enthusiastically grabs popcorn, waiting for the shitstorm in cinemascope to unfold soon......

I'm not homophobic.

so far so good

I don't have a problem with gay people but...

uh-oh

...I do believe same sex relationships are messed up.

here we go

I don't believe that it truly is just a healthy difference.

oh dear

...I just think it's wrong or messed up to be attracted to the same gender as yourself. That's not how real attraction works.

Wow...just...wow. Honestly, I think you need to reassess your belief that you're not homophobic.

It's not like I haven't heard that there may be a higher correlation between childhood abuse and homosexuality. Yet, I have not heard about any proposed causal link. i.e. an actual mechanism. Sure, there probably are a few cases where it works that way - after all, there are weird conditions around. I mean one, that would really explain all the gay people. Why are there "good christian" families that have a lot of children and bring them all up by teaching them "good christian" values, yet one of the kids turns out gay without being molested? And this kid tries to be "normal" for years and can't and eventually the family kicks the kid out? Where does that come from?

Of course extreme conservatives like to claim that, but just the fact that this is on conservapedia should make people skeptical.

A lot of food for thought can be found easily: https://www.google.com/search?q=molested+gay+causality

For example http://www.pandys.org/articles/abuseandhomosexuality.html describes this hypothesis:

There is one interesting theory put forward by Wachob (1999) that children who grow up later to identify as LGBT are more at risk of sexual abuse as children. She stipulates that being abused does not cause homosexuality, but rather that children who will later identify as LGBT are more vulnerable to child abuse.

The reasons she gives for this is that LGBT adults report that their behavior and interaction with others was often atypical in childhood when compared to their peers. Being or feeling “different” can result in social isolation / exclusion, which in turn can lead to a child being more vulnerable to the instigation and continuation of abuse (Gracia, 2003).

In addition to this, many gay men in particular, report that they remember feeling dissatisfied or uncomfortable with their body as children, and as young teens they sought out situations in which to try to make sense of their sexual feelings (O’ Leary, 2006). Unfortunately, therefore, abuse could occur in this situation because abusers take advantage of the child’s uncertainties and insecurities.

Of course we don't really know...

But not knowing still means that the tl;dr is that if you are so convinced to know, you have likely been convinced by politically far right or religious propaganda.

edit: skeptics.stackexchange.com is always a good read: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1931/does-sexual-abuse-lead-to-homosexuality

another edit after having read it: not actually that good in that case. Oh well...

I'm curious how many people's minds you've read to know what constitutes "real attraction" and to know whether or not gay people have it.

your first statement, however, is terrific advice.

\*looks closely at the injury\*

Yep, that's a burn

You have to check this guy´s post history to properly understand my reply, mate. I used his own words in a satirical way here..sadly you can only read the words but can´t see how much I was smiling and giggling while I was writing them...

no, it's because you say it's wrong only because you don't like it.

How did I not understand the things you wrote? Your worldview is flawed and your epistemology is irrational and hypocritical. The end.

I assume this is a second account, isn´t it?

No. (something...something...wild guessing bullshit, mate).

Eventually you may even get what is it I´m trying to put across here

Well, I've all but given up hope of you comprehending what I've said so I guess we're even yeah? Fuck it, how about I give you one last go...do you remember when I wrote, in reply to /u/ursusem:

I'm not suggesting that you're not entitled to an opinion, however you do need to be aware of your audience.

Fucked if I'd know how you could misinterpret that, but maybe you...

should learn something about discussion mechanics.

So, when ursusem wrote:

Well, at least you're into the opposite sex, buddy. I applaud you for that.

Well, what the fuck did you think would happen? Damn dude, I even gave you a fucking analogy but you were so tangled up justifying your own bullshit that it still went over your head.

I have to agree with what /u/zetacola said elsewhere, it's absolutely spot on (and significantly more tactful than myself but then people tell me I'm not backwards in coming forwards...). 30-30, you're not the only person that looks at post histories...when you're "on song" you're a great communicator and have a lot to contribute both within this community and to the general public...but fuck me, when you sink your teeth into something like this I have to wonder if you're the same person. Here you are again, this time the lecturing us about free and critical thought, accepting opposing views and the danger of latent fascism and generally sprouting some really insightful stuff while simultaneously trying to stifle any discussion of homophobia and successfully missing the point that the whole reason this was even a thing is because both you and ursusem fucked up some basic

discussion mechanics

...WTF?

Quote"..and the fact that the majority of people are opposed to your opinion does NOT mean you are discriminated against"...Please apply this to your own position when the next anti zoo shitstorm arises.

Zoos are discriminated. What ursusem did was discrimination against gays. Discrimination is a prejudice against an individual based on their perceived belonging to a group rather than personal merit. If someone says : "all zoophiles are evil!" that's discrimination. If someone says : "all homosexuals are evil!" that's discrimination. And you could apply this to any group really, it doesn't even have to be restrained to "special interests" groups. "You are German therefore you are a Nazi!" That's discrimination... But if I say : "You are a homophobe because you discriminate against homosexuals," that's not discrimination. Even if everybody on Earth says the same thing, it's still not discrimination.

