Would you call me a bigot if I said homosexuality was disgusting and perverted?

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Absolute]
I don’t disagree that it likely is.
[/QUOTE]
In which case you must surely abandon the pejorative sense of perversion that that word inevitably conveys. If you accept sexual orientation as some innate characteristic, then being gay is no more a perversion than is being red-headed. As pointed out by others, you are conflating abnormal with something applying to a relative minority. Many, many, many people are gay; millions upon millions. How can you say this is abnormal? It happens all the time. It is a consistently occurring human characteristic, not an aberration. Perhaps you are mistakenly hung up on the idea that there can only be one norm, and everything else is deviant. This is not the case. There are a range of normal human sexual characteristics, which occur with varying frequency.

Presumably your alien, having mastered the complexity of interstellar travel, sublimated his instincts for conquest and conquered the barriers of inter-species communication, would understand that there can be no single archetype for a population spanning a globe.

22

If you think all furries are disgusting and deserving of shame, then yes you are bigoted towards furries.
Being bigoted isn’t a yes or no state, people who are bigoted about some ideas are not bigoted about others.

23

[QUOTE=Absolute]
I think homosexuality is perverted (hell, it is by definition, you can’t really argue it). And, in my opinion, mildly disgusting. However, that doesn’t deter me from supporting gay rights.
[/quote]
I’m not gonna complain. I don’t understand, but there are many things I don’t understand, monosexuality only one among many. As long as you don’t let your visceral reactions influence your actions, I’m all for ya.

I’d tell them there is no such person, and good luck finding one.

No, we don’t. I don’t see what that has to do with anything, though.

24

[QUOTE=Absolute]

I ask this because this seems to be the opinion of some people (gay and straight) I’ve met: that if you have any aversion to homosexuality, hell, if you’re not practically willing to screw someone of the same sex, you’re a bigot. And that doesn’t really make sense.

[/quote]

Cite? I’ve never heard anyone say either this or anything close to it.

Disgust is a personal opinion at it’s root. I find beets disgusting. So finding any type of sex disgusting does not make you a bigot. Now calling something perverted is more of a moral judgement, saying something abolute about it (and calling it your opinion doesn’t change that.) Saying that anyone who likes to eat beets is sick in some way is a far harsher judgement than saying that you find beets disgusting. As the rest of the thread illustrates, it is not at all clear what perverted means, certainly it does not mean something in the minority.

Being at heart a bigot about something does not necessarily imply acting on it. Reading about LBJ’s history on civil rights, I’m pretty sure he’d qualify as a bigot by current standards, just from his upbringing. Yet he rose above this. Sometimes we’re brought up in an environment where bigotry is the norm, and acknowledging our weaknesses and acting against them is very commendable. Actions count more than what’s going on inside your head.

25

Absolute, regarding your OP

Disgusting?
I would probably just think you were voicing your personal preference. As much as I advocate equal treatment for all people, I too personally think boy/boy sex is disgusting. I also make a point to differentiate between my personal taste and fact. I would also ask [presuming you’re a guy] if you still feel the same way if it’s two hot women making out?

Perverted?
I would probably just think you were voicing your personal preference. Is it perverted? I say no. Perversion goes beyond how prevalent something is and assigns moral subjectivity like “right” and “wrong” on things.

I know exactly the situation you’re talking about how very-passionate gay-rights people may call you names (bigot, homophobe, etc.). But name-calling is sadly very common when issues-oriented people encounter contrary viewpoints. Is it fair? Not until they get to know you in depth and have an accurate snapshot of your viewpoints. But is it common? Hell, yeah. And not at all limited to the gay rights issues.

26

Well Absolute it depends on how you define terms like bigot and how you feel about the person vs. the activity.

If homosexuality is a mental disorder then is it wrong to pretend it’s not IMHO. And as such people who support homosexuality are the ones in the wrong.

27

For some reason I have this urge to tell you that when I was just coming into my teens, the whole idea of any kind of sex squicked me out. I got over it. When I got involved with a guy and we were getting into ‘beyond the basics’, the idea of oral sex(hetero) squicked me out. I got over that in a big way. EG When I first started meeting and making friends with gay people, especially men, the idea severely squicked me out, but after a little time to get used to the idea, I decided if that was what worked for them, it was all good.

Sex is fun. Sex is extremely, terribly, fantastically FUN, and unless it caused some kind of severe injury or something like that, I wouldn’t call anything between two consenting adults any less normal or moral than the stuff my husband and I get up to in our recreational sex.

28

Okay, after giving it some thought, I’ve decided you’re (collectively) right: homosexuality is not perverted. I did not intend to apply the negative connotations of the word to homosexuality. The dictionary definition does not really reflect the full meaning of the word.

I maintain that homosexuality is abnormal.

The most generous estimate of the gay population that I’ve heard is 1 in 10. If there were nine males on the planet for every one female, then I would have to say that the female gender is the abnormal one. But that doesn’t really make sense, because the female gender is necessary for reproduction: it will never be abnormal.

However, if one in ten children were born with Down’s syndrome, they would still be considered abnormal. They’d be a very large group of abnormal people, but they’d still be abnormal.

