Mall

Why is a gay person a heterophobe?

What makes them that?

Lesbianism. "Ism" is usually a system of something. Are you referring to a working system, network of females having sexual desires and relationships in society?

I don't think I have any views on a system of it unless we're talking about its effect on society.

Do you agree that all gays are heterophobes?

Do you disagree with homosexuality or the agenda with it?

"You chose your sexual orientation?  If it was a choice then that means it could have gone either way, you chose to be heterosexual, but you could have chosen to be gay.   If you are attracted to both genders, how did you make the decision, why did you choose to be straight?  "

You missed what I just said. Let me go over it again word by word. You just quoted it and missed it.

"Well to some extent just about everyone would be homophobic because just about everyone thinks gayness is an act of choice."

Keywords there that should of stood out were "act of choice".

So how does someone ACT out gayness?

If someone chooses to act upon their desires is that not a choice?

This is why I said it is thought to be a choice to some extent. To some degree or portion of it is. I didn't say all of it. 

I notice when we feel so strongly in opposition we so easily zoom pass all the details someone has put. Slow down, come to an understanding to all that has been communicated to you.

Again gayness or homosexuality is not just having the sexual attraction. It can be acted out as well which is the choice portion. 

So by definition of homophobic meaning those that are think gayness is a choice, well they'd be correct in part or portion. 

Just about everybody that knows this about gayness would have to fit this label based on the definition given for it.

No. I don't promote hate period. 

The subject is regarding fear. I may fear something that doesn't necessarily have to warrant hate.

How do you feel about your skin color?

Are you neutral towards it?

Did you ever have any pride about it?

"People who are homephobic think gayness is a choice."

Well to some extent just about everyone would be homophobic because just about everyone thinks gayness is an act of choice.

Basic reason being is that being gay is not simply just attraction, it also involves acting out on it too.

I don't see why it would demand a fear of non molesters. That's why I specifically mentioned molesters because there are or could be homosexuals that are molesters. 

Being the way you defined homophobia, just about everyone in their apprehensive right mind against molestation is homophobic .

So what?

What would you say as to the reasons why Martin Luther King Jr. has or gets a recognized national holiday and Malcolm X does not?

So it is therefore homophobic to be fearful of homosexual men child molesters that have caused a traumatic effect on a male child whom has grown up to act out in homosexual affairs, choosing to engage in it as in effect and response to coping with the traumatic experience .

The experience has disfigured them or scarred them, perhaps warped them into reenacting the behavior.

What is your definition of homophobia?

Why were you against it?

So in order for people to be clever they have to be stupid too to appeal to yin and yang. Is that right?

I see how yin and yang works with good and evil , male and female.

Never looked at stupidity along with intelligence in one instance.

Do females add make up to their face because they're satisfied with their face pre-make-up or is it because they're not satisfied with the appearance of it?

This was inspired by another topic with an individual that raises a question and it should be thought about.

Any female individuals feel free to definitely come forth.

I guess you have to ask the scientist who says these things. Let them explain it to you

I am not. That's why I asked to please explain it.

"I don't think decorating your skin is a matter of not liking your skin color at all.  My daughter in law has a sleeve, do you think she liked the color of her skin on one arm, but not the other?  "

I can't say without actually knowing the person, speaking to the person and asking the person directly why they do this specifically, why they do that.

For me, if we're talking about clothing, clothing does not permanently change or physically alter my skin color. So if I'm a person that adores my skin color, this would be something that wouldn't bother me. 

"Lots of people who love the color of their car get racing stripes, people who paint their house a favorite color will use a different color for trim, someone paints a painting that only puts their favorite color on a canvas is not much of a painter. Do you think women use makeup because they don't like their skin color?  "

You're just proving the point in all your examples. Color is not added needlessly.

"I can't understand thinking about skin color in that way, I don't think women put bows in their hair because they don't like the color of their hair. I just think you have an unusual way of thinking about it."

It is true that I don't think in a box. Thinking conventionally, you limit yourself from going in depth of important intricate details that will be missed.

Again, I asked about changing the color of the skin. Covering it up versus actually changing it are two different things. Otherwise people that are proud of their skin color would be against wearing clothes. 

Those that are called white supremacists know their supremacy is intact regardless of what clothes they wear. Many of them wore red sheets, white sheets, black night hawk sheets and robes. 