So, why all the hostility towards ursusm? I´ve seen it quite a few times when she expressed her disliking of dogs. Why is it so important to you defenders what other people think?

People are hostile towards ursusem because she makes absurd claims and is unable to back them up with anything factual. You can dislike dogs, sure. A lot of people dislike dogs and that's fine. Hell, I don't automatically like every single dog I see and I want to sleep with them. But it's more than just dislike. She is afraid of dogs; she has a hard time reading them and trusting them. Again, nothing really wrong about this either. It starts becoming weird when she admits being okay with sharing intimacy with a bear. I guess as a fantasy it can work. But when you start to take this outside of the realm of fantasy, it becomes well... absurd. A bear is a feral, dangerous animal. There's no denying that dogs can be dangerous too, but they are social animals that also happen to be domesticated. A dog won't lash out for no reason and most communicate their state of mind very clearly (to those who care to listen, that is.) As someone who loves dogs, it irks me a bit to see somebody who knows next to nothing about them spout all sort of nonsense. I'm sure you must feel the same about horses, no?

Now she starts going into her homophobic rambles. Her opinion, as I understand it, is that homosexuality is wrong because it's ultimately against nature. Again, it's fine to think that. A claim like that is hard to prove or disprove. For all we know, it could very well be against nature. But nature is not a barometer to gauge the rightness or wrongness of human behavior. It simply does not work. Now for the absurd part: she can justify sexual contact and romantic attachment between a human and an animal and not between two beings of the same gender. Again, using her idea nature as epistemology. If sodomizing my male dog is wrong because it's against nature, then sodomizing my female dog is wrong as well. And you can bet your ass the sex of the animal certainly isn't the defining factor.

Why is it so important to you defenders what other people think?

If the point is to discuss, than I think it's normal for discussion to happen. If you voice an opinion I don't agree with, I will do my best to offer a rebuttal. That is the nature of discussion, no? If no one cared what other people thought, there would be nobody here, including you. What I like about /r/zoophilia is exactly the fact that it is not a hugbox echo chamber. True discussion does take place here. But even then, it still happens that a subject, like say acceptance of homosexuality, manages to consolidate the majority of the people here willing to talk about it. And that's okay too. The subject of fence hopping consolidates the majority of the people too. Is that a bad thing? No.

most of what "our" community had contributed was just yelling at the pariah.

I don't feel like this is the case at all. I can agree that I rapidly, rapidly become a dick when I feel insulted in a conversation. But I feel the points have brought up, along with other's, were logically sound and worthy of consideration. If I compare this with the irrational name-calling ursusem called arguments, I feel that it's because of the utmost respect of others' opinions that people (me) still are ready to engage in conversation with her.

I do know that freedom of speech is bilateral, but I also don´t understand why it is so important to force your "just beliefs" into everyone´s heads

You really don't get what I'm trying to say. This is not about the "justice" of the beliefs. This is about the consistency of the beliefs. Consistency! If you can justify bestiality, it makes no goddamn sense to be opposed to homosexuality! That's it! That's my entire fucking argument! I cannot for the life of me understand what's so hard to grasp about this! If you base your morality of bestiality on the "no harm principle," you cannot simultaneously consider homosexual behavior wrong when no harm is done there as well! If you think that the gut reactions of the masses aren't enough to vilify zoophilia, you cannot simultaneously consider homosexual behavior wrong when it instill gut reactions in you! It is not consistent!

I like to hear why it is so important for the LGBT community that everyone literally has to love `em or else they are "homophobic, irrational, bigoted,etc."

Because, like I said in my previous post, there is no logical argument to be made against these people. You have every right in the world to think that butthole sex is disgusting. But the second you discriminate against people who partake in that activity, you are homophobic, irrational, bigoted, etc. If these people have done nothing wrong, they do not deserve to be treated as if they have done something wrong.

Sure, we will never create a world where everybody accepts everybody unconditionally. We will never create a world where nobody thinks butthole sex isn't disgusting. But it doesn't matter. If we manage to create a world where teenagers aren't thrown out of their house and disinherited because of who they chose to love, this is what matters! You can fight for acceptance, you just have to educate people. Bigotry comes from lacking education and only education can fix the problem. No, all homosexuals aren't pedophiles... No, all zoophiles don't brutalize animals... When you have some nonsensical drivel being spouted by people like ursusem, you are deterring education and therefore progress.

Also, like I said before, shut down the computer and go talk to actual people and you'll soon realize that true LGBT people, not the fucking whining vocal minority you see on shitholes like tumblr, also care about nothing than being accepted by family and people close to them. It's the fact that these people are routinely not accepted by their families or people close to them that's the problem.

For me, it is equally inconsistent to be homosexual and hate on other subgroups in the sexual spectrum like us. I agree that homosexuals don´t owe us anything, but again, do we own them anything?

I (hopefully) explained what I meant about consistency above. I'm talking about the logical consistency of one's positions. LGBT, like everybody else, will never consider our perspective because animals can't consent. No, we don't owe these people anything, but if we can justify acting out on our sexual desires, we consequently lend them credence.

This is what life is all about, folks. It´s not about turning the entire world into a nice little soft pillow, it´s about getting manly (or womanly) enough to deal with all the punches thrown at you and still walking upright, smiling.

That's just too easy to say.

I really applaud you guys for how you handled the discussion, while there could have been fewer insults each and every one had at least a point in their argument, which is way better than how it could have been.

/u/30-30 had a point regarding the blind acceptance people have to give to the LGBT community, while their existence is legit and everyone should tolerant it, that doesn't mean people shouldn't criticize and express their feelings about the topic in a calm and civil discussion, I am a guy who likes to look at different viewpoints, but I feel the internet threatens to damage anyone's reputation if they intend to say anything bad about LGBT, and this makes me feel there are a lot of anti-LGBT people who were forced to either suppress or change their viewpoint solely because of how other people on the internet may react if they vocalize about it.

I myself one time was browsing /r/aww and there was a picture of two hamsters sitting together on a tree branch looking romantic, I felt aww'd by that, until someone in the comments pointed out that they both have balls, I chuckled a bit then replied to him "aw, man, you ruined the moment for me" (ignore that it's a shit comment, I was still new to reddit), and then immediately got bombarded by people telling me that I am homophobic, while really I was just expressing how disappointed I was that the hamsters' behaviour was not as relevant to me as I thought, since I am straight, you know what I mean?

Now I must make it clear that I am not against homosexuality because frankly, i don't really care, but if someone shoves homosexuality upon my face they'll get my opinion on it which is that I am not homo, i do not like homosexuality, I don't support it because i don't know batshit about it and I don't support things blindly, in the end I'd like to point out that whenever anyone speaks about homosexuality in general on the internet they usually have to emphasis something sometimes multiple times in a row "I have to say there is nothing wrong with being gay" "I am not against homosexuality" to make sure nobody misunderstands them, like seriously guys, if people easily get offended by something that we have to repeat over and over that we don't mean what they might think we do mean as if we're standing in of court and afraid of getting imprisoned if we say something wrong then there is something wrong with this society.

I can't wait to read you.

Seriously though, if you can't quote academic papers or at least a few statistical studies that demonstrate that homosexuality is detrimental to people, I'd advise you to not even waste your time writing your reply. Because appeal to emotion and other baseless stupidity doesn't sway me one bit.

Suggesting that zoophilia is a legitimate real orientation. And do you know what usually happens when unpopular opinions are expressed? Well, most people just attack and insult the individual who expressed the unpopular opinion and you encounter the same closed mindedness and unwillingness to really listen to the 'unusual' viewpoint that we see whenever we are talking with people who are against zoophilia

Yes I agree. But now you must ask yourself why do people attack those who entertain the thought of zoophilia as a legitimate orientation? Most of the time, it's because people let irrational emotions get in the way of their reason. Emotions that you yourself have clearly expressed towards homosexuality. I'm sorry, but irrationality does not have it's place in a conversation that yearns to be rational. Go listen to the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham and try to tell me these two men are on the same wavelength from and intellectual and argumentative standpoint. It just doesn't work.

I too like to hear different viewpoints on things. And I don't consider myself as someone close-minded at all. But I hope you understand that calling things "evil" with absolutely no other foundation other than your gut feeling towards it does make for some pretty weak rhetoric.

and by the way, this only demonstrates ignorance on your part- you're saying, 'I don't know how that's possible' which means you need to listen to this other viewpoint that you've apparently never encountered before

It's not that I don't how it's possible that someone may be against homosexuality but supportive of zoophilia. It's that it's simply not consistent to hold these two views simultaneously. It's cognitive dissonance on your part. If you can justify bestiality, you cannot logically decry homosexual sex. You seem to understand what I mean about that, but your view still doesn't budge, so for me it's a bit of a lost cause at this point.

Personally, I don't understand why people feeling that way is a problem. It's a problem if they then also feel that due to their feeling and special belief they also have the right to control how I live my life.

It's a problem because you validate the views of those who are opposed to zoophilia when you use the same rhetorical devices to condemn something else.

However, that doesn't mean that I think that no one should ever be allowed to express their criticism of homosexuality and/or zoophilia [...]

No of course not. But what bloody criticism have you provided us ursusem? Slandering is not criticism.

that no one should be allowed to believe that either or both are immoral or that they shouldn't be allowed to speak on their beliefs.

Again, on what do you base your epistemology of what is immoral? If you hold an utilitarian perspective (no harm done) to vindicate zoophilia, on what do you base your perspective to decry homosexuality? The "supernatural"? Jesus Christ. The supernatural has no frigging place in a serious discussion, I don't care what you think. You can't expect people to remain silent when you base your claim on something as vaporous as the supernatural. And this goes for just about anything, really.

By the way, I don't hate you. I hope you haven't interpreted what I said as hate towards your person. I am just talking, no hard feelings. But try to put yourself in the shoes of people who are gay and read what you wrote. I wouldn't hold it above their heads if these people indeed decided to hate you.