Are homophobes just closeted?

William Gonzalez3 said:
just latent Muslims.
personally, I'm not some latent Muslim, nor do I get nervous when I hear about someone else being one.

though, I think the sheer numbers actually do matter.
that seems to be the crux of the whole issue, if you ask me.
human rights violations happen constantly, regardless of who is doing it.
you have corporations that work their employees to the bone and then refuse to pay them, for instance.
but, I guess I see your point—those groups aren't quite as much of a focus because they aren't targeting gay people simply for being gay.
so, I suppose we really should be talking about homophobes as much as possible.

William Gonzalez3 said:
So, you mean fears are essentially justified or unjustified, rather than being strictly rational or irrational.
That's probably how you should put it.

Yeah, 90% of men are latent homosexuals. You know this because you’ve surveyed every man on the planet, and every single one of them admitted to having a rubber dildo tucked away in a drawer. And I assume 90% of women are latent homosexuals too, simply because 90% of them would say they find female bodies beautiful.

But they are latent homosexuals because they dislike homosexuals, which makes them homophobes. And homophobes are—well, just like the title implies—latent homosexuals.
Or rather, they are homosexuals who are in denial about their own nature.
If ninety percent of men dislike homosexuals, then ninety percent of men are effectively latent homosexuals—meaning they are homosexual, but they deny it even to themselves.
And as for that remaining ten percent, they are also homosexual; it's just that they don't hide it—they openly dress and act like incredibly unattractive women.

And yes, I am personally quite worried about that alarming statistic regarding the 10%. Honestly, I find every man I see to be a target for concern, and I take it very personally when they go off to embrace one another. It’s just... yuck.

It isn't just ten percent; it's much higher.
The issue is these misguided women who have become masculine and lost their femininity—basically, women who no longer want to cook, clean, or do the laundry.
Consequently, men don't really care if they're with a man or a woman; they’d much rather be with someone they can actually watch a football game with than a woman who acts like a man.

P.S. Your boyfriend is gay.

I honestly don't get how people can afford to obsess over homophobes or LGBTQ+ rights when millions of kids in Asia are working for pennies for massive corporations, or people in Africa are literally starving.

Jonathan Kim4 said:I’m not following you...

They say every fool has his own little diversion, so I guess that applies to us sitting here debating, too.

We are all perfectly aware of the macroeconomics in the country—the Treasury crises, the scandals involving corrupt politicians' luxury watches, the border disputes in the Gulf, and so on...

But we aren't talking about that here. It isn't relevant to this specific thread, nor does it impact the core issue at hand.

silverscout15 said:

I honestly don't get how people can afford to obsess over homophobes or LGBTQ+ rights when millions of kids in Asia are working for pennies for massive corporations, or people in Africa are literally starving.

🙏

But hey, why don't you explain how you can afford that same luxury? 😁

William Gonzalez3 said:I just want to say—perhaps I'm being too blunt—but I think you all give those people way more attention than they actually deserve.
And yet, here you are, obsessing over their sexuality—which, I suppose, is exactly what you claim to be against in the first place.
I mean, you're sitting here debating whether or not they are homophobes or anything else of the sort.

To me, that alone is enough to suggest you're no different from them.
Because, honestly, you really are.

If you leave that out and just say one is irrational while the other is rational, I'm totally lost.

Yeah, by that logic, it basically makes you a pig.

Should you really believe someone actually has the time for all that, plus arguing over nonsense on a forum, and still find time for anything else?

William Gonzalez3 said:
though I’m not really talking about them—I'm talking about you guys, which isn't exactly a luxury, I suppose.
besides, I feel like this is more of an obligation for me.

that whole comparison regarding the cave and all that.

silverscout15 said:Jonathan Kim4, we aren't a luxury to him!!!😢 😢 😢 😢

nimblecanyon14 said:Why go with oak specifically? Is there some deeper symbolism involved, or just a whim? 🤣

Jonathan Kim4 said:I’m honored—honored, almost.

If we aren't a luxury to him, then I suppose our basic human rights are officially guaranteed.

What are we talking about here? The right to breathe, to speak, to eat, to have a roof over our heads, access to healthcare... just the essentials.

It seems we've become an indispensable part of his very existence—he simply couldn't function without us.

That must be what they call love...

silverscout15 said:Yippeeeeee! We're practically guaranteed by the Constitution!!!👋

And what a kind of love that is...😍

Jonathan Kim4 said:Back in my day, they taught us that if you're fighting, you actually care.

😬

silverscout15 said:Everyone here is just a total sadist!😁

silverscout15 said:Uuuuuups!!! Wait, was that a sado-phobic statement?? Does that make me a closeted sadist now?
🤣 🤣

Jonathan Kim4 said:more like a latent sex machine—or perhaps a latent masochist.

you can always wear that sexy little outfit you got for Christmas.😬

silverscout15 said:He's just a kid to me now—that was ages ago!😁