Is homophobia a bad thing?

You answered your own question. Based on your views of ethics, wouldn't it be worse to discriminate against someone for how they look more than their sexual preference? The obvious answer would be yes.

@Red text

Do you have evidence to prove that claim? That is purely subjective. In the perspective of a skinny person, it would seem easy to lose weight, however that may not be the case for a lot of people. Because of genetics, it's very easy to gain the weight you lose, making their efforts pointless, causing the person to lose motivation. It takes a lot of will power to lose weight as a person who is diagnosed as obese.

@Green text

Understandably, you can view it as convenience/alternative, however there are inmates who leave prison/jail and are still sexually aroused by the same sex, essentially making them homosexuals. You can't deny that this has never happened. This is a choice.

All of my questions are not answered lmao. Do you have any data or figures to prove these without doubt?

 

I don't think you actually read what I said lol. No it would not be worse to discriminate (in the alienation sense) based on appearance. It would be the same objectively.

You can control weight (at some level). If you exercise excessively and eat healthily you will lose weight. You cannot control sexual orientation. This latter point is confirmed by experience - You don't choose whom you are attracted to, you merely feel it. Again, this defeats your inmates argument because it is not enough to show that someone is attracted to the sex that is inconsistent with his professed orientation and then claim that it is a choice. In fact, the idea of a choice is clearly thrown out when we consider -- again -- that attraction is not rational or controlled. However sexual orientation changes, through whatever intricate, internal mechanisms are in operation, the transformation could never be claimed as a choice.
But whether or not you can control weight is really not even my point. Discrimination of any kind is wrong and so your whole comparison to the case of fat people loses its strength. Now, what you are mixing up is a certain nuance of my argument where I observed that in the case of political and economic procedures (like applying for a job) weight can hold some relevance, while sexual orientation never will. Thus, we have at least some basis (perhaps, if examined, not legitimate basis -- but at this point some basis) to discriminate weight in certain cases.

 

You can control your sexual preference. If you couldn't control it, bisexuals wouldn't be a thing. You don't seem to understand the definition of control. It's the effectiveness of moderation that may be ineffective to others.

Discrimination of appearance is worse than discrimination of your preferences by far. Both are bad, but on a scale of limitations, it exceeds it. But tell me, how is me disagreeing with what you like or don't like bad? That's essentially what the modern definition of homophobia is.

 

Regarding the bold text: Did you really just say that lol?

I can barely reply, I'm just so baffled by this whole thing. How would a certain sexual orientation (bisexuality) support the argument from control? You don't moderate yourself and force yourself to be attracted to both sexes - you just are attracted to both sexes. There's no element of control.

Again, not a preference so the first part of your second point is irrelevant.
You can "disagree" with what I like or don't like, the same way you can disagree with the way someone's face looks, but you have to keep your disagreement to your private sphere and not try to claim they have any weight.

 

You're baffled by something that is ridiculously simple to understand.

I used bisexuality as an example of being able to control both sexual preferences.

Control - determine the behavior or supervise the running of.

We all can control our sexual preferences, just like we can control our beliefs.

Keep my disagreements private? If i'm asked how do I feel about homosexuality, and say I disagree with the concept, does that make me a bad person? No, it wouldn't. If I was a well known public figure, I'd be under ridicule for a subtle inoffensive answer. The reality is that homosexual people are hypersensitive.

I also gave probable examples of people CHANGING their sexual preference. Obviously everyone is not able to do this, it's still however possible. It's still undecided whether you are actually born being attracted to the same sex, or if it's a disease. There are arguments and statistics supporting both sides, so it's still unclear.


https://gachiyellow.wordpress.com/2...but-there-are-chemicals-that-turn-people-gay/

 

Lol. If it's a disease it's uncontrolled.

How is bisexuality controlled exactly? What about bisexuality exemplifies control at all? Why even pick bisexuality, btw?

 

Disease is an arbitrary, yet reasonable diagnosis. I don't think it's something we can fully understand, but society acts like there is no doubt to being born gay and we must accept the idea. The premise of this thread is about the acceptance of homophobia, which in modern terms essentially means the disagreement/loathe for homosexuality.

