Is homophobia a bad thing?

I put out this long argument and you didn't even address it. Kind of pisses me off.

The natural line of argument doesn't make sense. Unless you want to pose literally everything about a human being that is not strictly biologically grounded as not natural. This is just a dumb move and doesn't give us any more knowledge of things.

 

You're going to make me claw out my eyes. You've been addressing the same points for the entire thread. I've already addressed all points, and you bring them back up. Don't get mad because I don't want to reiterate myself like a puppet.

http://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/biology.html

Did you ever attend your biology class?

http://creation.mobi/natural-or-unnatural

His question is similar to yours, and I have answered it similarly two posts ago.

 

I've read the articles and nothing contradicts what I said in my long post up there. How about you address that? And btw, if you acknowledge that human beings have elements that go beyond the natural, just because they are not strictly speaking born with them, and are not strictly speaking products of evolution, it's not okay to equate this with the necessity of their being subject to control. That's a totally different statement.

Edit: Like, you literally are making such big leaps where they're not justified at all. Even if homosexuality is a deviation biologically speaking, it makes no difference in the human realm when you're talking about discrimination. We don't judge the value of the way people act based on biological criterion. I don't think we sit here incarcerating people for having sex with condoms now, do we? And even if you also somehow managed to prove that homosexuality is subject to our control, it wouldn't even support your argument! It's not harmful to anyone morally. Again, we don't judge our actions based on their biological-functionalist-point-of-view merit. Like your point is actually a total non-starter.

 

Here you are saying you have a genetic disposition to being heterosexual, yet you refuse to accept the position that your sexuality is biologically disposed. You exist in a land of contradictions.

Lucky for science, epistemology, and metaphysics, one's thoughts and feelings do not affect the truth. A child doesn't be cured of autism just because people don't like saying autism. Vaccines do not suddenly stop working because people think injecting chemicals into their body is unnatural. You assert positions that contradict your own, yet refuse to accept positions that support your own. You enter into a debate engaging in ad hominien attacks yet refuse to respond in the name of 'i don't want to debate'. Your action should necessitate major sanctions, yet it is this political correctness that you are charging society with that is protecting your veil of ignorance.

EDIT: In response to "http://creation.mobi/natural-or-unnatural" Like I said, most people engage in equivocation here. There is a difference between natural and normal, and natural and abnormal. Homosexuality is simply natural and abnormal. If you accept that it has genetic reasons giving rise to a genetic disposition, then you accept that it is 'natural'. If you also accept that it is not the norm, than it is 'abnormal'. It is not unnatural insofar that it invalidates it being 'nautural' in the first instance. You may as well call a red-head unnatural if you equate abnormality with unnatural.

 

Sigh.. It's uncanny to see shift in the entire premise of the thread, yet lack to show burden of proof when challenging my question. Zorro said you cannot change your sexual orientation at the bottom of page 4, yet cannot provide undoubted proof of that. Logical reasoning is out the question for him. Is it odd that I choose not to further a debate that serves no interest for the premise of the thread? It's odd that you feel I have an obligation to continue something I don't have to. You've done this before in another thread.

Instinct vs Impulse

This is what your argument revolves around. It's instinct to get an urge to procreate. Instinct behaviors change in reaction to different environments to accommodate our need for survival. The urge to kiss someone of the same sex is impulsive. The urge to stick something up my poop shoot is impulsive. Impulsive behaviors do not serve to extend our life expectancy like our instincts do. What would you classify the urge to search for food? Instinct.

Are you implying that evolution and the genetic transfer of diseases would have no effect on the inner structure of the human body today? There are useless organs we don't need, but who is to say they didn't serve a purpose in a past time? It's ignorant for you to assume that because x doesn't make sense, it's possible that y doesn't make sense. Keep using that circular reasoning to try and disprove the obvious. That's like me saying, "Because good people are dying, that means God isn't real".

Until there is proof of not being able to change your sexual orientation, this discussion is an utter waste of my time. #BurdenOfProof

> Brings up repeated points that were already addressed
> I can't be mad

Logic.

 

Change does not imply choice. The fact that someone now has cancer doesn't mean they chose to have cancer. For sexuality to change, it implies a sexual disposition in the first place. You seem to reject the existence of sexual dispositions, so therefore you cannot believe that sexuality can change. It is impossible for something to change without there being something to change from. You can't have it both ways, there is no shift in the debate, these are just consequences of the premises you hold. Unfortunately every premise you hold contradicts one another.

