Homophobia

I certainly wouldn't paint them as the majority. Most people who cite religious reasons also believe a litany of untrue, worldly things about homosexuals.

I'm also not sold that a person can be anti-gay and not homophobic. To me, that's like saying you believe in Naziism because Hitler says so, therefore you're not anti-semitic. Appealing to an authority in a fear-based philosophy doesn't make one any less of a phobic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's probably more complex than simply fearing homosexuality. For some, it's a question of morality. For others, it's simply too strange to accept. I've been around homosexuals, but was never afraid of them, even though I thought their sexual orientation was wrong. "Homophobic" is a catch-all word that aims to minimize the opinions of others. I think it was invented to do just that. In other words, if you think homosexuality is wrong, you're homophobic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear.[1][2][3][4]

Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual.[1][2] According to the 2010 Hate Crimes Statistics released by the FBI National Press Office, 19.3 percent of hate crimes across the United States "were motivated by a sexual orientation bias."[5] Moreover, in a Southern Poverty Law Center 2010 Intelligence Report extrapolating data from fourteen years (1995–2008), which had complete data available at the time, of the FBI's national hate crime statistics found that LGBT people were "far more likely than any other minority group in the United States to be victimized by violent hate crime."[6]

Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia,[7] and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify. Forms of homophobia toward identifiable LGBT social groups have similar yet specific names: lesbophobia[8] – the intersection of homophobia and sexism directed against lesbians, biphobia – towards bisexuality and bisexual people, and transphobia, which targets transsexualism, transsexual and transgender people, and gender variance or gender role nonconformity."-----http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i believe he isn't willing, it's because he is required by law to do so.
in the US you cannot discriminate against sexual preference in regards to housing.

 

i have my viewpoints too and they also aren't good.
the real problem is that "gays" are here to stay, always has been always will be.
you just can't line 'em up and shoot 'em you know.

 

I agree - that thread was BIAS

It actually struck me as “HAHAHA... gay parents are better than strait parents” (being a prejudice statement - which is why I didn't waste my time responding), even though gay couples are not capable of having children, unless they were in previous relationships, decided to hook up with someone of the opposite sex or decided to adopted or have in vitro fertilization.

To answer your question. Yes it is possible to disapprove of "homosexual people" and not their behavior, because they will continue to be gay regardless of what anyone says, thinks or believes. That doesn't give them the right to call anyone that isn't homosexual the authority to call them homophobic. That is a very hypocritical stance and it runs quite common amongst homo(sexual)s.

And to get right down to the subject matter at hand. People can be gay and be happy without being homosexual or homophobic. Gay is just someone that is happy, yet those who are homosexual have decided to hijack the word and use it to support their non-sequential cause (reason) for being homosexual.

 

No, they can't, by definition.

Not for about 40 years.

 

lol ... don't make me laugh. You have obviously never taken the time to look up the definition.

Again... this in part due to bias and shows because you have chosen to ignore the rest or my post.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What does giving birth have to do with being a good parent?

Nonsense and non-sequitur. Why would one disapprove of homosexual people if not for their behavior? And gay people continuing to be gay irrespective to anyone's opinion certainly doesn't seem to have any relation to how it is therefore possible to disapprove of the homosexual but not their behavior, nor why anyone would.

Straw man. It has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with whether or not the label is warranted.

If you disapprove of homosexuality, you likely do so because you have some ignorant fear of the behavior or the culture. That's homophobia.

Since when is the etymology or definition of the word "gay" the subject matter at hand? We're talking about whether someone can disapprove of homosexuality without being a homophobe. Try not to let your zeal to disparage gays pull you off-topic.

It hasn't been used popularly in that context in decades. But so what if it were? Words can't have more than one meaning? Meanings can't change?

How does the word support their reason for being homosexual?

 

From Wikipedia:

Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual.

The term was originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy". The term's use as a reference to homosexuality may date as early as the late 19th century, but its use gradually increased in the 20th century.[1] In modern English, "gay" has come to be used as an adjective, and as a noun, referring to the people, especially to males, and the practices and cultures associated with homosexuality.

Dictionary.com:

gay

1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex; homosexual: a gay couple.
2. of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization.
3. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. Synonyms: cheerful, gleeful, happy, glad, cheery, lighthearted, joyous, joyful, jovial; sunny, lively, vivacious, sparkling; chipper, playful, jaunty, sprightly, blithe. Antonyms: serious, grave, solemn, joyless; staid, sedate; unhappy, morose, grim; sad, depressed, melancholy.

You were saying?

 

That you are ignorant and haven't taken the time to realize that the word GAY existed long before homosexuals thought it was a term that applied to them.

Again look up the word gay before it was hijacked by homos.

 

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about which is why I don't waste my time debating ignorant people.

Have fun enjoying the rest of your life in ignorance.

 

I guess Username couldn't answer the questions.

Balerion - 1
Homophobe - 0

 

LOL - you are right .... Balerion gets a negative - 1. AND Homophobe gets a - 0. <-- Which doesn't mean much of anything or nothing at all.

Ask a reasonable question and I will give a reasonable response.

Homos have no higher privilege than strait people. So quite acting like they do. Homos don't make better parents than hetero (strait couples) so quit acting like they do.

THAT ADDRESSES THE OP.

 

Wow. Dense much?

What was unreasonable about the questions I asked?

I don't normally correct spelling, but this is pathetic. It's "straight" and "quit."

At any rate, no one said homosexuals have higher privileges. That's something you've invented in your own mind.

I never said they did. That's not the point of the thread. Are you lost?

You're the one who went off-topic, not me.

 

I know and don't really care. At least not ATM.

No its not. Try looking at the original thread the op responded too.

No, I would ask if you are but I don't really care.

I guess translation gets lost over the internet so I won't ask why you think homo (sexual) parents make better parents than hetero (sexual) parents. - Unless you really want too.

 

Again, it's a catch-all word for anything that might be apposed to the idea that homosexuality is okay. "Phobia" means fear. The above tries to consolidate any apposing opinion under that term. I have to disagree with it's use. If I think Islam is wrong, does that make me an islamophobic? What's the word for someone apposed to Christianity...christianophobic? It's nothing more than an attempt to stifle criticism using an idea and a word.

 

There is scientific way. The evolutionary purpose for evolving sexuality is procreation. Separating the genes into male and female increased genetic diversity. Because this is so important to life and evolution, nature has evolved various carrots on the string to lead the horse to water (incentive to help lead to the prime directive). Bees, butterflies and hummingbird pollinate flowers or mix male and female flower genes, because there is an incentive; nectar. The carrot nectar leads to the prime directive of procreation. Animals are more self sufficient and use other triggers as carrots on the string; scent becomes the target.

Relative to humans, the prime directive of sexuality is still procreation, with the carrot on the string compulsive desire and pleasure. Since homosexuality can never lead to procreation, it is a horse chasing the natural carrot, without the prime directive. Picture a horse running in circles after the carrot but detached from directional vectors.

An analogy to sexuality is eating. Eating is needed for the health of the body and is therefore a prime directive since one cannot live without food for very long. The carrot on the string for eating is also compulsions and pleasure, to help make sure the prime directive is achieved. Someone stuck at the carrot on the string (only eats for pleasure) would still be compelled and would still feel the pleasure, but without any regard to the prime directive. This could lead to obesity. The horse runs in circles and never reaches the water.

The one thing that confuses this natural cause and effect (personality firmware) is modern science/medicine can be used to compensate. I could eat rocks, due to pleasure, without regards to the prime directive of the needs of my body, as long as medicine will compensate. If the final me looks the same as someone who follows the natural path, the illusion is this is now equal.

I have used the example of the zoo. It is not natural for wild animals to live in zoos. However, this is possible because we have zoo keepers to compensate for the limitations of this unnatural situation. The naive person, who is not aware of the behind the scenes activities of the zookeepers, might think the zoo is just as natural, since the zoo animals look normal. But this is an illusion, made possible, because of adding things not found or required in the natural environment. This is big business, so the illusion is pitched.

Someone can remain stuck at the carrot on the string, never reach the prime directive, and we can use the human version of zoo keepers to balance the scales to create the illusion this is natural. Many people sense this, slight of hand, but it is called a phobia. There is a lot of money in human zoo-keeping, with natural just too efficient to capitalize on.

The question I have is, would all gays be willing to stop using all artificial things used to prevent natural backlash? The homophobic fear is real and connected to a natural time when there was no zookeeper medicines; lead to disease under natural conditions. It come down to should the availability of modern zookeepers dispense the fear?

Politically, liberals seem to have more affinity toward protecting nature, yet promote behavior that needs zookeepers to prevent the spread of disease or abort children in ways not found in nature; artificial zookeeper additives. Liberals are compelled to protect nature to compensate for philosophical choices that lead to unnatural zookeeper compensations. I like going to the zoo, but still I have enough sense to know this is not natural and natural animals are not so programmed.

This is not an emotional appeal to anti-anything. It is logic that compares natural versus zoo. This analysis can be applied to all our instincts and is not limited not is it directed to only homosexuality.

 

Let me follow up with drinking. Drinking is a prime directive since we need water to survive even more than food. The carrot on the string is connected to compulsion and pleasure. Alcohol in water, is a wild card, in that it can give one a compulsive thirst that goes beyond the natural water needs of the body. There is a carrot on the string effect, where the horse is circling and not knowing when to terminate via the prime directive. Marijuana is known to give many people the munchies, where the horse circles after the food carrot beyond the needs of the prime directive.

These two are associated with addictive loops associated with the pleasure centers of the brain. If we are going equate zookeeper equal natural, why do we treat this differently in culture? With the right medical zoo keepers this can be made to look normal. Sex is the best drug, which is why males will spend so much on it, even in marriage. It too can lead to loops. Some of these get sublimated with the male required to consume more resources than should be natural to trade for sex.

 

If you disapprove of something, you are making a moral judgment. There is a strong relationship between morality and disgust. Disgust is an emotion.

Carrot on the string...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well, String is always bragging about his carrot and his sexual escapades, and at first, I thought it was disgusting, too much information. I asked myself why, why did it bother me? It was because it was something that I wouldn't want to do. Since, I wouldn't want to do it, I felt like String was being coerced or forced. Therefore, I focused my attention on the fact that he seemed to enjoy it, and it wasn't hurting him or anyone else. People who are more sensitive to disgust tend to be more judgmental, emotional, have poorer attention control, and are less likely to restrict their use of disgust.

Why would you disapprove? It’s between consenting adults and it actually benefits you by diminishing your competition.

Disgust and Morality