Additionally: I don’t know how to put this mildly, and I know it will offend people, but homosexuality is a glitch. It’s a very common glitch, and a harmless one (now that humanity’s survival does not depend on reproductive efficiency), but a glitch nonetheless. And glitches are abnormal.

And don’t give me the line about animal homosexuality. Species that exhibit it survive despite it, not because of it (I’m open to evidence that suggests otherwise, but I’ve never seen it).

(I don’t mean to suggest that homosexuals are somehow inferior: please don’t take it that way. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m very glitchy and abnormal myself, just not in the same way as homosexuals)

Obviously, there are varying degrees of abnormality: everyone is abnormal in some way, if you look close enough. But I think gay people are more abnormal than people with big noses, or people in the non-majority sex. On the flip side, they are less abnormal than many other people.

Also, to restate my opinion: I find homosexuality mildly disgusting. I can’t pinpoint what is disgusting about it: it’s not the sex acts (male-male or male-female). Maybe disgust isn’t really the right word: it’s just a general feeling of…discomfort, I guess. Hell, maybe it’s a hard-wired reaction: that’s actually not that implausible.

As for my personal opinion: my distaste for homosexuality is about on the same level as my distaste for nose-picking…probably a bit less pronounced, in fact. It’s by no means a strong enough feeling to discriminate against people because of it, but it’s there.

29

[QUOTE=Absolute]
Additionally: I don’t know how to put this mildly, and I know it will offend people, but homosexuality is a glitch. It’s a very common glitch, and a harmless one (now that humanity’s survival does not depend on reproductive efficiency), but a glitch nonetheless. And glitches are abnormal.
[/QUOTE]
I guess. My main reaction to this is: Who cares? It doesn’t hurt anybody, you say it doesn’t affect your position on gay rights, so really, does it matter? Why say it at all? It has no useful meaning.

30

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
If homosexuality is a mental disorder then is it wrong to pretend it’s not IMHO. And as such people who support homosexuality are the ones in the wrong.
[/QUOTE]

Gay-rights activists aren’t pretending anything. They simply don’t believe it is one. For that matter, neither does the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association or the World Health Organization (Wikipedia) Cite.

31

[QUOTE=Absolute]
I don’t know how to put this mildly, and I know it will offend people, but homosexuality is a glitch. It’s a very common glitch, and a harmless one (now that humanity’s survival does not depend on reproductive efficiency), but a glitch nonetheless. And glitches are abnormal.
[/QUOTE]

It’s a glitch in the same way that white skin, lactose tolerance, or left-handedness are a glitch. Those things are abnormal (most humans on the planet are non-white, lactose intolerant, and right-handed), but there’s no moral implication to any of those.

32

…or the American Psychological Association, or the American Medical Association.

33

[QUOTE=Absolute]
Additionally: I don’t know how to put this mildly, and I know it will offend people, but homosexuality is a glitch. It’s a very common glitch, and a harmless one (now that humanity’s survival does not depend on reproductive efficiency), but a glitch nonetheless. And glitches are abnormal.
[/QUOTE]
I most certainly am going to give you the evolution argument, protests aside. How did homosexuality arise, and become so commonplace? How are you defining “glitch”? An aspect of behaviour whose purpose you don’t understand? How do you know there isn’t some reason for its emergence? Why, if it is so aberrant, has it not been wiped from existence by natural selection? For that matter, what constitutes a “reason” in an evolutionary context? We are here, homosexuality exists, it does so pervasively and consistently; these facts suggest that it is a persistent trait which natural selection does not correct for as would be the case with “glitches”, as you put it.

In short, you seem to be positing some standard for normality outside and above merely observing what occurs on a regular basis. What is this? It doesn’t appear to be your understanding of natural selection; what is it, then?

34

[QUOTE=Absolute]
I maintain that homosexuality is abnormal.

The most generous estimate of the gay population that I’ve heard is 1 in 10. If there were nine males on the planet for every one female, then I would have to say that the female gender is the abnormal one. But that doesn’t really make sense, because the female gender is necessary for reproduction: it will never be abnormal.

However, if one in ten children were born with Down’s syndrome, they would still be considered abnormal. They’d be a very large group of abnormal people, but they’d still be abnormal.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure I understand your use of “abnormal.” Are you saying that “abnormal” is a ratio thing? Because I think “minority” defines that condition better. Would “atypical” be more accurate?

The definition of “abnormal” I have at my disposal states “deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.” Again, the term carries a bit of “good and bad” baggage.

Sorry if I’m getting nitpicky here, I just don’t want to misinterpret you

35

[QUOTE=Absolute]
Additionally: I don’t know how to put this mildly, and I know it will offend people, but homosexuality is a glitch. It’s a very common glitch, and a harmless one (now that humanity’s survival does not depend on reproductive efficiency), but a glitch nonetheless. And glitches are abnormal.
[/QUOTE]

Dunno. Sex amonst humans and other primates serves a lot of social functions, it’s effect on our “fitness” is not purely as a mechanism for making babies. I don’t know if homosexuality falls into this sort of category of sexual behavior, but I wouldn’t be suprised if that were the case.

