Homophobia

i wonder if any of you see the irony in all of this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not really, because if intolerance is the only thing that an otherwise tolerant society is intolerant of, then that society is in fact fostering and breeding tolerance. If instead we were wholly tolerant of intolerance, we would to some extent be promoting that instead. In other words, intolerance of intolerance is not hypocritical or self-defeating (with respect to it's ultimate goal), it is productive.

It's kinda like how a society is promoting personal liberty by having laws that punish those who try to violate it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see it.

 

The term homophobia is so widely used it is used to manipulate emotions. If a women asked her husband if she looked fat in the her dress, he knows he is supposed to lie or else she will reacted negativity to the truth and make him the bad guy for being rational. If a child is trying to throw a ball and can't do it, it is polite not say you suck at throwing. It is PC to say good job. The homophobia is the PC penalty for not lying properly.

We have two sides of the brain. The left is more rational while the right is more emotional. If one was looking at this situation from the right brain, it would be about emotional integration. The left brain would be about rational differentiation. These may not overlap. PC is not rational but caters to emotions and is therefore more designed for right brained. Differential facts and analysis may not integrate emotions. The term homophobe is a magic word for right brainers designed to shut off the left brain and pull right brained where emotions are the orientating function.

The problem is education is designed around left brain with the right brain more trained by religion; dogmatic.

 

Why?

I sincerely doubt that.

See? You don't even understand that homosexuality is an in-born trait that cannot be eradicated by killing off that particular portion of the population.

What does that have to do with anything?

And why the focus on men? Do you not feel the same way about two women passionately loving each other? What about two men whose love has matured into something more than that? Is it strictly the hot, sweaty action between two men that bothers you, or is it the very idea of two men saying "I love you" to each other?

 

Keep ducking questions, troll.

No one says you can't be grossed out by homosexuality. Involuntary reactions are one thing. However, to claim that something is wrong with them, or that their behavior is wrong, is homophobia. It isn't true that they're doing something wrong, morally or biologically.

 

The term "homophobe" refers to someone who uses their right brain only, and feels disgust, even horror at the idea that someone of the same sex might "come on" to them - and they might even like it. This would create a cognitive dissonance as their lusts war with their religious passions. Thus they recoil, horrified at the thought. Such feelings - disgust, fear - pretty much rule them.

A more rational left brainer knows that gays are no more of a threat to them than anyone else.

 

It is true that the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body and vice versa but the brain is more interdependent than once thought.

“Broad generalizations are often made in popular psychology about one side or the other having characteristic labels, such as "logical" for the left side or "creative" for the right. These labels need to be treated carefully; although a lateral dominance is measurable, both hemispheres contribute to both kinds of processes, and experimental evidence provides little support for correlating the structural differences between the sides with such broadly-defined functional differences.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function

 

Actually, it was Representative Steve Simon, who said those exact words, but you're right, it would be a great bumper sticker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXpOA3jPC04

 

He wants them around, but he doesn't want them to fuck.

 

Wrong! It was Steve Simon, who said that and he supports gay marriage.


"On Monday, May 2, 2011, Simon testified regarding and opposed a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in Minnesota. His comments drew national attention: "How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Simon#Minnesota_House_of_Representatives

 

Brief Notes

Thank you kindly, sir, for the correcton.

• • •​

The coin looks a bit more like a hundred-sided die. Some might find your identification of obverse and reverse ... er ... ah ... telling.

Or, perhaps, suggestive.

It's just that you chose so rough a distillation of the homophobic outlook. True, more (ahem!) reasoned, "logical" (nudge-nudge, wink, wink, a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat) argument against societal validation of the homosexual natural phenomenon would just strike people as desperate and, possibly—depending on specific aspects of faith expressed—hypocritical.

But I'm not certain "moron" is the best flip-side.

• • •​

The gay gene argument always gets cast in a very distorted light; we cannot search for these genetic factors with homosexuality as the utility, but, rather, the outcome. Remember that initially, the XY human genotype displays the same phenotypic outcome as XX until it receives a specific dose of hormones from the mother that triggers development toward the XY phenotype. Beyond that, genes affect the development of nerves and neurons, the fundamental and overarching architecture of the brain and sensory organs. There is so much room for variation that the homosexual outcome is virtually inevitable.

The problem with identifying the homosexual genetic complex is that it is diverse, subtle, and variable. It would be a particularly weak expression of genotype if there was a shiny, candy-light button that read, "Gay Gene!"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Fabulous! There is no "gay gene" history eraser button.​

I always adore that the issue gets cast as our neighbor has put it, a gay or homosexual gene.

 

I do not think so too. I mean, I can respect different cultures and beliefs; but accepting [or worse, claiming] something that is plainly and demonstrably wrong is not free speech worth dying for.

That's sensible enough. Their free speech remains untouched and the relatives of the dead can mourn in peace without their vile and on a deeper level, silly and petty shit interfering with their delicate and difficult situation. [Wow, grammer huh? How could I have put it more clearly?]

Off topic, but I have always had a deep dislike for the glorification of the military - when two parties come to a situation such that the only way to resolve a dispute is to kill their fellow man, it is not glorious or worthy of pride - its little more than a failing of civilization in handling disagreements - and those that do so are not heroes, they are just those on whom an unpleasant and unwanted task has fallen. Their are no heroes in war, only survivors. But that's just my view on it. Whenever I see news of political conflict or terrorism, the image of the pale blue dot and Sagan's accompanying commentary flash before my eyes - and I think - how petty are human affairs! How vain of us to think that any cosmic power can give two shits about us. God loves America. Allah rewards the jihad's martyrs..... Racists and homophobes and fundamentalists and uber-nationalists divide us, hold us back, increase general misery while giving nothing good in return and prevent us from coming together, united as a global civilization, shaking off prejudice and superstition to create a future worthy of a dominant and civilized species. Is it any wonder I am a misanthrope? Or that I am teetering on the edge of nihilism?

I would agree but I would also hate to see a choice like this ever come up. I mean, I agree that the Westbro's members are complete arseholes but are they any less worthy of human rights than anyone else? I have always thought that no humans are truely evil - they are either wrong [creationist abortion doctor killers], morally and intellectually skewed [Hitler, Stalin] or mentally incapable [psychotic serial killers]. Its in the very nature of a social species like ourselves to try and maximize the success of one's group and Hitler was motivated to do for "His people" exactly what Martin Luther Jr. was motivated to do for Black people. What Hitler did was very bad and what Luther did was very good, but Hitler, IMO, wasnt Evil. He didnt kill 6 million Jews just coz he wanted to [like Joffery killed Ros just because he wanted to]; he genuinely [and wrongly] believed that doing so was a necessary collateral for the betterment of "his people". It doesnt vindicate him, but it does do away with the idea that Hitler was like some comic book supervillian and the allies were the righteous heroes who defeated him. And without that, the 2nd world war becomes something that is just tragic, like a newborn wildebeast being killed by a lion to stave off the famine for a few days. And so we are back to the pale blue dot again and on a long tangent off topic.

Informative indeed, but what makes Homo so offensive rather than just an abbreviation? Nigger, for example, is offensive because it is a slang term of the word Negro, used to dehumanise Black people and justify inhumanities towards them, originating during the time of the African slave trade. What is the story [in the same vein of dehumanisation, I suppose] of "Homo"?

Ok. Its just that these questions have come up on this thread and would be answered in a couple of replies, so I suppose its alright, I dunno.

Here you go:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

well see, the thing is i never said they should be eliminated nor did i suggest such a thing.

it was a simple statement of fact.
you cannot deny that you have no problems about killing flies or feel remorse at stepping on a worm or using worms on hooks to rip fishes mouthes out.

get a grip dude.

 

Should a liberal who dislikes conservatives be called a conservo-phobe? They can get ugly and will even break the law using the IRS. There has to be something wrong with them, if they disapprove of conservative positions.

Should an atheist who is constantly singling out religion to degrade be called a religio-phobe? Should gays be called femo-phobes since they avoid sex with women or lesbians be called man-o-phobes since they avoid sex with men?

What would be the value of using a medical sounding term, like religo-phobe, to describe atheists? It is a way to discount their opinion by equating even rational analysis with an emotional pathology. What would be left is lopsided data for bad science.

Say someone does like what I have to say about phobia. I will call them a well-wisher-phobe. This means I have to be right since anything said against me, even if true, is a phobia and therefore pathological. The idea of the game is to silence opposition with emotional blackmail leading to a social stigma. When reason does not work you need tricks.

Let us all play the game. Anyone who does not agree with you or your ideas, coin a phobia. If the idea of generating custom phobias bother you, this is called phobo-phobia.

 

If he wants to ban them? Put them in jail? Prohibit them from getting married? Hopes they die off? Explain how they are not natural and are violating common decency by simply existing? Yes, "conservophobe" would be accurate.

If he just disagrees with their political views? No, that's just disagreement.

If he wants to ban religion? Prohibit churches from being built? Change the laws so religious types can't serve in the military in case they "get Jesus" during a battle? Then yes, that would be a religio-phobe.

 

can you point me to the government document that says marriage is a right?

 

Move on troll. I'm not here to feed your need for attention.