Is homophobia a bad thing?

[ilovegold69]

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.

To respond to your point about homosexuality in prison I think you're mistaking a sexually deprived human looking for stimulation with someone changing their sexual preference. I think expressing a disliking for anyone's sexual preference is equatable to disliking someone's race or any other personal attribute that doesn't affect your life. I don't assume you dislike homosexual people nor do I assume you would act on your opinions but I believe it's just an antiquated opinion that serves no purpose in the modern era.

there isn't an "obvious conclusion"

It's unfortunate that many people don't use common sense to come to this obvious conclusion.

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..

So by your standards a straight couple kissing in public is unacceptable? I agree we should also hide our ankles and necks and never speak of sexuality outside of our homes.

 

[IAMKarmo]

@OP:
The semantics of the word homophobia are very spread and diverse.
One simple definition, however much official the website, dictionnary or reference might be, cannot possibly reflect the whole social connotation behind the word and the different interpretations.

However, phobias, and homophobia itself, are/is an IRRATIONNAL fear(s).

The issue with having a irrationnal belief, is the fact it holds no solid grounds in term of intellectual reflexion, which, in other words, means lack of rationnal judgement and logical reflexions.

Yet having irrationnal beliefs is also natural to human beings, as we are not purely rationnal, nor are we robots. An issue arises when your belief diminishes other human beings beliefs/preferences/origins/etc.

The big issue behind homophobia itself, is not that one "dislikes" homosexuals, which is to some extent, acceptable, but rather that one oppenly campaigns against them and treats them like "lesser" humans based on no intellectual ground.

 

[IAMKarmo]

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.

You evoqued the argument of "it's not natural".

Here's a couple of definitions for you, as you do seem to like to throw some around...

Natural: (According to The Free dictionnary)
1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
7. Faithfully representing nature or life.
10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.

(The reason I cut some out is because they were unmatching for this context)

Would you agree with me that the bests representatives of what is said to be "natural", are plants and animals? (Obviously you do, or else half of your arguments wouldn't make sense)

Now mind you, there are several dozens of examples of animals that practice homosexuality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Homosexuality, oral sex, anal sex, bisexuality, are both practiced by animals and humans since thousands of years. There are several species that practice one of the following: Rape, oral sex, anal sex, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, etc.

The ancient greek civilisation, which is one of the most important civilisation to roam the earth (defined us and allowed you and me to be sitting where we are right now, with structured societies and developped sciences) were openly homosexual/bisexual, and men sought, in majority, sex with younger males as it was considered much more pleasuring.


Where I am getting at:

Your "undoubted empirical data" (wtf, Do you believe a such thing exists?, undoubtable?) is of no use if you misanalyze it.

The more I read your posts, the more I have the strong impression you have an unrationnal belief (Homophobia) which you are trying to justify it with "rationnal" arguments, which end up being falacious or misinterpretated facts.

P.S. I'd rather say your arrogance is really annoying. You throw around words like "Truth" and "Undoubtable" and "facts", while you do not even seem to cease the extent of their meaning.

Here's a last definition for you:

Fool:
1. One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.
2. One who acts unwisely on a given occasion.

The reason why one is a fool is not simply because he throws around words he does not fully understand. The reason one is a fool is because he believes he witholds one truth and therefore never doubts his own opinion, thinking or analyzing of certain situations, ideas or reflexions, but rather attemps to prove his opinion by only accepting "facts, ideas or reflexions" that confirm his point of you.

Don't be a fool in life, always doubt your own opinion and thinking, this is the only way you'll attain a greater awareness of what surrounds you.

P.P.S. Please do not get offended, my words might have been harsh at time, but quite frankly I have nothing against your person, only the opinion you are exposing on this topic.

 

To respond to your point about homosexuality in prison I think you're mistaking a sexually deprived human looking for stimulation with someone changing their sexual preference. I think expressing a disliking for anyone's sexual preference is equatable to disliking someone's race or any other personal attribute that doesn't affect your life. I don't assume you dislike homosexual people nor do I assume you would act on your opinions but I believe it's just an antiquated opinion that serves no purpose in the modern era.

