takes courage to allow all these strangers into your personal space like that. Will Smith is a courageous man who respects his fans and allows them into his personal space.

And he reacted instinctively as an American man when kissed by a man.

Man, it is sooooo tiring to be accused of things I don't do. Tiring.

>> ^longde:

Reading the trolling video description, I really wish I would have downvoted.
Not wanting to be kissed on the mouth by a perfect stranger makes one a homophobe? Not being gay = homophobia? Just like with your "saying 'girl' makes you a sexist" shtick, you are drawing the lines too tightly.

Reading the trolling video description, I really wish I would have downvoted.

Not wanting to be kissed on the mouth by a perfect stranger makes one a homophobe? Not being gay = homophobia? Just like with your "saying 'girl' makes you a sexist" shtick, you are drawing the lines too tightly.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ufc, owned, joe rogan, comedy, standup, dick' to 'ufc, owned, joe rogan, comedy, standup, dick, homophobia' - edited by messenger

Even if your premise is true, how does that make african americans different from white americans? As I recall, AAs aren't going around sponsoring laws and bank rolling initiatives banning marriage in every state they can.>> ^Jinx:

Amen to that.
but srsly, what a perfect speech. Fair to say there is a lot of homophobia in the black and gospel communities, which is a shame given their history of fighting for civil rights. Few more preachermen like this guy and that might change. Good sift.

Amen to that.

but srsly, what a perfect speech. Fair to say there is a lot of homophobia in the black and gospel communities, which is a shame given their history of fighting for civil rights. Few more preachermen like this guy and that might change. Good sift.

are you talking about this mindhead?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/homophobia-people-same-sex-attraction-study_n_1412306.html

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Not crazy about your title bb. It downplays the humanity in favor of religion and politics.
I think the world is changing, but I don't think this guy's transformation had to do with the shift towards a more progressive and tolerant culture. I think he changed because of personal experience and his capacity for empathy.
Great sift.


I see your point, but the two perspectives are not mutually exclusive. The way I read the title, the rapper's humanity and empathy shines all the brighter when coming out (pardon the pun) of a black hole of bigotry and homophobia (the religious/conservative South) to which the rapper refers in his lyrics.

I'd like to poll them for religious belief and homophobia

>> ^curiousity:
Thank you for providing this example of your irrationality and intellectual dishonesty by, among other things, completely ignoring the counterpoints to the few studies I was able to get to.

I didn't ignore your counterpoints, I just took them in the balance of this comment of yours:

"Ha. I really have better things to do than continue this conversation that you've, obviously for a long time, been preparing for"

Since you had already dismissed me as unworthy of your time, I saw little reason to devote much of my time to responding to your points. And even if everything you said were true, which I do not concede, it still wouldn't be enough to overturn the general conclusion of homosexuality being harmful to the individual, community and society. The evidence from the Netherlands is particularly powerful as it shows that even in societies that are open to homosexuality, the risk factors are the same or even worse. I'll address your points:

gay party scene: please be specific..I can think of one study.

too old: if it has changed, please show the data

>> ^curiousity:
"Link below is from 2003. It clearly shows the need for STD and sex education in this country. If I was less educated and wasn't worried about getting a woman pregnant, I wouldn't worry about condoms either. It's not a hard concept, but one that I imagine you will easily dismiss because it undermines your argument."

Are homosexuals less educated on STDs and sex education? How else do you account for them being 63 percent of all new cases? Why are the statistics the same everywhere you look. Sex education can only do so much..many people know when they are engaging in risky behavior and do it anyway.

>> ^curiousity:
"A study from two cities in a southern state from 1994. I've included a quote for this study that, apparently, you overlooked: "Although a low response rate severely limits the interpretation of these data, they are justified by the absence of similar published data for both gays and lesbians living outside major metropolitan areas." (This data isn't very useful, but we don't have any other data so we should use it. Again, not a hard concept, but it undermines you conclusions... Ignore! Ignore!)"

