So name one reason. C’mon, how hard can it be, if there are so many?
No, it’s not. It’s not even remotely close to circular logic. You really need to stop using terms you don’t understand.
Who said hateful? I said “homophobe.” They’re exhibiting a prejudice against homosexuals. Therefore, they’re homophobes.
Well, explain it to me, 'cause apparently I’m slow. How is prejudice against gender different from prejudice against race? Please note, I’m not asking you to explain how race and gender are different. I get that. What I don’t get is why you are so dead set against any analogies between racists and homophobes. What’s the big difference between the two?
How is homosexuality harmful to anyone? Please provide cites.
Cool! I consider people who think homosexuality to be immoral, to be themselves immoral. I guess that means this conversation is over, right? After all, if I can’t condemn someone for their moral system, then you sure as hell can’t condemn me for mine, right?
So, if I could get the majority of people in this country to agree that, say, killing Jews isn’t immoral, it wouldn’t be immoral? Is that the argument you’re trying to make? Because that’s where any “morality by majority vote” argument leads.
Because there’s no other reasonable explanation. And you know this, because you’ve passed up a dozen opportunities to offer one.
They believe homosexuality is worse than heterosexuality: therefore, they are homophobes. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp. It’s pretty much the basic definition of the term. I’m not sure how you’re defining it, though. As near as I can tell, you’ve defined the term so narrowly I’m more likely to encounter a unicorn than a homophobe.
It’s not? Well, there goes our entire legal system. If we can’t measure harm, why do we give lighter punishments to theft than to murder? Can’t measure harm, so both crimes must be equal. Heck, if we can’t measure harm, how can we determine if a crime has even been committed? How can we say murder is worse than giving someone an ice cream sundae, if we can’t measure harm?
There are plenty of site outlining why having blacks and whites live in the same country is harmful, too. We don’t agree, but that doesn’t make it so.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. Racism is in no way similar to homophobia, and comparing the two is a gross logical error. Not at all like, say, comparing homosexuality to IV drug use, which are two highly analogous concepts.
To repeat for the third time: I DON’T KNOW. I do not claim to know, I do not even claim to suspect it. I DO NOT KNOW. But here’s the deal: YOU DON’T EITHER. Can you provide any evidence, cite any research, link to any article by a reputable scholar or clinician that supports your idea that negative reactions to homosexuals are absolutely never in any way an innate rather than a learned behavior?
You, not I, are the one claiming to have absolute knowledge about what must be in people’s heads. Ergo, you, not I are the one that bears the burden of providing evidence of such knowledge. If you cannot provide such evidence, which I suspect you can’t, then I suggest you confine your criticism, as Martin and I did, to their behavior, which nobody here has ever defended at all.
Which is really the whole problem in a nutshell. You aren’t addressing what people actually say, you’re trying to decide if we’re “good guys” or “bad guys.” Are we on Your Team or are we The Enemy? What we are suggesting is that you deal with people on the basis of what you know they do, rather than what you suspect they feel.
Tell ya what, if you want to tell me about how* you* put up with being called “Fag Lover” because you were volunteering your time to clean toilets at an AIDS hospice, I’ll consider your suggestion that you’re more able to face condemnation than I.
Agreed.
Sweet God, I hope I’m being whooshed here. If someone personally finds redheaded people unattractive, would you tell them they need to force themselves to read Redhead Monthly so that they can purge themselves of this sin?
Nope, still never said that.
Please, be realistic; few mere mortals can even dream of aspiring to such lofty heights of wisdom. :rolleyes:
Neither have I, and most likely it’s not the case. But as a starting point, we can all agree that sexuality in general is instinctual rather than learned, right? Reptile-brain stuff? Any dissent on that? No? Good.