I'm talking about prisoners who leave prison and still seek sexual communication between the same sex to satisfy that same need they once sought in prison. This is a psychological phenomenon that corresponds with the environmental lifestyle that person once lived through. The same thing can happen with the food you eat, especially influential through children. I remember my uncle recalling events of his highschool buddy who went to prison for 3 years for burglary charges. He needed a place to stay and my uncle let him sleep at his home. My uncle told me he caught him looking at gay porn, and was caught off guard, because he knew his friend wasn't gay. What does this mean? You don't look at porn unless you're seeking stimulus pleasure. Curiosity is out the question. He told me "Prison can turn you gay". At the time I didn't think much of it, but now that I'm really looking into it, there is a possibility that it can. Prison is known to cause psychological trauma, it's not surprising that cases like these do exist. Disliking an act is not equal to disliking a person for their ethnicity, that comparison is outrageous. Ethnicity is not a preference.

You evoqued the argument of "it's not natural".

Here's a couple of definitions for you, as you do seem to like to throw some around...

Natural: (According to The Free dictionnary)
1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
7. Faithfully representing nature or life.
10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.

(The reason I cut some out is because they were unmatching for this context)

Would you agree with me that the bests representatives of what is said to be "natural", are plants and animals? (Obviously you do, or else half of your arguments wouldn't make sense)

Now mind you, there are several dozens of examples of animals that practice homosexuality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Homosexuality, oral sex, anal sex, bisexuality, are both practiced by animals and humans since thousands of years. There are several species that practice one of the following: Rape, oral sex, anal sex, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, etc.

The ancient greek civilisation, which is one of the most important civilisation to roam the earth (defined us and allowed you and me to be sitting where we are right now, with structured societies and developped sciences) were openly homosexual/bisexual, and men sought, in majority, sex with younger males as it was considered much more pleasuring.


Where I am getting at:

Your "undoubted empirical data" (wtf, Do you believe a such thing exists?, undoubtable?) is of no use if you misanalyze it.

The more I read your posts, the more I have the strong impression you have an unrationnal belief (Homophobia) which you are trying to justify it with "rationnal" arguments, which end up being falacious or misinterpretated facts.

P.S. I'd rather say your arrogance is really annoying. You throw around words like "Truth" and "Undoubtable" and "facts", while you do not even seem to cease the extent of their meaning.

Here's a last definition for you:

Fool:
1. One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.
2. One who acts unwisely on a given occasion.

The reason why one is a fool is not simply because he throws around words he does not fully understand. The reason one is a fool is because he believes he witholds one truth and therefore never doubts his own opinion, thinking or analyzing of certain situations, ideas or reflexions, but rather attemps to prove his opinion by only accepting "facts, ideas or reflexions" that confirm his point of you.

Don't be a fool in life, always doubt your own opinion and thinking, this is the only way you'll attain a greater awareness of what surrounds you.

P.P.S. Please do not get offended, my words might have been harsh at time, but quite frankly I have nothing against your person, only the opinion you are exposing on this topic.

Are you implying humans aren't animals? Animals don't copulate with the same sex, because that is against nature. Practicing sexual acts is meaningless because it doesn't involve like I said, copulation, and is interpreted through the pro-homosexuality media/community. Do you think the media would publicly say homosexuality is not natural even if evidence supports that? Of course not. They have to stay politically correct for the sake of a possible reprisal from the lgbt community. I've talked more about what is considered natural a page or two back with malakadang. Intelligence isn't acquired by quoting google definitions. Truth and facts are not doubted, this is common sense. If you're going to stand behind the reasoning of your sexual orientation being unchangeable, then you need to provide empirical evidence to support that claim. If you find that daunting, then I don't know what to tell you buddy.

 

[Dracon]

If you're going to stand behind the reasoning of your sexual orientation being unchangeable, then you need to provide empirical evidence to support that claim. If you find that daunting, then I don't know what to tell you buddy.

There's loads of evidence that you can't change your sexual orientation, have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_change_efforts

 

[Johnsonman]

Yes homophobia is destructive in society. We are an ever changing society trying to reach equality. But those who are homophobic are preventing us from getting there.

If you dont like it, dont do it.
But just because you dont like it, doesnt give you the right to patronize those who choose to do it.
It doesnt effect you, why are you making yourself effected by it?

 

[Alch]

Biologically speaking, what if homophobia is a distal evolutionary tool that discourages non-heterosexual sex?

 

[Malaletki]

Homophobia whats is it?

 

[kushl9ve]

Homophobia whats is it?