Bisexuality, prison homosexuality, these are examples used to demonstrate the act of control. Being sexually attracted to both sexes is not natural, preemptive, or instinctive for humans. This suggests it's something learned by experience and the appreciation of both sexes intimately. That requires control.

Also, if you think we can't control diseases, you're borderline stupid.

 

I don't feel weird if I see a gay female. But If I see a gay man it creeps me out a bit. I have anxiety issues, and I always think about what others think and say about me. I'm really nice and i'm the person who opens doors for people or keeps them open. Or if someone needs help in public I'll help them. I still get anxious in public. I've had some bad experiences with a few gay people and I feel like it scarred me. I'm not gay, and I have/had some Bi and gay friends. But I have nothing against people who are Bi or gay. I guess it's just the thought of it and knowing that other people can be really judgemental.

 

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just failing to understand your own statements. Your whole premise of control is that a person can internally change things about himself, like how he can with sexuality. You cannot will yourself to have a disease. It is not controlled in the way you were talking about.

Now, the way you speak about bisexuality exposes the error of your argument. There is no "natural" to human beings. If the word natural should hold any weight, it would be in the frequency or persistence of a trait. This is why it would be natural. If a thinking being doesn't experience something, I don't think the claim that that experience is "natural" will make any difference in his evaluation of it (for himself). Natural is a powerless term in human beings.

You can't just assert that bisexuality is not instinctive. If you speak to a bisexual person, he will say that he has strong attraction to both sexes. How can you assert this kind of case exhibits a process of control, unlike in other cases? Your only option would be to claim, again, that sexuality has a natural dimension and any deviation comes after maturation. As I've explained, this just doesn't make sense: There are such great varieties of difference in human beings that the natural is totally thrown out the window; and even if you tried to apply it, if the natural is so flimsy and easily overwhelmed by "learned" experiences, what justification do we have to call it the natural?

I've defeated your example of prison sexuality like twice already (whether you appreciate it or not). How about you actually think hard about what I'm saying before replying, because I feel like you're trying to mould arguments to fit your agenda rather than the reverse.

So an unreasoned discomfort with it. This is no problem and plenty of people exhibit stuff like this with a variety of different experiences. As long as you don't let it unduly influence your actions, it's perfectly ok.

 

I don't think you understand what natural is.

Oral sex is not a natural sexual act. Sodomy is not a natural sexual act. Not intended use/action that is presented in nature by animals is unnatural. What animals do you know of practice same sex copulation? None. Theorologists interpret animals practicing homosexuality, but never to go as far as copulating. Why is that? Because that's not what nature intends.

Are you saying love is not a choice? The very idea that we aren't able to determine who we can love is comical.

We choose to love our kids, friends and family. There are many instances of people in society not choosing to love their kids. We're also given the choice to not cheat on our spouses, but many still choose to do so. If love isn't a choice, why do people choose to treat their supposed love ones in a negative matter?

You're confusing control for change, both of which I've already proven to be true. Sexual attraction is also an influence, otherwise homosexuality wouldn't be practiced in closed areas of same sexes (prisons/jails), and still be exercised in the public population of society. This is something you refuse to accept.

Your arrogance is really annoying, especially when you aren't showing any undoubted empirical data that suggests otherwise.

 

There is a difference between biological disposition and action. It is why many gay men married women when homosexuality was outlawed and considered taboo, it also explains prison sex culture. You can choose to act against your biological disposition in certain cases. Just because straight people commit homosexual acts does not necessarily make them homosexual, and does not mean ones sexual disposition has changed. The same can be said for the opposite.

The 'gay gene' is gaining more and more emprical support: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...t-sexual-orientation-is-a-choice-9875855.html
It is also supported by general common sense, why do people have a voluntary sexual orientation despite it being dangerous to their existence? Why does it seem that most straight people can't change their sexual orientation to be gay, just by partaking in homosexual acts? There is no reason to think bisexuality is much different to this. Natural can also be equivocated here. The fact that a baby is born with autism is natural in the sense that there was no artificial intervention, but it is not natural in the sense that it is not normal. Bisexuality is indeed not natural, but it is a genetic disposition, and thus natural in the former sense. On that note, a 'gay gene' is merely evidence of a biological disposition, however biological dispositions can be affected by socialisation, yet just because one can potentially give examples of a changing sexual orientation as a result of a socialisation process, does not invalidate the existence of the biological disposition, nor the fact that we do not choose our biological dispositions.