Even if I take your false dichotomy, impulsive behaviours do not imply a choice. Your whole case rests on the case that homosexuals choose to be gay; I accept they choose to commit homosexual acts, but not that they chose to be attracted to men, to the same extent that heterosexuals chose to be attracted to women. You are arguing for the existence of choice here, the burden of proof is entirely on you. All your evidence so far is the case about Ravi, non-scientific, and equivocating between unnatural and abnormal.

What are you talking about? I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, I'm saying you have no evidence to back up your belief, furthermore, in contradicts my day-to-day experience. All I ask is you provide evidence, other than Ravi's unexpected erection, which only serves to further my point.

You can't prove a negative. I am not claiming that homosexuality is not a choice. I am saying that we have no reason to believe it is a choice. You are making the claim, thus the burden of proof is on you to prove that sexuality can change, and the corollary claim that sexuality is a choice.

(1) You have no evidence to support the fact that sexuality can change. The default position is we don't know, and you have failed to satisfy your burden with Ravi's unexpected boner.

(2) You have no evidence to support the fact that sexuality is a choice. Even if sexuality can change, this does not necessarily mean it is a conscious choice. No one chooses their height, yet for some magic reason your height changes.

 

All humans are created equal. That's it.

 

/thread.

 

I'm not one to judge if homophobia is a bad thing or not. But the fact is, homophobia could have lost the Allies WW II. Imagine if Turing got fired for being a homosexual before he put together the Bombe machine. The Enigma would never have been cracked and Europe would be much, much different today.

Homophobia still led the government to chemically sterilise Turing, possibly causing one of the century's geniuses to commit suicide... So far I haven't heard any good come of homophobia, or any other segregative phobias for that matter.

 

I personally think it is a bad thing. I say this because it literally doesn't affect anyone but the individual.. So why care what someone else's sexual preference is, if it doesn't directly affect you? If it is what makes them happy then great, but don't hate on something that doesn't affect you..

 

It's laughable that you guys keep discussing the "gay gene" as if it were this singular gene that has a recessive allele that makes you like dick or vagina respectively. I think it's generally accepted that being homosexual is genetic we just don't know how or why. I remember there being a funny image on reddit somewhere that had a string of texts between two people in which two parents were talking about what their children were watching in the media. One of them mentioned that she doesn't want her children watching gay people on tv because they might turn gay. They other retorted sarcastically that they didn't want their children watching black people on tv because they might turn black.

If you're saying that being gay is a choice then why the fuck would anyone want to be gay? Are homosexual children who can't tell their parents that they are gay because of how they might react just doing it because they made a choice to be gay that they can't go back on? Did they sign a deal with the devil or something? Why the fuck would anyone choose to be gay in a world where people are killed for being homosexual.

If you can't come to the "obvious conclusion" that homosexuality is genetic then that's unfortunate. If you want to call a genetic difference a disease go ahead but go ahead and call being short or being black a disease as well.

 

I imagine that in virtually all cases, it's not an actual phobia, it's a dislike/hatred based on ignorance.

Quite a few graduates of "gay conversion therapy" have come out and admitted that it changed nothing, and instead gave them psychological damage.

 

The word homophobia is thrown around very loosely and its kinda become a blanket term for anyone who doesn't 100% agree with a homosexual's views of life. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and its nobody's business to say that they're wrong for thinking how they do.

Being someone who has been called a homophobe before, it kinda angers me because I'm not afraid of gays or anything they are about. If someone is a homosexual then that's just who they are, can't change that. The only thing that ever bothers me is when someone is "too open" about it. Like when a gay guy will overly flaunt it and act as though he is 100% a female, or when a lesbian acts as though they are a dude through and through. Yes, though who you are and your sexuality may be liking the same sex, it doesn't mean you need to conform and act like the heterosexual extreme of the opposite sex...

But do I believe homophobia is a bad thing, no and yes. Its not illegal, its only someone's opinion about another group of people. But its not radical like the racism of the 1960's. The day we start seeing mass groups murdering homosexuals because they dislike the way they are, that's the day it will become a true problem.

 

Flaunting it is not really down to their sexuality, on top of the sexuality is a person, a person capable of attention seeking and/or whatever flaunting "it" would bring. I know what you're saying, and if someone is overly camp it can be irritating to have a conversation with them. But it's not homophobia, it's just their assumed fake personality grinds your bones. Which could happen with anyone who is straight or gay.

I think you underestimate the issue. At least, with racism you have no choice but to face your haters. Where as a gay person/teenager will quietly sit in their room and deal with the issue alone for believing they are alone, and everybody is against them. Sometimes drastic measures are taken by them which includes suicide. Which makes me feel physically sick that others intolerance forces kids to do that.

As someone mentioned Turing I think I'll give him a shoutout too. Don't you find it weird that we wouldn't be discussing whether homophobia is good or bad, after we are discussing this on the foundation of a homosexuals invention? After saving countless lives and essentially throwing the odds in our favour against nazi Germany and making sure we're not speaking auf deutch right now. Simply because of his genius. What was his thanks for that? Chemical Castration. I can't think of a more ultimate betrayal, based on the ignorance of the majority.

I can say though I'm glad too see the majority of the Sythe users are more mature than I expected.

 

No, just people are inclined to their opinions - if someone doesn't like gay people, then let them be. If someone LOVES gay people, let them be. No need to make such a fuss about either side.

 

Why the fuck would anyone want to be a murderer? Do you think psychopaths/sociopaths like having no empathy for the lives of others? There are two groups of people. Ones who are predetermined, and others who find their identity through experience. It's true you can be completely sane, and still find enjoyment in killing others. It's actually a natural instinct to kill, but we've suppressed that instinct with moral conduct and consequences. Humans are highly susceptible to addiction. This means things such as ones environment/lifestyle, especially at an early age can determine/change your sexual identity. I gave an example of prison homosexuality earlier on and how that can lead to the changing of ones sexual preference. Apparently having a physical attraction can't lead to a sexual one, which by all measures sounds extremely plausible, given the back stories pertaining to these specific cases. That alone leads me to believe that there are some people who can change their sexual orientation through the course of their life, and others who cannot. Those who cannot, and consider themselves to be homosexual, can very well be burdening the gay disease (yes it's a disease, look up the definition of disease). This however has nothing to do with why I dislike homosexuality as a whole. I particularly dislike the act. That doesn't mean I should automatically dislike the person in association to that act. This is the modern definition of homophobia, which isn't a bad thing as most people seem to describe it. If you can't accept that, well good luck in life you brainwashed sheep. If you can't come to the obvious conclusion, that there isn't an "obvious conclusion", then you're just a bandwagoner who can't distinguish the two groups I just described.

 

I mean I don't like a dick in my ass or anything but I know of some girls who do. Just because its how someone is doesn't mean its a disease. There is no medicine to control it like adhd or anything so I don't understand why you're being so indignant about it. Yes, I too do not like when homosexuals openly discuss their sex lives around me, but I also do not like it when straight people do too. I feel like that portion of someone's life is their business and doesn't need to be told to the whole world. To say its a disease is kinda immature of you, sure prisoners can change their sexual preference when they are locked up but that's because for years of their lives they've done nothing but live with other males/females... Everyone needs some form of loving in their life, be it their own hand or someone else's lol.

I'm just saying, just because you dislike the act doesn't mean you need to be bent all out of shape about it. Yea sometimes tv shows and shit go way overboard with it and it more or less takes away from the story, as does any extended period of sex scenes during a cop show or whatever.

The only reason you dislike the act of it is because society is based around a heterosexual point of view. Ads to movies always throw in some form of sex to bring in customers, its the way the world is. But just because some people may be into something other than you, doesn't mean you need to be completely against their life.

The least we can agree on is this, no matter how many homosexuals are in the world; You, me, and many other people will remain unaffected in our sex lives. There is never gonna be a gay man who steals your woman away from you...

 

You misunderstand completely. Homosexuality is not a disease, just like being a murderer isn't a disease. If a gene were to be discovered, that itself is the disease. Like I mentioned before, there are two groups of people. Ones who are predetermined by genetics, and those who find their identity through experience. Labeling the act as a disease would be contradictory, and if you read what I just posted before this, you would understand why. Excuse me if I sound like a pompous douche, I'm just annoyed with the direction this topic went in.

 

Breaking enigma didn't win them the war, sure it was a factor, but there were many other things.

Also, you can't simply say "imagine". What is to say they couldn't have continued to built it without him, or someone else broke it another way. Bad anology.

Which means?

 

As long as i don't see " two guys or two girls kissing " in front of my eyes, then thats fine.. Even straight couples shouldn't do anything sexual front of people.. There is such thing as hotels..