Basically you're homophob when you're strictly against homosexual people/homosexual living/etc.

Anyways, as long as they kind of leave me alone if you know what I mean>_< I don't really mind, it doesn't affect me so why should I care about how other people live?!

 

There's loads of evidence that you can't change your sexual orientation, have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_change_efforts

You do realize the current status of what you've given me is outdated? It dates back to the 19th & 20th century. It also doesn't tackle bisexuals, and it's funny because that itself would be considered a change in sexual orientation.

Biologically speaking, what if homophobia is a distal evolutionary tool that discourages non-heterosexual sex?

I don't see the purpose in that. All animals hold a dire purpose, and that is to procreate. For nature to create something that puts a dent in the systematical function of procreation that dates back billions of years, just doesn't make sense now. Humans are very susceptible to diseases due to our weak immune system, so if anything it would make sense for it to be a biological disorder. This also doesn't tackle those who claim to be homosexual through free will.

 

[zorro_]

Out of curiosity, what do you think proving that a sexuality can change does for your argument?

Something it doesn't do:
1)Does not by itself prove that sexuality can be controlled by the individual

 

Out of curiosity, what do you think proving that a sexuality can change does for your argument?

Something it doesn't do:
1)Does not by itself prove that sexuality can be controlled by the individual

You perpetuated that someones sexual orientation cannot change for nearly the whole thread. While it does not have to do with the premise of the thread, I did prove you wrong in that argument. Sexuality can be controlled by an individual. This is demonstrated through bisexuality. Not only that, but any homosexual through the power of free will. Intimacy can lead to a physical attraction, which then can lead to a sexual attraction. I do acknowledge that most people cannot change their sexual orientation, just like most people can't drink milk, this is a biological drawback that cannot be controlled. You fail to comply to the acceptance of homosexuality also being self determined. The keyword I've reiterated throughout this whole argument is "can", which means able to. This isn't absolute, and does depend on the person.

 

[zorro_]

You perpetuated that someones sexual orientation cannot change for nearly the whole thread. While it does not have to do with the premise of the thread, I did prove you wrong in that argument. Sexuality can be controlled by an individual. This is demonstrated through bisexuality. Not only that, but any homosexual through the power of free will. Intimacy can lead to a physical attraction, which then can lead to a sexual attraction. I do acknowledge that most people cannot change their sexual orientation, just like most people can't drink milk, this is a biological drawback that cannot be controlled. You fail to comply to the acceptance of homosexuality also being self determined. The keyword I've reiterated throughout this whole argument is "can", which means able to. This isn't absolute, and does depend on the person.

I don't understand your bisexuality argument. It doesn't seem to me different than any other sexuality in its substance. The bisexual will claim he does not choose to be attracted to females or males; it just happens, the same way homosexuals or heterosexuals are attracted to their respective sex.
Again, you haven't proven that we can change our sexuality: you've at most proven that sexuality can change. But claiming that is under control (we can change it) is not to be drawn from this and needs to be proven. It can still change through whatever mechanisms are at play -- the same way that puberty works -- and experience will point to it being not under direct control.
Just because someone's sexuality could "change" in jail does not mean they themselves were responsible for this change. The necessary component of this change would be the exposure to homosexual acts, not the choice - otherwise, why do they need homosexual acts to "change"?

Btw, I think a much more plausible explanation for the jail case will be that those individuals who appeared to "become gay" were in fact not straight the entire time, although they did not know it. This would explain why so few people actually change -- because they are not really changing. But anyway, that's just a hypothesis.

 

[SmokeHut]

Let's just say, for your arguments sake. It was possible to consciously choose your sexuality. Would it make any difference? Your argument after that would still be prejudice and intolerant "it's not natural" and blah blah blah.. It would still be against that choice, and why? Prejudice.

Another bolt of your thread is the comparison between criminals and homosexuals. I assume now you do see how this is a bad comparison?

This isn't really a debatable issue, your comparisons are weak and based on irrationality. It's almost like a debate on religion. I'm surprised this thread is still going.

 

[getonmylvl]

Ok, I haven't read any of the replies as i am in a rush, but I thought i would air my opinion.
I think the word gay, homophobia and all of that shit as really diluted, I mean people nowadays want to be seen as homophobic, and the normal way to act in society is to be homophobic to be honest for younger people. I am straight, however I think everyone has done it when you call someone gay or whatever as a joke, it has become and adjective if you would, and never gets used in the same way, I believe that many people want to seem homophobic however the majority of people who want to seem it aren't and that people who are are probably quiet about it.