 

Sexual attraction is not biologically predetermined more than it is learned by experience. Answer this for me. If a gay gene does in fact exist, in what way does it affect bisexuals? Is there a breakdown in the gene that supports an uncontrollable attraction to both sexes?

http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Am-Gay/669841

There are tons of stories that are similar to this in the sense of becoming/transitioning to appreciate the same sex, thus creating an attraction. Just like some people may be sexually aroused by receiving pain, and others may be sexually aroused by an unorthodox fetish. You learn this by experience. It's not instinctive, natural, or predetermined. Are nymphomaniacs genetically created? They can't revert to a practical state of mind, so based on your logic, it would be classified as being related to the properties of biology.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspecti...ic-research-there-is-no-gay-gene#.VNJiH9LF-uI

There are studies supporting and opposing the existence of a gay gene. Let's think here for a second. By a religious and scientific stand point, it wouldn't make sense for there to be one. Our reason for existing is to procreate, and obviously two gay partners cannot do that. The only plausible assumption is to cancel out overpopulating, and even then it still doesn't make sense because that would make us the only animal to have a gay gene, hence making it unnatural.

Being born with an abnormality is by far unnatural. It's a disease that is genetically passed down to the child. Unless you're trying to argue that diseases too are natural, it really doesn't prove anything.

http://americansfortruth.com/2008/0...omosexuals-could-achieve-heterosexual-change/

http://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/no-one-is-born-gay-or-straight-here-are-5-reasons-why/

Before replying I suggest you read these links. It puts the biggest dent in the concept of being born gay.

 

Perhaps there is a bisexual gene? Either way, if you accept that genes influence sexual attraction, and bisexuality is a form of sexual attraction, then you accept that genes influence bisexuality. Unless bisexuality is somehow different, the burden of proof is on you.

First off, people stories are not scientific evidence. For example, people go on many diets to treat cancer. You cannot conclude anything from this. By the way, your story does not support a choice in sexual attraction, What if Ravi was actually bi/homosexual but due to the stigma attached to such acts suppressed his feelings? This was actually quite common when homosexuality was outlawed and taboo. These examples are not enough evidence in the first instance, and cannot, with any power, support the view that bisexuality is a choice.

When people refer to a gay gene, they refer to a gene that affects sexuality, not causes it like an on or off switch. Most things have genetic and environmental factors. In the former we have no choice, in the latter, we don't have much of a choice either. This article makes appropriate criticisms, but it doesn't detract from the underlying fact that genes affect sexuality, and thus we can have genetic dispositions to be straight, gay, bi, etc. The fact that environmental factors have a bearing here doesn't necessarily mean a choice is involved, environmental factors include climate, the foods you eat, the people you associate with, etc etc. With reference to the story above, it seems to me that most people discover that they are not straight, Ravis penis became erect at the touch of a mans, and we can assume that this was unexpected for him. He discovered that he was sexually aroused by a man. The act of continuation is a choice, but his sexual feelings lets say, at least with what I have specifically referenced, don't seem to be his choosing.

You would think this; how does that gay gene survive if gay people cannot procreate! The answer might be found in one of the articles in the articles you linked.

"The key here is epi-marks, which control how genes are expressed, and they just might explain the evolutionary stumper of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn’t been eliminated from the gene pool.

As a press release explains in almost comprehensible terms, the study finds “sex-specific epi-marks, which normally do not pass between generations and are thus ‘erased,’ can lead to homosexuality when they escape erasure and are transmitted from father to daughter or mother to son.”

Being born with an abnormality is by far unnatural. It's a disease that is genetically passed down to the child. Unless you're trying to argue that diseases too are natural, it really doesn't prove anything."

Furthermore, gay people have had children. So, that's how there genes have passed on.

Not a study. On the assumption that peoples sexuality 'changed', the fact that sexuality can change does not mean that (a) the change was because of a choice, or (b) that there are no biological dispositions in the first instance.