Yep, I can. Okay, it may take some inductive reasoning to realize that since none of the research has ever shown a biological link to homophobia. I would feel comfortable in reaching that conclusion though, in the same way I believe the sun will continue to rise in the east because it always has.
from a British secondary school guide
[quote]
Research (for a review see Clift, 1988) shows that negative attitudes towards homosexuality
seem to correlate with the following:
[ul][li]Reporting no homosexual experiences or feelings.[/li][li]Being negative about types of sexual behaviour and relationships which are neither[/li]procreative nor take place within marriage. i.e. Oral/anal sex, sex between young
people, sex outside or before marriage, and so on.
[li]Lower educational and social status. i.e. The lower a person’s level of educational[/li]attainment and social class the more negative their attitudes are towards homosexuality.
[li]Adhering to strong religious beliefs which disapprove of sex and/or homosexuality.[/li][li]Lack of social contact with lesbian and gay people.[/ul][/li][/quote]
I don’t have access to the Clift study; but if you do here the info: ERIC TITLE NUMBER: EJ369579
Not enough for you? Here’s a NYT piece from 1990 for you to mull over.
Again, I made no accusations. If you infer them then you need to examine why you think my comments apply to you. As it is you continue to make yourself look foolish by continuing to try to defend a ridiculous notion that homophobia is innate rather than learned. When you spout a ridiculous notion, don’t be shocked when you’re ridiculed.
Many people have already done this. Read the thread if you want to argue them.
"Circular Reasoning is the basing of two conclusions each upon the other (or possibly with more intermediate steps). That is, if you follow a chain of arguments and conclusions (a proof or series of proofs), one of the conclusions is presumed by an earlier conclusion."
Sampiro’s argument is as follows:
Groaning while watching a certain behavior means you are disgusted by said behavior.
The people at the movie groaned while watching a homosexual act.
The people in the movie theater are disgusted by homosexual acts.
Being disgusted by an act of homosexuality makes you a homophobe.
The people are homophobic.
You see how the validity of 5, 4, and 3 rely on #1 (the the preceeding step) being true. That circular because #1 has not been proven.
People typically use homophobe to describe people who are hateful or discriminate against gays.
What are the pertinent similarities? Prejudice is everywhere. Smokers and fat people are prejudged, do you think their experiences are comparable? I get that there are some similarities, but not enough that it’s a meaningful comparison.
Certainly not a closed issue, but I think there’s enough evidence there to show that the spread of HIV was hastened by bathhouses, and specifically male homosexual sex.
There are certainly more issues that could be brought up, but I think you get the point. No need to go down that road.
All of you can do whatever you want, just don’t pretend that your moral compass is based on an objective measurement.
Depending on your belief system, it would not be immoral. It’s immoral in the US to eat dogs, but in other countries it is perfectly fine. It’s also been fine at times throughout history to be gay, or for adults to sleep with children (of varying ages). We consider some of the things done in the past immoral, but morality is an evolving standard, and societal changes made it acceptable to do something we considered unacceptable in years past, then the morality of the issue would change as well.
Because other people have already done so. The validity of your argument is not based on my providing a more acceptable solution in your eyes, it’s about proving your case. You have not done so.
Bullshit. If someone finds Asian women prettier than White women, is he/she a racist? Preference does not equal prejudice.
Actually, our legal system is not objective system engaging in moral calculus. Plenty of things that are arguably immoral are legal, and vice-versa. You clearly have no understanding of how the law works.
Exactly, which is why making a statement that you can prove behavior x is immoral is stupid.
Did I say those two were analogous? Similarity isn’t the only measure of a good analogy.
Good links, Homebrew, but not necessarily conclusive that there is no heritable component. It’s clear that there is a strong social component, and I don’t think anyone is disputing that. I would go so far as to say that it’s very likely that the social part of it makes up 100% of homophobia. But I wouldn’t dare say that I’m 100% sure of that.
The heritable bit is, IMO, worthy of at least a cursory glance. Even if for no better reason than for our amusement.
It may be wrong, but I don’t think it’s entirely laughable. Observe: Humans are not the only species that engage in sex. Long before we invented the cerebral cortex, animals have been doing the nasty. Even animals that have little more intelligence than a simple brain stem have an instinctual desire to seek out a mate of the opposite sex and get all hot and naked. The idea goes deep, and has been around since the beginning of life itself. This goes without saying of course, else we wouldn’t be here to talk about it.
