You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 08:46:17 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?  (Read 26769 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #75 on: December 11, 2011, 02:04:59 PM »
For my two cents - so long as a person does not outright feel that homosexuals, lesbians, and transgender people should be denied rights, and be treated as less than people.

This is my stance.  I may not agree with it, but at no time are they anything less than a human being to me.  They still bleed red, they still breath, they still have a right to live their lives as they see fit, hopefully without overtly harming others (You won't go through life without harming someone, but as long as you minimize it, it's all good, ne?)  They just happen (For whatever reason, physiologically, mentally, emotionally, or whatever) prefer their side of the fence.  So to speak.

What really get me are bisexuals.  Seriously, talk about GREEDY!  Not only do they want what's on their side of the fence, they want to have the other side too!  Yeesh!  ;D

Offline Sophronius

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #76 on: December 11, 2011, 05:33:40 PM »
To me, it is like saying: 'I' want vanilla cake - but if 'you' (proverbial) do not like the fact that I want it - then 'you' are not nice.  Instead of saying - I respect the fact that you prefer a different life style than 'me' so long as 'we' both agree 'we' are all people and deserve equal treatment under the law.

It's almost like pointing at someone - in my humble opinion - and saying if they dislike apples, then they've a fear of them, and are homophobic.  I personally disagree with the idea that everything has to be cut and dry in such a fashion - as a lot of things are so much more complicated than that.  What about people, for example, that are homosexual - and have misgivings about their own lifestyle due to societal pressure?


This, however, is not a perfect comparison.  There is a fundamental difference between one saying "I dislike apples" and one saying "Apples are biologically wrong" or "Apples are wrong, but I'll tolerate them being around."  Furthermore, there is a difference between saying "I dislike apples" and "I dislike an entire group of human beings based on a trait that person has no control over."

But what really confuses me, not about what Haloriel said but what a lot of people are saying, is what agreeing or disagreeing with homosexuality is.  Homosexuality is not a thesis or an argument, it is not a position.  Do you all mean that you think it is fundamentally wrong?  Do you all mean that you yourselves are not homosexuals?  These are the only two things that make sense to me.  But it is not really clear how one can agree or disagree with homosexuality.  It seems as absurd a thing to say as "I disagree with being French" or "I agree with being two meters tall."

Okay - there is a real difference between 'fear and hatred' and mere 'disapproval'.

I agree to an extent.  There is a difference between disapproving of an idea and of fearing and hating it.  But I feel that when you are dealing with entire categories of human beings, the difference is blurred.  Is it alright if one were to say, "I disapprove of being Hispanic"?  Is that a racist comment?  If it is, can you please explain how that is different from saying "I disapprove of homosexuality"?  If not, can you explain why it is not?

Now, I am asking you to explain why they are not racist and homophobic comments respectively, so let me explain why I believe both to be.  Both comments instantly place an entire category of human beings on an inferior level to onesself.  They do this by implicitly saying "These people are doing something wrong.  They are not correctly living a human life."  Not only that, but the comments place categories of human beings on an inferior level based on something that is of no choice to the target.  I feel that comments, such as "I disagree with Marxists" or "I disagree with Catholocism", are fundamentally different because they show disapproval of a philosophy or theology and not necessarily of the people who hold that view.  With "Hispanic" or "homosexuality" the comment targets a part of the person that cannot be separated from their physical being, it is an essential part of them, while the Marxist or Catholicism statements target merely views held by a person.  I feel that even if one were to say, "I think all capitalists are terrible people," it is not as bad as saying "I disapprove of homosexuality" because the speaker is targeting a group not based on some essential, unchanging part of their person (a part of that person which does not, necessarily, influence their behavior or actions), but on their views, morality, and philosophical affiliation, that is to say based on their behavior.  Now, it could be said that the person who says, "I disapprove of homosexuality" is targeting a group based on behavior as well, but that is simply not true because the speaker is also targeting celebite homosexuals or homosexuals who only have heterosexual sex - the speaker is targeting them for their psychology and physiology.

However, one might say "I disapprove of homosexual sex."  That too I feel is different from saying, "I think all capitalists [or Marxists] are terrible people."  The difference lies in the fact that there are reasons to disapprove of the capitalist or the Marxist, reasons that are not unreasonable.  There is no reason to disapprove of homosexual sex (unless one is arguing against sex in general, at which point the speaker is being homophobic by applying arguments to homosexual sex only) that is reasonable.

Of course, if what people mean by saying "I disagree with homosexuality" or "I disagree with homosexuality on a biological level" is "I don't want to have homosexual sex" (which I doubt), then my arguments are moot and do not apply.  But if what they mean is "Homosexuality is wrong" then I feel my statements are accurate.  If you think I am wrong, please tell me so.