In order to change from something, you must have been something in the first instance. In order to go from gay > straight, or straight > gay, etc. But what made you gay or straight in the first instance? Where you sexually neutral and then suddenly made a conscious choice to pursue women, or men, or both, or neither?

1. Not relevant here.
2. Sure, gender and sex is mixed, I still don't see a denial in biological dispositions, nor evidence for a conscious choice.
3. This kind if answers your question of how the 'gay gene' was passed down. Also, this talks about sexual acts not sexual dispositions. Like I said, sucking dick doesn't mean you like guys, though it is a nice indicator. Also
4. False analogy. The fact that some desires are a choice does not mean all are.
5. The fact that ones sexuality can change does not mean this change was a result of a conscious choice (more likely operant conditioning), nor that biological dispositions don't exist. People don't seem to realize that these arguments presuppose a pre-existing sexual orientation. In order to change ones sexual orientation you must have a sexual orientation to begin with. The question is what was the cause of this initial sexual orientaiton?

I read all the links. I am not claiming that people are 'born gay', so much so as I am claiming that people are born with sexual dispositions, and that these dispositions have some genetic explanations. If you disagree with me, you are either saying that (a) people do not have sexual dispositions or (b) people do have sexual dispositions but there is no genetic basis for these dispositions. I am also not saying that peoples sexuality can't change, though I will say that this change may not be a result of a choice, and that change presupposes initial sexual orientation, which, as far as I know main focus of scientific research; what is the reason for this initial sexual orientation.

 

I don't know if I'm hobophobic or not. If I see 2 guys making out, it would make me feel uncomfortable; yet if I see opposite genders making out in front of me, I would also feel uncomfortable.

 

When you say you CAN control your sexual preference, are you saying in the sense that they have the choice to sleep with the opposite sex and a choice to sleep with the same sex. Or are you talking about their natural attraction? As I don't tend to agree with you on this, nor from our previous discussion where you provided me a link to the myths did that back up your claim anyway?

Discrimination is discrimination, and is bad in nearly all cases where the people who're discriminated against are innocent of any wrong doing.
[example; black person walks into my shop, I refuse sale. Discrimination of their appearance. Muslim walks into my shop, I refuse sale. Discrimination of their choice.]
Bother are equally as bad for the evolution of society and need to be ironed out completely, and those who do not agree need to be educated to ultimately arrive at all mankind's happiness.

Like I said earlier as well, being against the absolute acceptance of homosexuals can only come with bad thoughts considered by society. And rightly so, otherwise how do you avoid discrimination? What you are basically saying is "I don't like gays, or the thought of gays.. So I'm against it" i.e, they're not equal to me and should remain so.

Selfish, Discriminatory, Hate fuel, Bigoted opinions can only be the public opinion of someone after they come out with such comments.

People can be placed into categories for their opinions on this;

Disagreement - Does not wish for their fellow man to be equal to them in society. ( hate )

Of no opinion - Doesn't care really, or at least doesn't want to be involved in the effort, but couldn't care regardless.

Agreement - Those supporting the people who've until very recently being struggling at the hand of bigotry and hatred in nearly all aspects of life.

Where you used murderers and thieves before as a comparison, There's a big difference between socially accepting people who have no affect on peoples lives, and accepting those who're a direct threat to peoples lives, well-being and property.

Can you at least provide a valid reason as to why it is okay to be in disagreement that could possibly be for the moral greater good?

EDIT:

Also....

If everyone heterosexual happened to be homophobic do you think that would be a good or bad thing?

 

I don't have a problem with Gay people, I think they are ok people.
I actually have a few people in my family that are homosexual and I'm fine with it.

The only thing I don't like is when they act homosexual towards me, not so much being the fact it scares me it's just I just don't like it when they talk to me in a certain way.

 

I just want to say that I'm actually so impressed by the strength and comprehensiveness of your reasoning. Really well put together post; you adequately addressed the main issues and did justice to your argument.

 

Not really, what I read was "That doesn't sound right, here is a more probable situation that is favorable to me and my position with no substantial proof." The reason why I didn't bother to reply is because it would turn into a shadow boxing contest of opinions and the opposed fortifying the encouragement of human metrics that are ethics on the undiscovered "gay gene".