It’s not difficult to imagine (and I’m no biologist) that the very essence of sexuality still resides in our brain stems instead of our corteces. It’s an animal urge that is far stronger than our higher minds can conceive of.
So what is the purpose of sexuality? Procreation, natch. To make copies of our DNA. Now while doing teh gey may be all sorts of fun, and I don’t doubt it is, it’s hardly conducive to procreation.
Let’s look at some other activities harmful to procreation. Consuming poison. Drink poison, get sick, die, no sex for you. Our bodies perceive sour milk as poison, and so we find it disgusting. It’s a built in safety mechanism. We sometimes perceive heights as unpleasant and disorienting. Fall down, go boom, die. No sex for you. Safety mechanism.
How about sex with post-menopausal women? Yes, some guys like that (and good for them), but most guys are attracted to women of childbearing age. This is a great boon to the task of bearing a child. A great many guys consider sex with old ladies (and children, for that matter) to be “gross.”
Let’s take it one step further – let’s speculate that people might perceive same-sex boinkage to be a waste of sperm, which might be better used to increase the size of the tribe. Evolution may have even given us a case of heebie jeebies to prevent such a thing.
Or not. I don’t know. But framed in those terms, a innate distaste for homosexuality may not be entirely outside the realm of possibility.
Let’s get back to your links. Pretty strong evidence that homophobia is a social construct. But if that’s true, one would think that it would be experienced in waves, like a fad. But it’s been with us for a very long time. Homophobia has outlasted hula hoops, Earth shoes, and Tickle Me Elmo. For a mere intellectual idea, it has some real longevity. Several thousand years, and probably a lot longer. Intellectual ideas don’t get that sort of long life unless there is something deeper, at the genetic level, to sustain them.
Or not. I don’t know. But does the idea really seem that crazy?
brickbacon, your citing of bathhouses is a good point, but consider this: It’s not so much the gay sex that’s harmful, but the AIDS virus itself. By your line of thinking, blood transfusions are a pure source of harm. Let’s lay the blame where it belongs, on the virus itself.
Actually that’s not totally accurate. There’s a strong correlation with religious appropation and homophobia. Some cultures accepted and even revered homosexuals. Earth shoes and Elmo have never been linked to the dominate religion, although silly hats have survived a long time.
I’m certain that sexuality is innate. But not being attracted to see two men kiss is a long way from being disgusted by it. I have no desire to ever touch another vagina; but I’m not disgusted by men (or women) who do.
That being said, I’m glad we’ve reached a place where we can discuss this rationally. Which is more than can be said for furt, who is proving to be an imbecile.
furt, are you really trying to out-gay me? Ohhh, you have a gay roommate so you can’t be homophobic… Here’s a clue for you, I AM gay. Come back after you’ve sucked a few dicks.
Furthermore could you please point to any lies in my statements. You can’t because I didn’t put any in there. You are really getting moronically obtuse here. I gave you cites for social and religious conditioning as source of homophobia. You seem, for some reason, to desire to cling to the idea that it might be innate. Yet there is NO evidence to support that idea. None. There is, however, ample evidence for homophobia being a conditioned behavior. Why do you refuse to accept the obvious conclusion?
I’ve been careful about including “if” and other provisional words. In fact, I began by not naming anyone. I find it odd that you defend so feverishly against an accusation that was never made. It makes me think of the old adage the guilty dog barks first.
I might speculate that you need the innate excuse to ease your mind because you know it’s irrational for you to feel icky if you catch your roommate making out with another guy. Whatever salve works for you, if you need one. I’ll admit, I could be wrong and you are arguing for the sake of arguing and aren’t really this stupid. I’d like to be shown I’m wrong about you.
Why can’t you just provide one yourself? C’mon, indulge me.