Here is more data:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15838193

>> ^curiousity:
"I like how you didn't read all of those 134 words in the second link - "helps users escape internalized homophobia or other social stigmas." I also find it shocking that gay men in long-term, stable relationships are not constantly going to an STD testing clinic - Does this point make sense? You haven't been completely robbed of all logic, have you? If you want to be a little more honest with yourself and actually look at the studies, it is easy to see the gaps that undermines your jumping to validate your viewpoint."

I'm sure that some drug use may be based on their feelings of being persecuted, but if it's all based on discrimination then why are the usage rates the same in countries where homosexuality is practically institutionalized? I also wonder where personal responsibility ever comes into play? Do you think people can blame all of their behavior on environmental factors and not take any responsibility for their own choices? If I lose all of my money because of some dishonest bank and become homeless, does that mean I now have a right to steal? Or when I steal, am I not a criminal?

>> ^curiousity:
There is a classic false argument of saying that being intolerant of intolerance is actually intolerance. If you want to classify my refusal to allow your intolerant claims to stand unabated in that manner, so be it. I do apologize that I didn't make myself more clear about not thinking you were a homophobe, but the simple fact is that I look at people's actions and speech instead of why they say they are doing something. Your actions of condemnation are the same end result and that is what I meant to draw the parallel too, but I had to leave for work and unfortunately didn't make that point clearly.

How are my claims intolerant? I am not intolerant of anyone, I am intolerant of sin. There is a difference between judging someone as a person and judging their behavior. I am incapable of judging anyone, because I would only be a hypocrite, being equally guilty as they are, but I can tell if what they're doing is right or wrong. And yes, it is intolerant (by definition) to be intolerant of those who don't tolerate your position. You either welcome everyone to the table, including those who disagree with you, or you do exactly what you accuse them of doing to you.

>> ^curiousity:
It irks me that you dismiss what I say as trying to undermine only part of your evidence. (To be more honest, I think that irksome feeling is more tied into your utter refusal to address those points of contention… which was expected, but still frustrating.) I didn't have enough time to go through all of your provided evidence. I had to leave for work soon and while writing is lovely, it is a laborious action for me - it takes a while for me to write anything surpassing cursory. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is that I actually was reading and thinking about the studies. So while you were able to throw together quite a few apparently supporting studies for your viewpoint in an hour, I was much slower because I read those studies beyond the headline and skimming the abstract. Congratulations, you succeeded in becoming skillful on the quantity side... perhaps now it is time to focus on the quality side.

As I indicated, your post was dismissive..therefore I didn't spend much time on it. I appreciate the time you did spend but there was no indication you weren't interested in further dialogue.

>> ^curiousity:
Please in the future, respond after reading/viewing any evidence provided. This is similar to all the comments I see here asking you to actually watch the video before announcing that (shock!) what you thought was right was still right because you saw something that you disagree with in the first couple of minutes. If you don’t have the evidence or that evidence is something is the hazy distance of memory, just leave a comment that you need to refresh your memory on those resources. I completely understand this situation as I voraciously and nomadically spelunk into various intellectual subjects. On a semi-regular basis and depending on the subject, I will have to re-find that research that I faintly remember. I know that my writing style can come off as hyper-aggressive and be a little off-putting (especially when coupled how people have responded to you here on videosift.) I can only speak for myself, but if your response to my initial comment said simple that you had read it in some research long ago, that was hazy, and you needed to find those sources – this conversation could have went a very different route.

