Is homophobia a bad thing?

Fundamentally incorrect. Even if the burden is somehow on the person to prove a negative, like how environmental factors affect height, so to can environmental factors affect sexuality. You would not say that the malnourished child in Africa exercised his free-will and chose to be short. So why do you say that the gay person in the city chose to be gay? Of course with height you know there is a genetic factor, but also an environmental factor (nutrients etc), so of course you wouldn't say such a stupid thing. But in the case of sexuality, we only have some evidence to support it having a genetic basis, and less supporting it to be influenced by the environment.

Capitalising on this absence of evidence (NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE) you march in spouting the same nonsense you did on page 2-3, and assert that sexuality is a choice! You still ignore my simple statement that even if something can change, that does not mean that the change was a result of a choice. The fact that that malnourished child was adopted and moved to Australia resulting in him growing taller does not necessarily mean he chose to grow taller. The same thing can be said for sexuality. Yes you could be right, and in some instances you have cited, it could be that they have chosen it, but the burden of proof is on you, and you do not satisfy your burden by saying the same thing over and over. Take a bit more pride in the beliefs you hold, look at the scenario of sexuality and ask why do I think it's a choice, and could it be anything else? Do you really think that it could be nothing else and has to be a choice?

 

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

It is a lifestyle choice of degeneracy, many non western societies have already woken up to leftist propaganda saying that people are born gay. The people have woken up and have rightfully jettisoned fags out of their country just look at Russia for example. Maybe people in fagerica who are brainwashed israhell's "liberal" media are more "open minded" and "progressive" have been duped by the gay fad. But I ensure you the rest of the world is coming out of their trance.

 

He's homophobic towards gay men only, not gay women as well.

You're a dumbass. Also reported for spam because you haven't provided any justification for your opinion.

 

It also doesn't tackle bisexuals, and it's funny because that itself would be considered a change in sexual orientation.[/quote]

The point was to demonstrate that there has been no evidence that has stood under scientific scrutiny that sexual orientation can be changed. This is why "No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation."

Uh, no, not at all. A bisexual is somebody who is attracted to both men and women. How would that be a change?

 

Most people are afraid of being judged if you like boys or girls it doesn't matter it doesn't change who you are.

 

Homophobia, just like almost every other thing in existence, can be harmless or harmful.

If you are homophobic and aren't attending gay-bashing rallys, aren't pushing your beliefs onto others, or even calling a gay person a fag, you are not harming anybody, I don't think you need to concern yourself thinking you are a bad person. If you're doing any of those things (or anything similar) then you would be causing others harm without the need to defend yourself, which would make you a bad person.

Calling a gay person a faggot is like calling a black person a nigger. Is racism immoral? In my opinion, it is not if you aren't harming anybody.

Celebrities that openly are homophobic receive hate because they are causing harm. If they did not publicly insult a large amount of people, I think they could be homophobic and not receive backlash for it.

Is it wrong to be homophobic? I think that is on a case by case basis.
Is homophobia worse than other phobias? I think it is worse than many, because of how easy it is for somebody homophobic to harm somebody else. On the other hand, I'm willing to bet there's somebody with *insert random non threatening phobia here* that harms people a lot more than the average homophobe.

Just my thoughts. I do not believe anything is wrong unless you are harming somebody besides yourself in any way. By being homophobic and keeping to yourself, you are not harming anybody.

 

So from what I gather your standard of moral evaluation is whether an act harms someone? I think there are some problems with just this alone.

What if someone asks your for your opinion 1 to 1? Let's say someone asks you what you think of the black people, are you allowed to respond with the truth? What if you think they're dirty niggers that should be re-enslaved? Should you suppress your honest beliefs even if someone asks for an honest answer?

What about if you don't know whether your answer will harm someone? What if you say you believe in free-markets, but the person you are saying it too is a hardcore communist (unbeknownst to you) and is offended? Does this constitute sufficient harm?

A celebrity might also be asked similar questions however the audience is much larger. Are they to suppress the majority of their views since in all likeliness any view they espouse will probably offend some people?

I can understand your position is based on the fact that these people aren't actively going out and promoting their distasteful views, but what about those that simply answer questions put forward to them honestly? It seems absurd to say it is immoral to answer a question honestly even if it may harm some people. But if this is the case, your standard is inconsistent at least with reference to this, and so it ought to be modified if only slightly.