Is there a heterosexual gene? Obviously not, because there are two reproductive organs. The penis and the vagina, both which are meant to operate with one another to copulate. What exactly does this mean? This means you're meant to be a heterosexual at birth, as with all living species, their sole purpose for existing is to reproduce and co-exist with other species, ultimately balancing the structure of the food chain. It's unfortunate that many people don't use common sense to come to this obvious conclusion.

This would mean if a gay gene was discovered, it would be classified as a disease, as most abnormalities are. However, that wouldn't be the case because being politically correct in this instance would only be detrimental to those who are diagnosed as homosexual, and gives those who are against the concept more leverage in debates of this nature. That would be one reason of many.

But because we live in a radical era of imbalance more than equality, whatever sounds good will be pushed as the main agenda in media today.

Cheerio'

 

Your point doesn't make sense. Here's why:
We should we take your explanation of genitalia following their "reproductive motives" as correct if it most accurately describes what is going on. The trouble is that it clearly does not. If we look at the range of sexual attraction in people, and to put it crudely, what gets people's reproductive organs working, there is such a diversity (oral sex, anal sex, bondage, homosexual encounters, incest relations, etc.) that if anything the evidence points to reproduction not being the function of the genitalia. So if we are keeping ourselves at this level of explanation alone, (i.e. what makes genitalia function) it is much more plausible to seek an alternative view, like what we try to understand as sexualities, or sexual orientations.

So your function argument fails on this level. The only other possible justification you can have is that reproduction is the proper function (as per biological reproduction) and thus anything else is a deviation or disorder. A first thing that comes to mind about this view is that it really means nothing -- sure you can call these things disorders, but at the end of the day they do exist (the deviation is felt as a part of the person and is clearly not easily -- if at all -- changed) and on a moral level we should still accommodate the diversity of human beings (like how we accommodate disabilities).
Fortunately, anyway, there is a stronger attack against what you are saying. The notion of a function **for human beings** supposes the involvement of the human understanding, and supposes that this understanding works in a certain way (an external description of function is clearly not in tune with the internal dimension of the human condition). I think it's pretty obvious that describing things from a raw external viewpoint doesn't capture the essence of a human being; and surely a definition of function will involve what are figured to be essential parts. Because we then must open ourselves to the human understanding, we allow a slew of other possible functions (as per how any individual views his sexual relations) of which the biological explanation becomes one possibility. I mean this to have two explanations: the first being the angle from which one can approach function (we are suddenly allowed to distinguish between biological function and, for a random example, the function of what is most pleasurable, and anything else a person can think of); and the second, of how it turns out that opinions are the stuff that make up function. Biological function is not supreme because what is supreme is different for everyone. Just as if you walk up to someone and tell him that his function in life is to break down nutrients in food, he might be offended and argue that it is not.
So my two arguments show, first, that at the scientific level of explanation heterosexuality can never be argued to be the function of the genitalia (that is, if we look at the evidence -- your assertion about the reproductive explanation doesn't pair well with what gets people off). They also show that the remaining alternative (to argue that biological explanation is the proper explanation) fails, and a short explanation here lies in the clearly subjective meaning of the word proper (if you extend this line of reasoning, you will arrive at my earlier paragraph). Thus, the most plausible explanation is to delve more deeply and figure out what sexualities entail.

Also, btw, I'm pretty most people will find it inconsistent with their experience if you tell them that there is nothing to their attraction besides the presence and type of their genitalia.

 

My point makes complete sense. You don't understand the origin and evolution of diseases that can make a gay gene sound possible. A gay gene by all measures is not natural, because it doesn't make sense. Why would this phenomenon be against the basic fundamentals of nature? The most obvious way to interpret this is to make the assumption of it being a disorder. Why are humans so susceptible to all these diseases? Because overtime, these diseases found ways to evolve pass immunity of our body systems and medicines. And because you can inherit these diseases from past lives, it shows that it was carried, and not intentional, as is your definition of "uncontrollable homosexuality". I believe in homosexual free will more than a forceful attraction influenced by a gay gene.