I'm open to a change in conversation. I am not super interested in arguing about statistics until kingdom come. I realize that they are not going to convince you of anything. I was just trying to support my statement. Since you feel that you understand some psychological motive about me that underlies my behavior, what do you think that is exactly? I can tell you that I do sincerely feel love for all people, even those who openly hate me. Mind you, sometimes I fail to show it, or even show the opposite..but that is something the Lord is helping me with. Some people are harder to love than others, but I see them all as being in the image of God and worthy of my love and respect. I can honestly say that have no predisposition against homosexuals, but you feel I do; so tell me why.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^shinyblurry:

Here is the link to the study which had a broken link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2242700

Ha. I really have better things to do than continue this conversation that you've, obviously for a long time, been preparing for. We'll just have to agree to disagree, but I feel that, as with many born-again, you've lost your empathy to your newfound religious fervor. While my dad isn't a born again, he hides and validates his homophobia with the word of god and the bible. I know, I know - you aren't homophobic... you just see them as immoral sinners destroying society, a force that must be stopped, etc, etc.

In conclusion, logic and self-honesty - what the fuck are those?

You asked for data which supported my conclusions, which I provided. You've attempted to explain some of it away, but the conclusion is still well supported; that homosexuality does harm to the individual, the community and society in general.

Neither have I been preparing for this. I knew that in general my conclusions were accurate due to research I have seen in the past, but I did not do the specific research until after you asked me to provide the evidence. I researched all of that in under an hour.

What I see in your response is the intolerance that you are accusing me of. You casually throw out the term homophobia as if I am on a crusade to persecute homosexuals. Did you fail to notice that I was asked to join this thread? You may also have thought to ask for my opinion, which is that I don't see homosexuality as a necessarily worse sin than lying, cheating, stealing etc. The fact is that we're all sinners and I don't think one sinner is any better than another. I have empathy for homosexuals; I see them as people made in the image of God. I'm sorry to say that some christians have fallen into the satanic trap of homosexual persecution but I see all people as worthy of respect and love, as the Lord taught us. To love our neighbor as ourselves.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^shinyblurry:

...snip...

Of course you have some information to verify your confirmation bias. There is an issue that some of these studies focus (or were only able to find) gay people in the gay party scene. This typically includes younger (or older that stayed in the party scene) people who normally engage in riskier behaviour. Hard to include those people who are quietly gay due to some fear or just preference. Some of these studies are quite old too (one of your cited studies is from 1981... Seriously?) Much has changed for gay men and women in the last 15+ years.


- Link below was not found (even with unbreaking the link.) Obviously you've been working on this presentation for a while so that you can quickly "prove" that gays are the blight on society that you claim.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=2242700&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_Resul
tsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

- Link below is from 2003. It clearly shows the need for STD and sex education in this country. If I was less educated and wasn't worried about getting a woman pregnant, I wouldn't worry about condoms either. It's not a hard concept, but one that I imagine you will easily dismiss because it undermines your argument.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a2.htm

- A study from two cities in a southern state from 1994. I've included a quote for this study that, apparently, you overlooked: "Although a low response rate severely limits the interpretation of these data, they are justified by the absence of similar published data for both gays and lesbians living outside major metropolitan areas." (This data isn't very useful, but we don't have any other data so we should use it. Again, not a hard concept, but it undermines you conclusions... Ignore! Ignore!)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615476/

- I like how you didn't read all of those 134 words in the second link - "helps users escape internalized homophobia or other social stigmas." I also find it shocking that gay men in long-term, stable relationships are not constantly going to an STD testing clinic - Does this point make sense? You haven't been completely robbed of all logic, have you? If you want to be a little more honest with yourself and actually look at the studies, it is easy to see the gaps that undermines your jumping to validate your viewpoint.

http://www.narth.com/docs/methuse.html



Ha. I really have better things to do than continue this conversation that you've, obviously for a long time, been preparing for. We'll just have to agree to disagree, but I feel that, as with many born-again, you've lost your empathy to your newfound religious fervor. While my dad isn't a born again, he hides and validates his homophobia with the word of god and the bible. I know, I know - you aren't homophobic... you just see them as immoral sinners destroying society, a force that must be stopped, etc, etc.

In conclusion, logic and self-honesty - what the fuck are those?