The type of thinking that led to arguments made by you and repentance is exactly why it took centuries (Millennia? more?) for acceptance of gays.
Nope. Lots of cultures have previously accepted gays. (You could even stretch things and call the Egyptians furries.)
None have
ever been OK with desecrating the dead.
Not to mention that a sexual orientation and a paraphilia are not the same thing. Perhaps you believe that because gay people were otherised in recent times that they were always persecuted throughout the whole of recorded history. Historically, such persecution has been episodic and often correlated with times of religious power and oppression of sexuality in general. The emergence of psychology as a field also created oppressive attitudes towards human sexuality for a very long time, with an increasing focus on "curing" what were regarded as sexual aberrations. The "diseasing" of homosexuality (a term which was only coined in the late 19th century) helped entrench negative attitudes towards same-sex attraction. It was no longer regarded as a chosen path but as an illness to be prevented if at all possible (and a lot of negative attitudes towards masturbation stem from the time when psychology believed that "excessive" masturbation would bring out "latent" homosexual tendencies) and to be "cured" if it couldn't be prevented.
We cannot now imagine a return to times when sexuality is oppressed - and yet throughout history that has happened time and time again.
I put ? marks after millenia and more for that reason. I'm fine accepting centuries here if you think that fits best.
The best I can tell from an objective standpoint there is no difference between sexual arousal towards opposite sex, same sex or dead bodies other than how commonly they occur (would be interested to hear about scientific awareness that refutes this, labeling something different because it occurs more rarely doesn't count).
Orientation, paraphilia, use whatever terms you want but it doesn't have much bearing on the argument. Just because DSM-X invents a new word for something doesn't make it something separate in the context of our discussion.
You people are weird
Also, extreme homophobes often explain why gays are disgusting by describing the sexual acts they believe gays are into; things like drinking piss, smearing and eating shit, and other EXTREMELY nasty crap that normal gays can't even come up with, let alone find appealing. They find all those sex acts just as nasty.
Interesting comment. From my perspective sex with men, drinking piss, eating shit are all part of the same "nasty" category. I'm personally repulsed by the thought of any one of those sufficiently that I couldn't tell you which one I think would be more unpleasant than an another.
My options are:
-Tolerance for people that are drawn to do things I personally and subjectively find nasty, in which case I accept people with the desire for any of the above mentioned behavior.
-Psuedo-tolerance based on a sliding scale of public opinion and commonality. A stance not ground in objective rational logic but rather some measure of hypocrisy and/or cognitive dissonance.
-Bigotry where I only accept behavior I personally understand and feel comfortable with.
If some homophobe or bigot or whatever wanted to hate gays because he thought they were nasty why would he have to fantasize about other nasty behavior? Doesn't really make much sense to me. If he was so extremely homophobic wouldn't the act of sex with another man be nasty enough to fuel his ignorant hate?
If someone wants to eat shit, hump dudes, or have sparing missionary with the opposite sex in their own home that is their business and not the whole measure of the person. I'd being willing to bet I am friends with at least one person that does something behind closed doors that I would find absolutely disgusting. As long what they do doesn't negatively affect me I shouldn't really care.