That’s not circular. At worst, it’s arguing from an unfounded premise. And, of course, Sampiro’s premise is very well founded. I mean, it’s possible that several people in the audience got stomach gas all at the same time, every time two guys kissed on the screen. But it strikes me as unlikely in the extreme. The most obvious, most likely conclusion is that the groaning was a negative reaction to what they were watching on the screen. No one has provided a more likely alternative explanation, despite several opportunities.
Which is how I’ve used it here. Discriminate means to place a differing value on two different things. This isn’t always a bad thing, of course: liking a steak more than a Big Mac is discrimination. People who think two guys kissing is gross, but not a guy and a girl kissing are placing a different value on the two kinds of kissing. That’s discrimination, although of a generally innocuous sort. Therefore, those people are homophobes.
Gay people, like black people in the past, are denied equal opportunity in the job market, in the housing market, in the freedom to marry whoever they wish, in the ability to walk down the street without being insulted or attacked, all because of an innate, harmless, and immutable characteristic. Sounds like a pretty damn meaningful comparison to me.
That doesn’t prove anything about the harmfulness of homosexuality, it shows the harmfulness of indiscriminate, unprotected sex with strangers. This is equally harmful to straights as well as gays, if not more so, as straights have the additional danger of unwanted pregnancy.
Considering the vacuity of your one cite so far, I think there is a definite need to go down that road.
Sorry, my moral system says that anyone who says my moral system is not objective… is immoral. Either don’t get to tell me my moral system is wrong, or I get to say that people who are opposed to homosexuality are wrong. Can’t have it both ways, bacon.
Okay, let’s run with this. If morality is soley determined by majority rules, then if I can get the majority of people in this country to agree that opposition to homosexuality is immoral, my position automatically becomes moral. Therefore, is it not in my best interest, as a gay man, to use every opportunity to say that opposition to homosexuality is immoral?
I think I’ve offered substantially more evidence in favor of my position than you have against it. You keep saying that there are plenty of equally likely explanations for people groaning at that scene, but you haven’t offered a single one. tdn offered a list of wildly unlikely alternatives, but just because there is a conceivable alternate explanation doesn’t mean I have to consider it unless you can show that there is a greater or equal chance of it being true than the position I’m arguing. No one in this thread has done that. No one has even tried: the closest they’ve come is to argue, unconvincingly, that being disgusted by gay people kissing isn’t necessarily homophobic.
Who’s talking about preference? No one has accused anyone of being a homophobe because they are not, themselves, attracted to members of their own gender. People are free to be attracted to whoever they want. When they start passing judgements about who other people should be attracted to, we’re not talking about preference, we’re talking about prejudice.
I didn’t say our legal system engaged in moral calculus, I said our legal system is founded on the idea that it is possible to distinguish between relative levels of harm. This is why every crime is not punishable by the death penalty: some crimes are measurably worse than others, and merit stronger punishment.
Not my point. I can argue that the holocause never happened, but that doesn’t make holocaust denial a viable viewpoint. I can argue that blacks are inherently inferior to whites, but that doesn’t mean that there’s any validity to the argument. And I could argue that homosexuality is immoral, but that doesn’t make it so. All of these arguments are only possible if one selectively edits your sources, ignores contrary information, and engages in deliberate falsehoods.
Yes, repeatedly, whenever you accused Sampiro of being a hypocrite for groaning at scenes of heroin use.
There’s a strong correlation with religious appropation and homophobia.*
Besides misspelling approbation, that sentence is unclear. It should read “There is a strong correlation between religious approbation of negative attitudes towards homosexuals and the prevalence of homophobia.”
Of course an even clearer statement would be “There is a strong correlation between religious condemnation of homosexuality and the prevalence of homophobia.”
Good points, but consider why religions (more than one, BTW) have condemned homosexuality for so long. There may be theological or political reasons, but even those may have biological roots. Much like in a discussion of Intelligent Design, one must ask who created the creator. It’s turtles all the way down!