It's when their skin is altered. That's why they'd be against so called race mixing. They know to keep their color intact because that's all it takes to function in a society, being seen in a society that will favor or privilege them based upon it. This is what I mean by thinking in depth at a deeper level.

If you haven't given much thought to something, you're not going to understand these things right away or they won't come to mind right away. Just slow down, stop, think about it, look at it from a different perspective than the conventional one.

Would you further elaborate your point on the relevance of yin and yang?

If you like your skin color the way it is, would you add color to it?

If you like the color of your car, house or even a painting you painted, the colors you liked as is enough the way it was knowing that adding a color or more would change what you like, would you want another color or more added?

I can understand people being neutral on skin color so it makes the decision easy to alter it. Same way with hair.

They color their "white" skin as a sign of love for pure "white" skin, is that right?

By this example, just further solidifies that "racism" and or "white" supremacy doesn't make sense, has never made sense, never will make any sense.

Are tattoos a response to a dislike of skin tone/color?

I can see that learning, building vocabulary can be challenging. But it is possible to learn just like learning to use profanity.

Profanity does not make a voice any louder. What we have is cultural impact and influence and popularity. 

Further more why have a useless large vocabulary?

Really some things to think on.

I agree there that profanity is not necessary but redundant in a vulgar fashion .

What is the point in using profanity upon communicating with anybody whatsoever?

I just want to make sure I understand you answer. The majority of the world is not overly sexualized but then you say the minority isn't either.

So the original answer you mean the entire world because it's neither the majority or minority. 

I can understand the social effect , how it comes about, it's derivative so forth and so on.

Do you think with a well expanded vocabulary, a point can be stressed, adequately emphasized without using profane language?

What is the use of profanity?

So by saying majority, does that make the minority overly sexualized?

Yes it comes down to perspective. You can say this is objectively true while another says it's dogmatic and that vice versa.

Your belief system versus another.

"No, the majority of the human race is not over-sexualized."

Hold it hold it you say you answered the question but the question was asking about the world not specifically the majority of it.

Now you've got a split answer. So by saying majority, does that make the minority overly sexualized?

Yes so called Christians are much like the scribes and Pharisees I believe Jesus was speaking of. 

I believe if you and others knew what true holiness was, there'd be no conflict. 

But because Christianity a man made watered down belief system is at the forefront, many blanket themselves under the title Christian involving in pagan things and Christmas, there's just confusion, wrong examples being set, no wonder many people just abandon the whole thing. Not to mention these people referred to as prosperity preachers.

Just in your mind as I've discussed with another about perspective, I think I get you being able to identify what wrong is or sin if you will, you're able to see and determine what it is for yourself.

So you not doing anything wrong which from your view is holiness because you are without wrong or you stop doing wrong, would you still not want to be of that?

"We shouldn't rely on what a bunch of dogmatic people think we must do. Everyone should be able to determine the right thing to do."

These people wouldn't be "Civilized minimally-intelligent" is that right?

When you say "Everyone" do you mean being an individual making their own individual determination or in agreement altogether on the same accord in an objective sense as a collective determination?

Seems like that golden rule is objective of a people. But I bet you may still find people that'll say that's dogmatic as they don't believe in it. 

I think at the end of it, it's all perspective including what constitutes intelligence and civility.

That's why so many look outside themselves and all these perspectives to an external realm for standard.

Yes today's world is over sexualized I agree. Apparently obvious and interesting how times have changed and continue to evolve.

Apparently whoever that is. That's why people argue that right and wrong are subjective depending on what is meant by right and wrong.

So would you consider being of holiness or not?

Not to be a sinner, doing no thing wrong but right. 

Everybody just about can throw the word "Christian" around but so many dare not identify as holiness and commit to it .

Today's society is overly sexualized.

Several points to make. Starting with the first four.

1. Women on average tend to wear more and more revealing clothing and tight clothing typically to make out the buttocks area.

2. Easy readily excess to explicit content in multiple mediums.

3. Extending sexual behaviors beyond sexual intercourse such as oral sex, anal sex, use of sexual toys, scatology, the use of any bodily part for sexual stimulation.

4. Through t.v., movies, media, less and less restraint on sexual matters, more explicit, less sexual innuendos but more coarse.

Would you consider being holy?

Got nothing to do with a union. In terms of birth control it is superior. In marriage all should be prepared to give birth, otherwise don't get married nor engage in sex.

Sexual abstinence is superior.