In anycase, if we list all human behaviors that harm our reproductive fitness as “abnormal”, half of the things modern people do in an average day are abnormal.

36

[QUOTE=Hey you!]
Gay-rights activists aren’t pretending anything. They simply don’t believe it is one. For that matter, neither does the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association or the World Health Organization (Wikipedia) Cite.
[/QUOTE]

Before trying to discuss homosexuality with kanicbird, you may want to do a search and review their prior comments in other threads. I leave it to your discretion if you feel it’s still a worthwhile conversation after reviewing their history on this topic.

37

[QUOTE=Absolute]
And don’t give me the line about animal homosexuality. Species that exhibit it survive despite it, not because of it (I’m open to evidence that suggests otherwise, but I’ve never seen it).
[/quote]

Humans do lots of sexual things that don’t contribute to reproduction. Oral and anal sex, toys, games, etc. It’s just the way humans are, lots of different things turn people on. This all has little to do with reproduction, since the urge to have kids still seems strong in gays and lesbians. Lots have kid via a variety of methods. And lots of straight folks don’t have kids.

You feel uneasy about it, fine. I don’t think anyone would think less of you for that. And statistically, gays are in the minority, just like the left-handed, red-haired, and those over 6’ tall. Do you think any of those are a “glitch”? If not, why not? Calling something a “glitch” implies there is a negative implication. I’d like to hear your reasoning why being gay is negative since it isn’t a bar to having kids or rasing a family.

38

[QUOTE=Absolute]
Okay, after giving it some thought, I’ve decided you’re (collectively) right: homosexuality is not perverted. I did not intend to apply the negative connotations of the word to homosexuality. The dictionary definition does not really reflect the full meaning of the word.

I maintain that homosexuality is abnormal.

The most generous estimate of the gay population that I’ve heard is 1 in 10. If there were nine males on the planet for every one female, then I would have to say that the female gender is the abnormal one. But that doesn’t really make sense, because the female gender is necessary for reproduction: it will never be abnormal.

However, if one in ten children were born with Down’s syndrome, they would still be considered abnormal. They’d be a very large group of abnormal people, but they’d still be abnormal.

Additionally: I don’t know how to put this mildly, and I know it will offend people, but homosexuality is a glitch. It’s a very common glitch, and a harmless one (now that humanity’s survival does not depend on reproductive efficiency), but a glitch nonetheless. And glitches are abnormal.

And don’t give me the line about animal homosexuality. Species that exhibit it survive despite it, not because of it (I’m open to evidence that suggests otherwise, but I’ve never seen it).

(I don’t mean to suggest that homosexuals are somehow inferior: please don’t take it that way. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m very glitchy and abnormal myself, just not in the same way as homosexuals)

Obviously, there are varying degrees of abnormality: everyone is abnormal in some way, if you look close enough. But I think gay people are more abnormal than people with big noses, or people in the non-majority sex. On the flip side, they are less abnormal than many other people.

Also, to restate my opinion: I find homosexuality mildly disgusting. I can’t pinpoint what is disgusting about it: it’s not the sex acts (male-male or male-female). Maybe disgust isn’t really the right word: it’s just a general feeling of…discomfort, I guess. Hell, maybe it’s a hard-wired reaction: that’s actually not that implausible.

As for my personal opinion: my distaste for homosexuality is about on the same level as my distaste for nose-picking…probably a bit less pronounced, in fact. It’s by no means a strong enough feeling to discriminate against people because of it, but it’s there.
[/QUOTE]

You seem to want some validation for your discomfort with homosexual acts. Maybe it’s just that when we see something happen to another person, we automatically think about how we’d feel if that happend to us. Yuu don’t want to engage in gay sex, so it makes you uncomfortable viewing it. So what? How do you feel about watching a man make love to a morbidly obese woman? (I’m not comparing gays to fat people, I’m just showing you an example of projection.) Same thing. Why do you think you enjoy watching heterosexual porn? Could it possibly because you want that to happen to you? What if the woman starts stamping on the guy’s penis with her high heels? Getting a little uncomfortable? Gee, I wonder why.

Bottom line, though, don’t let your own discomfort lead to you the conclusion that something is perverted or “unnatural”. Gays are a product of nature just as stratigh people are. There’s nothing “unnatural” about living your life the way you were designed (not in the Intelligent Design sense, but you know what I mean).

39

[QUOTE=Absolute]
Let’s say that an alien lands on the planet, and says “I want to analyze a human who is normal, or close to it, in all respects.” Are you telling me that you wouldn’t avoid picking someone who’s gay?
[/QUOTE]

Well, it might make the anal probe less traumatic.
Anyway, as far I’m concerned, you’re free to call homosexuality perverse or abnormal or whatever, and we’re free to call you a bigot, morally inferior or a closet furry or whatever.

What do you want, freedom of opinion for yourself and no-one else? Too bad, you can’t have it.

40

[QUOTE=Malodorous]
Sex amonst humans and other primates serves a lot of social functions,…
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure i can agree with this one :slight_smile: