Best cure for homophobia?

name one accredited university anywhere that allows wikipedia as an acceptable source. just one.

 

And now you're just being ridiculous. We're not at university. We're not writing academic papers that require extremely high-value citations. We're dealing with a forum debate about well-known, well-established facts, for which Wikipedia is entirely reasonable. It's like if you ask me to do a 9th-grade report on the civil war, then demand that I cite only academic papers - no, that's not reasonable, and you're only refusing my source because you don't want to deal with it.

 

He gave you other sources, and you ignored them. Now come off it, and deal with the topic. This is getting old real fast.

 

I'll take any term you want for being antipathetic to gay rights. Whatever you choose....it's going to die of old age eventually.

- - - Updated - - -

So are the homophobes.

 

And I'm not above providing alternative sources (as you've seen). But when you refuse to take the Wiki because you don't think it's reliable, even on things that are this straightforward, it gets to be incredibly annoying.

 

Correct. And as I have told many people lately: If you're too uninspired or lazy to use Wiki AND Google... then you probably don't deserve to know anything anyhow.

I'm tired of HOMOPHOBES pretending the they cannot know what scores of others already know. Yes, their homophobic BS is 'intolerable'.

 

I think glimpsing a clip of a lesbian porn flic is the best personal cure for homophobia

 

I wish that were true, but alas, I predict that the most vocal opponents of homosexuality have watched enough girl-girl porn to sink a battleship and yet still spout off with their outdated nonsense.

 

I thought homosexuality was an "abomination"....you mean God is cool with "hot girl-on-girl action"???

 

That actually wouldn't be "homophobia" if you're a straight male IMO.

Homophobia in essence means "fear of the same". Women, lesbian or not are certainly not the "same".

 

This graph shows a change in public attitudes across ages over time. This even shows that groups (i.e. 50-64) in 15 years become more accepting of it, as those supporting it in the 50-64 group in 1996 (15%), after 15yrs, became the 65+ group with a 41% support rate.

Not that I expected logical interpretation of facts from you.

 

I think the Bible just says that male homosexuality is an abomination. I don't think it mentions female homosexuality at all. But, I think you already know that.

What interests me is that both the Bible and today's societies around the world are far more interested in male homosexuality than female homosexuality.

 

Quite logical....those +65s in 1996....died off by 2013 and were replaced with the 50-64 crowd from 1996.

So...given that trajectory....what FUTURE do those antipathetic to gay rights have?

 

I think it's mostly male homophobes who are interested in male homosexuality as "evil". With a good chunk of them being latent homosexuals projecting their own self-hatred. (One poster here quickly comes to mind....given his endless OPs on the subject).

But the hypocrisy of the heterosexual ones is apparent in the fact that, and this is just a guess I admit, most of them would have NO PROBLEM, in fact would likely ENJOY watching two WOMEN engaging in the "abomination" of homosexual sex.

 

I agree. Not for one second do I believe that some guy who invests so much time and energy talking, writing and obsessing about gay males is a straight male himself.

And that's a good thing.

 

And those... nvm, I just explained in clear and precise language why it's not a matter of "dying off" but of changes within groups. People who WERE 50-64 in 1996 are now nearly 3x as likely to support legalization today than they were 15 someodd years ago. If that's too big and complex for you to understand, then go on with your willfully ignorant hyper-partisan bullsh*t.

 

Interestingly....THEY don't think they are easy to spot. But when you see a poster (one specifically) who does atleast one (or more) DAILY posts on homosexuality (usually mixed with pedophilia)......you've spotted one.

 

Yes.....because the 30-49s have now become the 50-64s. The progression of AGE is quite obvious.

Younger people support gay rights more than middle aged people, who support it more than old people in 1996.

Younger people BECOME the middle aged people, and the middle aged become the older people by 2013.

Simple, easy logic.

 

I used to think a problem with the public was that the right information wasn't available to them, and that if they saw evidence, they would change their minds.

I think the post you responded to proves that evidence or no, people see what they want to see...

 

I don't understand why you're having such a hard time getting this.

People in the age group 50-64 have a 15% support rate for legalization in 1996. In 15 years, how old will they be?

And, in roughly 15 years, the 65+ age group's support for legalization is 41%. Huh. After 15 years, people who WERE 50-64 are now, in their late sixties, nearly 3x as likely to support it?

Dude, if you can't see that this is a matter of changes in views across society, and not of people dying off, then.. well

 

Well take a look at my previous posts and look at the graph at the begining of the thread. It clearly shows that Gorn is wrong, it isn't simply a matter of people dying off, but changes within the populace.

 

Yeah, I was agreeing with you. It was just funny because while you pointed out the actuality, someone that was looking at the very same thing arrived at a different conclusion.

Was also weird they were labeled as victims...

 

So all the OLD anti-gay rights folks from 1996 are still around and just....changed their minds this year?

 

lol, I misinterpreted your second sentence in your previous quote. My bad.

 

So, you're *actually* calling the statistics bull(*)(*)(*)(*)? The ones that you cited?

And you're seriously discrediting yourself. If you can't understand how a change in a fixed group's opinion can change gradually over 15 years (the period between the two polls) without one momentary mass change, then... dude, I don't even know how to explain that to you.