 

I hate the term homophobia, no-one is scared of gay people. They simply believe it's wrong for whatever reason. I support gay rights, even as a straight male. I don't give a flying shit what other wish to do with their life as long as it doesn't affect me or my friends and family in a detrimental way.

I love to have a derisive laugh at the bigots and chauvinistic pigs who tend to be so anti-gay that they go out of their way to preach hate. People need to start caring about their own life a little more and be more self centered. Seriously.

 

Can't stand the word "Homophobe", I care not about this subject just a normal straight guy living a simple normal life... There are gays I see holding hands walking down the streets I don't care.. good on them they look normal nothing wrong with them, look the same as me.

But, when I see two males wearing full make up eye liner and speak in the stereotypical high-pitch homosexual voice.. I just can't stand it, what gets me more is half way through the conversation they switch to there normal deep voice.

I know not to judge an entire group by the minority which I don't, but when I see that minority it drives me insane which to be fear, can be said about almost any group in the word.

Oh btw, good luck having anal years ago when condom didn't exist.. oo nasty
shit dicks up in there.

 

Here's my view on it:

If you don't like drugs and alcohol, don't smoke or drink.
If you don't like religion, don't pray or worship.
If you don't like homosexuals, don't be a homosexual.
If you don't like being judged, stop being a judgemental asshole.

 

I have nothing against someone's sexual preference. The only thing I detest is the community in which homosexuality is associated with. As the OP said, speak out against it, and you're going to face social ridicule. However, my stance is different. I don't give two shits about sex for pleasure, fuck a goat for all I care. What I don't agree upon is when the homosexual community starts throwing around the "gay gene" argument, that people are somehow "born gay." Is that even remotely true? No. I look at it from the point of view that if it were, and everyone were somehow not born with a natural instinct to reproduce, the human population might face serious population issues. "What? That's stupid to say, that's assuming the conclusion!" Not really. In South Korea they project that by the year 2,750 all of South Koreans will essentially cease to exist because their populous has such a lackluster interest in marriage and children. If homosexuality were as common as Korea's disinterest in marriage/children, we might be making similar projections. Luckily for humanity, homosexuality is not a sweeping "epidemic," for lack of a better term, my apologies.

Less than 1% of the US population is homosexual, at least the last time I looked. This leads me to believe that at some point during the developmental stages there was a break in development, an interruption. The natural order of the human is to grow up and reproduce. Homosexuality does not allow for reproduction. Male + male =/= child -- woman + woman =/= child. As the universe intended for it to be, it is male + female = reproduction = continuation of the human race.

Like I previously said, i'm not against it, nor do I even care. For the sake of discussion this is my opinion on the dynamic of homosexuality itself, as I view topics such as this as it involves the survival of the human race. Please don't reply with, "well there will always be straight people to populate!" That's not what i'm discussing. Hopefully some people will understand what I am saying.

 

Every time i think of the word homophobia I picture someone running away screaming, or jumping on the table screaming.

I'm all for people being homophobic, You don't have to like something just because society deems it so, what I disagree with is where people bully and torment people/individuals for being homosexual, that's not a phobia at all, more like a need to feel superior.

I disagree with Spyder69's comment though, If there is no sexual attraction to the opposite sex, how does one obtain an erection to copulate, a flaccid penis isn't going to be very effect tool. if you want, can you become sexually attracted to other men? It's no different.

 

And what would be your conclusion to populating as a homosexual man via IVF? Regardless of whether a female has to produce to child, the fact that the homosexuals are involved in the process of production, it would then be a fact that homosexuals can produce, no?

 

I put IVF in the same boat as those that use the "well there will always be straight people" argument, same tree, different branch. IVF is not an exception to the rule. Could a colony of homosexual individuals populate without the aid/interference of outside sources? No. They would cease to exist in under a century. From the perspective of how "nature" intended, a man + woman = reproduction, we possess sexual organs where it's like a lock and a key. In the world of statistics, if you were to look at the number of straight:homosexual ratio, one would question why it is the way it is? Why is a beyond overwhelming majority straight, while such a small niche group for some reason do not follow the way intended in order to reproduce? That would lead someone to question whether or not there was a break/disruption in the developmental stages of life.

I think the same of transgenders. People who go as far to physically alter themselves in order to "feel right." At the end of the day, their chromosomes would disagree with their personal physical displeasure. My opinion is the same for those as well, but in a much more serious fashion there was a severe disruption in the developmental stages of life.

 

They throw around the gay gene because attraction is clearly something over which people have little to no control. Things of that sort are best explained genetically. Regardless it does not worsen the position of homosexuals if attraction is indeed controlled, because we preserve people's rights for things they control as well as don't control (take freedom of religion as an example).

At the end of the day the biological argument means nothing. I've argued this before, but I want to stress that we clearly do not model our moral judgements around purely biological explanation. I think if we did the face of morality would be very different from what it is today.
In fact I would go so far as to argue that such an explanation is one of the enemies of morality, for at its core morality derives from people's choices and free will as human beings (I think this thought gives rise to most moral notions).
Also, it is stupid to discriminate against or underplay the rights of homosexuality by the lights of your own argument. If biology is indeed what is supreme, and you also contend that the gay gene does not exist, then biologically homosexuals are identical to heterosexuals. Their "inability" to produce actually derives from their psyche, which is exactly the same as choosing not to have kids, or trying your best but failing to acquire a partner, etc. In this line of argument the infertile heterosexual is more the biological deviant than the homosexual.

Your argument is either irrelevant to the issue or an attack on your own position. By the way, if we are to fully engage the biological as our basis to act, we should probably start implementing mandatory reproduction. In fact men and women should probably be holed up in mating tubes, where they are constantly in a state of reproduction to the extent that their bodies can accommodate. (I'm saying your argument is also a very slippery slope).

 

Care to quote where I injected morals into my argument? I'll just wait here while you do.

Care to quote where I discriminate against homosexuals and their rights?

It's pretty obvious that you think it exists. I already know articles exist attempting to prove its existence. I hate to tell you, but the claims have already been refuted by other scientists. People attempt to stretch the truth or cherry-pick "evidence" in favor of their argument, it doesn't always end up well when someone in the same field comes along to challenge them.

I think you're forgetting what this thread is about, this thread has nothing at all to do with rights, which is obviously what you're attempting to make it about. You've also ignored the stance I took. Stop pretending that somehow biologically the human body allows for homosexuality. Homosexuality is a deviation from normality, the constant being the most basic human instinct, to reproduce. Homosexuals cannot reproduce without outside intervention. Less than 1% of the US population identifies as gay/lesbian/bisexual, statistically, we call that an anomaly. Stop attempting to inject your own arguments into mine as if I was somehow trying to get at some other point. Oh, and

Need I say more when you resort to strawmanning?

 

You've randomly quoted a few sentences and haven't addressed my argument at all. Like at all. Responding to your post would just require repeating my original post.
You also misunderstood the quote about the gay gene. I wasn't contending that the gay gene does exist, I was entering into your line of thinking and saying why it fails even if the gay gene does not exist.

I'll address your last point directly (although it is addressed in my post). If the gay gene does not exist, then homosexuality is NOT biological (in the way you are speaking about biological - because you contend that people are genetically disposed towards reproduction). Hence, they are not less favourably viewed by biology.

In other words you would require a gay gene for your biology argument to make sense because if there is no gay gene, then there is no difference biologically speaking (in terms of innate biological propensities for reproduction) between homosexuals and heterosexuals and your argument has no force.

 

However, a full homosexual colony could populate with the interference of outside sources. Then, it is within their ability to populate. The argument doesn't fit if we move to pre-historic thinking. But as the movement is the now, and this conversation is the now. We can declare, that homosexual people can produce. "can" being within their ability.

My argument was that the can populate, so it makes your argument irrelevant.. We aren't speaking hypothetically.

Not all copulation is with the intent to produce.

And as for your transgender point, you mean our understanding of the chromosomes would disagree with them. However, they aren't happy in the body they're in. So, you're saying it is a mental condition basing it on the argument of chromosomes? What severe disruption are you talking about?

 

Freedom is a myth, people are stopped from expressing themselves how they wish and showing their dislike for certain things. I think as long as freedom is preached nothing is wrong with homophobia.