Society has changed so much now that in the younger people, being gay is frowned upon and thats why I think many people are scared to come out, because primarily i believe they probably think they would lose their friends, if my best friend told me he was gay I honestly don't know how to react. I would certainly feel a bit uncomfortable about it.

I don't think that actual homophobia is a bad thing, as long as you fight it, although unless you are walking into a gay bar i honestly think it isn't that bad of a phobia in day to day life.

HOWEVER, I do think the way society is portrayed as with gay being bad and people wanting to be homophobic is wrong, and we all do it to a certain degree. I don't think there is anything wrong with gay people, but we are being brought up with a hatred for them, and if you walk into school now, i would actually eat my own shoe if someone didn't say the word "gay" in 5 minutes of you walking down the corridor

 

I don't understand your bisexuality argument. It doesn't seem to me different than any other sexuality in its substance. The bisexual will claim he does not choose to be attracted to females or males; it just happens, the same way homosexuals or heterosexuals are attracted to their respective sex.
Again, you haven't proven that we can change our sexuality: you've at most proven that sexuality can change. But claiming that is under control (we can change it) is not to be drawn from this and needs to be proven. It can still change through whatever mechanisms are at play -- the same way that puberty works -- and experience will point to it being not under direct control.
Just because someone's sexuality could "change" in jail does not mean they themselves were responsible for this change. The necessary component of this change would be the exposure to homosexual acts, not the choice - otherwise, why do they need homosexual acts to "change"?

Btw, I think a much more plausible explanation for the jail case will be that those individuals who appeared to "become gay" were in fact not straight the entire time, although they did not know it. This would explain why so few people actually change -- because they are not really changing. But anyway, that's just a hypothesis.

Your stubbornness is ridiculous. Prison homosexuality is usually induced with rape, which causes trauma. Usually that person then becomes a sexual slave of said person for various things whether it be for goods within a prison, favors, or to raise ranking in groups. There are many documentaries on this, feel free to watch it. What happens is that person becomes mentally traumatized, unable to differentiate various things, including sexuality. This is also the case with nymphomaniacs who usually at a young age are raped, thus later on triggering a sense of constant sexual dependency. This isn't introduced at birth, it's psychological trauma. I don't doubt that there are underlying homosexuals who pretend to be heterosexual, but not being able to comply with this very simple understanding is just pure stubbornness. As you imply, human attraction isn't clear cut. There are various methods of sexual exchange, intricately interchanging. A simple read of this proves it. Did you know that there are free will homosexuals and bisexuals that exist (that should answer your obvious answer)? I'll give those who claim to have a specific sexual preference at birth the benefit of the doubt, even though there is no evidence tying these two to being biologically induced, and possibly never will be. There are multiple answers to your question, but your stubbornness is your own Achilles heel. This still has nothing to do with why I dislike homosexuality as a whole, and that itself should not be a problem.

 

Let's just say, for your arguments sake. It was possible to consciously choose your sexuality. Would it make any difference? Your argument after that would still be prejudice and intolerant "it's not natural" and blah blah blah.. It would still be against that choice, and why? Prejudice.

Another bolt of your thread is the comparison between criminals and homosexuals. I assume now you do see how this is a bad comparison?

This isn't really a debatable issue, your comparisons are weak and based on irrationality. It's almost like a debate on religion. I'm surprised this thread is still going.

@Red text, no it would not make a difference. My dislike for homosexuality is not influenced on whether you consciously choose who you're attracted to. This argument was perpetuated by you and others on page 2 of this thread. If you have anyone to blame for the thread being derailed, it should be yourselves. It's funny that you talk about irrational comparisons, I could pull a list of your unreasonable arguments, you should be the last one talking honestly.

 

[SmokeHut]

@Red text, no it would not make a difference. My dislike for homosexuality is not influenced on whether you consciously choose who you're attracted to. This argument was perpetuated by you and others on page 2 of this thread. If you have anyone to blame for the thread being derailed, it should be yourselves. It's funny that you talk about irrational comparisons, I could pull a list of your unreasonable arguments, you should be the last one talking honestly.

Well if you want to get into he said this, he said that.

You can change your sexual preference, you can't change your ethnicity.

Page #1

What your saying is, a homosexual has the power, skill, means, or opportunity to change their sexual preference, when this isn't the case. That is why I brought it up on Page #3.

Then you provided me with a link to a myth that didn't back up your claim, and the very next backed up mine.

But that aside. You're saying my arguments aren't logical, or follow suit of formal argument. Fine, I can deal with that.


Logic aside, there has been a lot of work to make being homosexual a more accepted thing. As us, modern people do against prejudice. The pro's of this are that;

- Homosexuals can attain happiness in their lives.
- Teenage homosexuals are less likely to commit suicide if they are accepted for who they are.
- Ultimately, a progression to all mankind's happiness.

The con's are;

- People with prejudicial comments have to keep it to themselves.



I think you're quite right to have your own beliefs on homosexuals, whether or not they're irrational.

However, to publicly announce these irrational beliefs I disagree with. ( hopefully I provided you with enough logic on this issue for you to resist backfiring. )

EDIT: I would also like to see the list you've compiled for my irrational arguments if it's not too much trouble.

 

Well if you want to get into he said this, he said that.



Page #1

What your saying is, a homosexual has the power, skill, means, or opportunity to change their sexual preference, when this isn't the case. That is why I brought it up on Page #3.

Then you provided me with a link to a myth that didn't back up your claim, and the very next backed up mine.

But that aside. You're saying my arguments aren't logical, or follow suit of formal argument. Fine, I can deal with that.


Logic aside, there has been a lot of work to make being homosexual a more accepted thing. As us, modern people do against prejudice. The pro's of this are that;

- Homosexuals can attain happiness in their lives.
- Teenage homosexuals are less likely to commit suicide if they are accepted for who they are.
- Ultimately, a progression to all mankind's happiness.

The con's are;

- People with prejudicial comments have to keep it to themselves.



I think you're quite right to have your own beliefs on homosexuals, whether or not they're irrational.

However, to publicly announce these irrational beliefs I disagree with. ( hopefully I provided you with enough logic on this issue for you to resist backfiring. )

If that's the case, then a heterosexual wouldn't be able to change their sexual orientation, and that has already been proven not to be the case. Those who seek to find various relationships with both sexes with the means of free will say otherwise. I've already explained the process in how that goes down. Most people who disagree with homosexuality will often use the argument that man and woman exist to copulate with each other, not with the same sex. That is a good reason to be against an act that contradicts that. How naive of you to think that the minority, the different, the strange will find peace in the same world as the majority, the similar, and the ordinary. So it's okay to publicly announce that you support something, but it's bad to announce that you oppose it? What grants you such selfish entitlement?

 

[SmokeHut]

If that's the case, then a heterosexual wouldn't be able to change their sexual orientation, and that has already been proven not to be the case. Those who seek to find various relationships with both sexes with the means of free will say otherwise. I've already explained the process in how that goes down. Most people who disagree with homosexuality will often use the argument that man and woman exist to copulate with each other, not with the same sex. That is a good reason to be against an act that contradicts that. How naive of you to think that the minority, the different, the strange will find peace in the same world as the majority, the similar, and the ordinary. So it's okay to publicly announce that you support something, but it's bad to announce that you oppose it? What grants you such selfish entitlement?

What I was trying to say was.. There's a big difference between being able to change your sexual preference, and your sexual preference changing.

"Most people who disagree with homosexuality will often use the argument that man and woman exist to copulate with each other"
But that sentence can be used in any way shape or form. However, to conceive a child it fits only that sentence. Conceiving a child, is not the same as copulating. It's just the only option available, naturally.

The fact is, that argument is based on a probably. "The only way to conceive a child is with men & women, so we should probably only have sex with men or women" There is no ground proof or fact, that you should only have sex with opposite sexes. So as it's not proved, and mainly based on a probably and therefore an opinion. Does not give it the right to become true.

Surely you can see the connection of why it's bad to announce it and good to support it..?

Supporting homosexuality is opposing prejudice, opposing it is supporting prejudice.

It is also not naive to want equality.

Let me throw a question at you. What exactly in your phobia, causes you distress? Is it being around a homosexual? The thought of the acts? Being involved in the acts? What actually is it, that causes you distress?