And this is only considering that homophobia only arose in cultures with a strong church. I’m sure with a little research one could find examples of atheistic cultures in which homosexuality was condemned, or at least looked down on.
Ask yourself this – if you could start a new culture from scratch, say from a bunch of infants, and they had no contact with the outside world, and were totally insular, what would be the chances that in a few hundred or thousand years they have had a good deal of homophobia? Holy crap, that was an awkward question. If homophobia is only passed down as an intellectual idea, then there’d be no problems.
I’m not that confident that it would be a gaytopia.
Well, keep in mind that three of the largest religions in the world all share common origins. It could be argue that Christianity and Islam inherited their homophobia from Judaism. I understand that Buddhism has no particular injunction against homosexuality. I have no idea where Hinduism stands on the issue, or even if Hinduism has a sufficiently unified belief system to make such a generalization.
Same sort of story: About 9 years ago, I lived with a guy who was hardcore fundamentalist. (I didn’t know how was that much of a thumper when we agreed to live together.) One evening, he and a few friends rented The Birdcage; the next day, I got to listen to him complain about how this movie was horrible because it glorified homosexuality.
How many people go to movies without knowing anything about them? If you’ve read anything at all about Rent, you know that homosexuality and the AIDS crisis are major themes. How, then, can people be surprised when they see it?
Yes they have provided reasons. Read the thread. Plus, it is circular reasoning.
People who place a different value on different kinds of kissing are doing the same thing people are doing with steaks and big macs. It doesn’t make them homophobes.
As are smokers, fat people, and Jews
Ditto
False comparison. I still can’t marry anyone I’d like. I can’t marry a kid, or another man if I wanted to. It’s being homosexual, it’s about marraige being defined as one man and one woman. A gay man can marry a gay woman if they’d like. Clearly they would prefer otherwise (and should be able to), but it’s not a valid comparison.
Same could be said for fat people, etc. etc.
Not really. All you’ve proven is that homos are discriminated against. We both acknowledge that. It’s the reasons for this discrimination that makes the analogy poor.
Yes, it does. The bathouses were for gay men. Plus, anal sex is more dangerous than vaginal or oral sex. OF course, straight people have anal sex, but the proclivities of men that live a homosexual lifestyle puts them at greater risk for diseases. Cite
It will only be equal when straight people engage in risky sex at the same rates homosexual men do.
I didn’t say it was wrong, I said it’s not objective.
Did I say it wasn’t in your self interest to argue your position? Now, I doubt you’ll be effective if you present the arguments you’ve presented thus far, but I respect and admire your willingness to work for what you feel is right. What I don’t respect is the intolerance you show for those who disagree.
Should we have to? You haven’t produced anything to prove these people reacted out of disgust, and that that disgust means they are homophobic.
I would hardly classify groaning (a visceral reaction in all likelihood) could be described as passing judgment. Either way, passing judgment doesn’t make you a homophobe. If I say black athletes tend to be faster than white athletes, am I racist? Making a value judgment, in and of itself, doesn’t make you a prejudiced person. If I think male homosexuality is less appealing than heterosexuality, it doesn’t make me a homphobe.
Our punishments are arbitrary. They are not based on an objective moral standard. It’s subjective. That’s why every murder isn’t punished the same way. If it were only about the morality of the act, a person would get the same time for killing a hooker as he would for killing a senator. They don’t because our system is subjective. Robbing a bank, and robbing a flower shop also have different penalties. Of course we distinguish between crimes, but that distinction is not objective.
Hey idiot. Do you not understand the concept of falsifiability? I can prove the Holocaust happened by showing you survivors, and evidence. I can prove Blacks are not inferior by showing you test scores, studies, genetic tests, etc. Those crackpot theories can be proven false. You can not prove the morality, or immorality of homosexuality in any objective way. That’s what I’ve been saying this entire time.
No, I accuse him of being a hypocrite for not attributing the same prejudice to his groaning as he did to others groaning. In no way did I say homosexuality are drug use were the same.
If homophobia is only passed down as an intellectual idea, then there’d be no problems.