What is being homophobic?

[JudgeGame]

-snip-

-snip-

Seriously, people aren't tomatoes. Tomatoes can't process information or have emotions. This analogy sucks and it's offensive. Find better analogies and try and remember you're talking about people here. Alternatively, focus some time and energy on realizing people touching and caressing each other is totally normal and not disgusting at all. It only takes a bit of effort.

You know what's truly disgusting, biting your nails. You don't want to know the kind of filth you accumulate there.

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

1. No accredited organization that delves in the matter of sexuality believes homosexuality to be abnormal. Or a birth defect. And this in fact hasn't been considered a serious viewpoint for 40 years.

2. Not the norm doesn't=abnormal. You're right, 100% homosexuality will never be the norm. That doesn't make it abnormal.

Let's pick some normalities, since there are multiple "normals" (although the one we are mainly talking about is psychological).

Say we are talking about biological normality.

If homosexuality is genetic, homosexuality is a biological abnormality.

What about sociological abnormality?

The entire world is oriented against same-sex relationships (although it is slowly changing to be accepted). Homosexuality is definitively a sociological abnormality.

What about psychological?

See, nomenclature is the real problem. A lot of people think abnormal means something negative, and others use it as a term to describe something out of the ordinary. Anything can (and WILL) be called abnormal until it is fully accepted, simply because it fits the definition. Anytime I use it from now on, I am using it to describe something that deviates from the norm. If you'd like, I can use the word deviant.

Regardless, if you think that the world should just change and accept homosexuals out of nowhere, then I'm sorry, but you're being naive.

Demonizing the average person for being uncomfortable of something deviant is not how you get them to be comfortable. The only course of action is integration and a little bit of patience.

3. Sex is not solely to procreate and procreation isn't a top 15 reason why people engage in sexual intercourse.

4. You can procreate without having sex. You can procreate without being straight.

The first statement is ridiculous, and the second statement irrelevant.

People are hormonally drawn to hetero-sex because they instinctually want to procreate. We are instinctually DRIVEN to be heterosexual, and any deviation from that is purely out of emotion or sexual desire. Source: Eric Pianka - University of Texas [www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/bio301/HumanInstincts.pdf]

While we're at it, if you feel uneasy seeing black people make out or imagining having sex with a black person, that's racism.

I don't see why anyone would, because Beyonce is hott as fuuuck, but stop using that word if you don't know what it means.

Racism ONLY implies that you think a group is INFERIOR to yours. Sexual attraction has nothing to do with racism.

That's like calling gay men sexist.

 

[ZeroAxis]

HOMOPHOBIA: The fear that another man will treat you the way you treat women. /thread

 

[lacktheknack]

I am very homophobic.

The very idea of things not changing causes me great panic. I think I need help. ;__;

 

[lacktheknack]

HOMOPHOBIA: The fear that another man will treat you the way you treat women. /thread

You can't /thread yourself, you need someone else to do it, because often it's not a valid /thread.

I know anti-gay guys who treat women wonderfully. Also, your statement doesn't account for homophobic women.

 

[Tragedy's Rebellion]

We are pretty much going in circles for like 8 pages now and it's starting to get tedious. People are too caught up in the whole evolution and "the goal of life" (philosophers have been discussing this for millennia, but every person against homosexuality has it all figured out) as if they are some omnipotent and conscious deities that DEMAND *something* from everyone and will punish us when we don't conform. That is silly and childish. The matter of fact is that as natural creatures on this earth, everything we CAN DO is natural by way of associative logic and by your definitions "nature" has ALLOWED humans and animals to be homosexual, it doesn't even matter why. It isn't hard to debunk the "unnatural" routine, but it requires more thought than "buuuuut it doesn't make babiiieeezzz waaaah". Neither does oral sex, but you don't whine about that.

 

[101flyboy]

Let's pick some normalities, since there are multiple "normals" (although the one we are mainly talking about is psychological).

Say we are talking about biological normality.

If homosexuality is genetic, homosexuality is a biological abnormality.

What about sociological abnormality?

The entire world is oriented against same-sex relationships (although it is slowly changing to be accepted). Homosexuality is definitively a sociological abnormality.

What about psychological?

What about the fact no accredited organization believes homosexuality is abnormal? What about the fact something can be not the norm, and yet still be a normal part of society, biology, psychologically normal, physically normal. Homosexuality, is, in fact, normal. It's just not the norm.

See, nomenclature is the real problem. A lot of people think abnormal means something negative, and others use it as a term to describe something out of the ordinary. Anything can (and WILL) be called abnormal until it is fully accepted, simply because it fits the definition.

I don't consider the word normal a good or bad word. The word abnormal itself isn't a good or bad word, either. But you would have to be pretty dense not to understand that it is a loaded word. And you strike me as an intelligent guy. I think you know abnormal is a loaded word and you're using it intentionally.

Acceptance doesn't have anything to do with something being abnormal. Murder isn't accepted as OK and it is a normal part of every society.

Now, acceptance OF homosexuality is abnormal, yes. If you would have said that, you would have been correct. Homosexuality in society itself is NOT abnormal but societies throughout history have been anti-gay. So within, what, 10 years, that's going to change, and it's going to be homophobia that is categorically abnormal. Social norms change throughout time. But we're discussing homosexuality in itself.

Regardless, if you think that the world should just change and accept homosexuals out of nowhere, then I'm sorry, but you're being naive.

Out of nowhere? No. It takes time. But it's time worth taking.

The first statement is ridiculous, and the second statement irrelevant.

Both statements are facts, and there is nothing irrelevant about what I said. In fact the second statement, that people can procreate without engaging in sexual activity, is very relevant, due to the first point, which is that people do NOT have sex to procreate.

http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/men/package.jsp?name=fte/10reasons/10reasons

Now, if you would have said people are straight because of the need to procreate, you would have been correct. But the statement you made wasn't that, and is an attempt to justify your claim homosexuality is deviant, which it is not.

 

[101flyboy]

Evolution is a sum-of-all-parts deal. That's what those who use the procreation argument fail to realize.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

The entire world is oriented against same-sex relationships (although it is slowly changing to be accepted). Homosexuality is definitively a sociological abnormality.

Just because we treat something as inevitable, doesn't make it so. I do not think we will see widespread acceptance of same-sex relationships in our lifetimes, or indeed any other. Demographics is destiny. The populations that are most supportive of the sexual liberation of the individual are greying, aging and dying. They will eventually dwindle. The healthiest Western societies act like economic vampires. Greedily sucking down transfusions of foreign labour from the developing world and keeping themselves vibrant and strong by taking the vitality of developing nations that can ill afford the continued predation. Most of these immigrants are socially conservative, which means if things continue in the current vein outright victory will continue to remain elusive and social progressives will remain locked in an endless battle of attrition.

Just look at the various conflicts raging within the Islamic sphere. Nearly every civil conflict within it can be described in terms of more progressively minded urban populations versus more conservatively minded rural populations.

 

[Abomination]

-snip-

-snip-

Seriously, people aren't tomatoes. Tomatoes can't process information or have emotions. This analogy sucks and it's offensive. Find better analogies and try and remember you're talking about people here. Alternatively, focus some time and energy on realizing people touching and caressing each other is totally normal and not disgusting at all. It only takes a bit of effort.

You know what's truly disgusting, biting your nails. You don't want to know the kind of filth you accumulate there.

That's the only issue you have with the analogy, that tomatoes aren't people? I think we know that.

The parallel is the interal reaction one has to seeing ANOTHER PERSON do something with the tomato. It's the same with observing two men kiss. Just because the object being interacted with is a person doesn't change the situation in the slightest. The observer's reaction is based upon their tastes and preferences. If the idea of kissing a man disgusts a person it is entirely rational that observing two men kiss would ALSO disgust that person.

So long as that observer does not attempt to impair anyone else's ability to kiss men there is no problem. It isn't about homophobia, it is about being disgusted with the idea of engaging in physical relations with men.

Telling someone that disgust of that nature is offensive, opressive or discriminatory is downright absurd. The reasons of the disgust aren't steeped in fear or hate towards homosexual males, it is simply an individual finding the idea of physical relations with a man disgusting.

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

snip

Not really relevant to what I'm saying, but yeah...

I'm not sure what you're getting at to be honest.

Now, if you would have said people are straight because of the need to procreate, you would have been correct. But the statement you made wasn't that, and is an attempt to justify your claim homosexuality is deviant, which it is not.

I disagree.

I believe that homosexuality fits the bill of deviance very well.

I don't know what you mean by "Accredited Organization", but there are tons of completely legitimate, unbiased articles about the deviance of homosexuality.

Sodomy is basically the definitive sexual deviance. I don't think it gets much more clear cut than that lol.

It doesn't matter what any of these words mean tbh. I just think you're going to far if you tell people they are bigoted for getting a little weirded out by seeing two men kiss. They're bigoted it they don't think you should have the same rights, or if they think you are a lesser citizen.

Why should you care what I subconsciously feel? I'll get used to it if you stop giving a fuck.

It's like when someone gets a new haircut. At first you usually don't like it, because you naturally hate change. Then it grows on you... if they wear it right.

 

[Jenvas1306]

well there are many post regarding that the feeling of disgust comes from putting yourself into the position of one of the guys kissing and as you dont like to kiss a guy, you feel a sensation of disgust.
how about you see a guy kissing a attractive girl of whom you know that she is transgender? talks like a woman, smells like a woman, looks like one and feels like one. Is there still that sensation of disgust if you would get into the position of kissing her?

 

[101flyboy]

I disagree.

Good for you. The professionals disagree with you.

I believe that homosexuality fits the bill of deviance very well.

And yet, professionals that actually study matters of sexuality do not agree.

I don't know what you mean by "Accredited Organization", but there are tons of completely legitimate, unbiased articles about the deviance of homosexuality.

Feel free to post those articles.

Accredited organizations such as the American Psychological Association, American Mental Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics. And we can go down the list. We'll be waiting for your articles that are from accredited organizations, peer reviewed, and unbiased.

Sodomy is basically the definitive sexual deviance. I don't think it gets much more clear cut than that lol.

Sodomy isn't a solitary sex act done by homosexuals. And it's also not deviant whatsoever, and in fact, extremely common within the animal kingdom aka nature, making it's a natural occurrence.

It doesn't matter what any of these words mean tbh. I just think you're going to far if you tell people they are bigoted for getting a little weirded out by seeing two men kiss.

Never did say that.

Why should you care what I subconsciously feel? I'll get used to it if you stop giving a fuck.

Because it's not subconscious. Because you're speaking on behalf of the biases you hold and the fact you find homosexuality deviant and unnatural and conceptually wrong. You want me to stop giving a fuck; I don't care what you think because I know you're wrong. It's not me with the issue here.

Yes, it takes time to get used to what is uncommon to you. I understand, respect that wholeheartedly. I do not need to celebrate your attempt to rid yourself of irrational bias. Spare me the pity party. You know what's right, and you know what's wrong, so do your part to stop doing wrong and start doing right.

 

[Teshi]

1. In regard to the INDIVIDUAL'S genetic legacy? It works exactly as I say. If they don't reproduce their GENETIC legacy is not passed on because THEY DID NOT REPRODUCE. It ENDS with THEM.

2. I said, and here I am repeating myself AGAIN... it is a BARRIER, not something that 100% prevents reproduction.

We were talking about biological evolution. Not scientific development or social progress.

Aaaaand, biological evolution is based on adaptations to the environment (that is, scientific development or social progress) created by influential people. It all goes hand in hand my friend.

The only thing I was talking about was the biological part. Just that ONE individual homosexual's biological legacy. YES there are indirect affects his existence could have had upon society as a whole. But his INDIVIDUAL BIOLOGICAL legacy will CEASE unless he reproduces.

Who cares? Your argument is that the reason many people respond with revulsion to gay PDA is that it's "unnatural" because it doesn't result in reproduction. I don't know about you, but most of my day is spent doing things that don't result in reproduction, and people seldom recoil from me in horror, so that argument is totally nonsensical. Additionally, a wide variety of sexual behaviors the average person doesn't find at all offensive don't directly result in reproduction, either, so there's another nail in that coffin. Originally you were including some nonsense about it also being contrary to natural selection, but apparently now you're backpedaling on that, without actually admitting you were wrong. Your pseudo-science and pseudo-psychology are rather poorly thought out.

 

[101flyboy]

As a bisexual male, I'll throw in my 5 cents...

I actually have a phobia. Hemophobia. Small difference in letters, huge difference in meaning.
I panic and pass out when I see my own blood. There's no reason I should, there's nothing to be afraid of, yet when I see a drop of my own blood, my heart will start racing, I'll hyperventilate, the blood will rush from my head and I'll fall over and faint.
Just to put this in perspective, I'm a big bald guy with a goatee, I ride my motorcycle on a daily basis and I have little actual fear even in the face of what I thought would be certain death with an oncomming car hitting me, but a measly drop of my own blood will make me squeal like a girl and hit the floor.

So... a phobia is when you can't help it and it provokes a crippling fear you can't suppress, my own being a reasonable example.

I think people who are disgusted with the thought of gay men or the visual COULD help it, but choose not to.
This, does not represent a phobia to me and is a made up "condition" to help these kind of people feel better about themselves, because they have something to blame it on and gain sympathy.

I'm not saying it makes them horrible people, I'm just not impressed and think there's normal prejudice underneath.

I am so sorry for what you have to endure regarding your phobia. I hope there is something that you can do for it.

Yes, real phobias (aka hemophobia, arachnophobia, acrophobia) are debilitating in many ways, are true conditions, and are legitimate issues that are not brought upon societal conditioning.

Homophobia is a phobia in the sense that people feel threatened by homosexuality, and feel insecure around gay people. And same-sex kissing and interaction. And it is due to prejudice. It's not chosen prejudice. A person shouldn't be blamed solely for having said prejudice. But if they refuse to work on it, and if they are defiant in defending it, that's when there is a problem. And that's when a person gets the homophobe label slapped across their forehead.

 

[101flyboy]

I don't know many legitimately straight men who think of two men kissing to the extent they make a conscious decision on how to feel about it, why they feel that way about it, and why they cannot change and will not try to change. I know with my straight friends, I cankiss them and they don't recoil or act like they're about to die. I know that several straight guys in this very thread have said they find two guys kissing not a big deal, or at the most slightly uncomfortable and something that they get over. So that means these guys don't have an issue with two guys kissing. Yet we see our select few going out of their way to defend this bias, even when more or less proven wrong in all of their theories.

It's amusing. We're in day 3 of the trainwreck. Let's see how bad the damage is when the crash finishes.

 

[Abomination]

Who cares?

For fuck's sake. YOU do. YOU asked.

Someone asked me a question of a negative side effect of homosexuality. That was the only one I could possibly thing of.

I DO NOT THINK BEING HOMOSEXUAL IS A BAD THING.

But at the same time EVERYTHING has a downside. It doesn't have to be terribly significant, it doesn't have to be crippling. But everything has one. I was asked to present one for homosexuality, ignoring morality. And look what happens, I'm bashed over the head with moral judgments for daring to suggest such a thing.

It does flow against natural selection because its very nature removes the biological seed of the INDIVIDUAL from the pool. It does it in a most peculiar way. Not through weakness or inability to adapt or reproduce but by the individual?s subconscious. Every other species possesses (in a significant majority of its members) the drive to reproduce yet homosexuality places a rather strange barrier towards that end - preference towards a sexual partner from which you can not reproduce.

 

[chikusho]

I understand completely that the individuals in question find males to be sexually attractive. Here's the thing, I find males to be the exact opposite of that. I find them to be sexually UNattractive... and that makes me homophobic! (apparently)

Naturally you shallowly understand that the two people are finding each other attractive. I'm talking about subconscious processes in your head that places you in the position of what you are perceiving, and reacting to that with revulsion because it's something you can't cope with.
"Not wanting to kiss a dude" is not the same as "feeling disgusted by guys kissing", but I'm not saying this is wrong, or even homophobic, it's just the same thing that makes you cringe when you see someone stub their toe.