Offline Haloriel

  • Original Beauty | Alluring Erudite | Perfervid Romanticist
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Location: Ogling your gluteus maximus with a most respectful air, of course. One part devious.
  • Gender: Female
  • Dance with me, darling. I'll show you the stars.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #77 on: December 11, 2011, 06:04:24 PM »
Then I shall enjoy my greedy side of the fence.   XD 

In all seriousness however, I've seen various arguments - and I would personally say everyone that has posted has a valid opinion from what it seems to me. :D  My comparison to apples was simplistic, but some people really do think that way - though I imagine there is not anyone that feels so in this forum. 

I'm suspecting that most people that have posted mean - 'homosexuality is not their specific cup of tea'.  Just a guess anyway.  I could be entirely wrong!  :-)

Offline Bayushi

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #78 on: December 12, 2011, 11:32:30 PM »
Of course, if what people mean by saying "I disagree with homosexuality" or "I disagree with homosexuality on a biological level" is "I don't want to have homosexual sex" (which I doubt), then my arguments are moot and do not apply.  But if what they mean is "Homosexuality is wrong" then I feel my statements are accurate.  If you think I am wrong, please tell me so.
The entire argument regarding whether someone is homophobic or not is quite hypocritical, to me.

There has been a quest, of sorts, to try and keep people from labeling homosexuals with anything they do not like. In so doing, they themselves are labeling others with negative labels like "homophobe".

I obviously have no issue with people being homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or even asexual. The one thing I take issue with is the entire "gay culture". Must a gay man or lesbian woman be into this gay culture to actually BE gay? This is something I have been pressed on in the past, as a lesbian. I have difficulty tolerating much of what I see from the gay culture, as a lot of it is overtly lewd and 'in-your-face'. Most of the anger and resentment from heterosexuals dealing with this is that it's almost only this that angers them.

When it comes down to it, most people I've known who are "against" homosexuality are simply against having it shoved in their faces all the time. Not every gay/lesbian/trans is like this, I know. However, there are the militant few who get all the attention, and ruin it for the rest of us. Simply put, gays lesbians and trans need to reign in the more militant types, or we will never get anywhere with society. Or when we do, it won't necessarily be a change for the better.

Offline Sophronius

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #79 on: December 13, 2011, 01:31:28 AM »
I'm suspecting that most people that have posted mean - 'homosexuality is not their specific cup of tea'.  Just a guess anyway.  I could be entirely wrong!  :-)

Then I wish they would simply say that (or something to that effect).

The entire argument regarding whether someone is homophobic or not is quite hypocritical, to me.

There has been a quest, of sorts, to try and keep people from labeling homosexuals with anything they do not like. In so doing, they themselves are labeling others with negative labels like "homophobe".

I obviously have no issue with people being homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or even asexual. The one thing I take issue with is the entire "gay culture". Must a gay man or lesbian woman be into this gay culture to actually BE gay? This is something I have been pressed on in the past, as a lesbian. I have difficulty tolerating much of what I see from the gay culture, as a lot of it is overtly lewd and 'in-your-face'. Most of the anger and resentment from heterosexuals dealing with this is that it's almost only this that angers them.

When it comes down to it, most people I've known who are "against" homosexuality are simply against having it shoved in their faces all the time. Not every gay/lesbian/trans is like this, I know. However, there are the militant few who get all the attention, and ruin it for the rest of us. Simply put, gays lesbians and trans need to reign in the more militant types, or we will never get anywhere with society. Or when we do, it won't necessarily be a change for the better.

The problem that I see with any kind of prejudice is not that negative labels are in and of themselves bad things, but that negative labels based on things outside of their control and based on things that have no real impact how they behave (other than who their romantic/sexual partners are) are bad.  For example, to label someone a communist (in a negative tone/manner) based on their revolutionary activity and sedition against the government does not seem a heinous thing, but to label someone a communist (in the same way) based on who one of their friends are, their ethnicity, or the sort of job they have is.  I believe the problem stems from the rationality behind the label and the act of delivering the label.  Negatively labelling someone a communist, to continue with the example, makes sense, since both the communist and the capitalist view him/her as a destructive force against society (though whether that force is for the better or worse might be debated).  And negatively labelling someone a homophobe (or racist, sexist, anti-semite, or classist) makes sense, since the prejudiced person is, either openly, secretly, or implicitly, denying personhood to someone else.  But to negatively label someone a homosexual (something that ought to be descriptive on the same level as he has brown hair or she is 1.6 meters tall) has no reason behind it.  I feel that the problem with prejudice is not that it labels someone, but that it does it for arbitrary reasons.

But I largely agree with what you say about the problems with "gay culture" and that it would be better to tone it down on the lewdness in pride parades (for example).  But my understanding was that the evolution of gay culture was due to the fact that without it, people were able to ignore homosexuals and their fight for rights and that gay culture aided in thrusting the issue of homosexual rights into the public attention.  And it is not as though there was not violence and discrimination against homosexuals before the evolution of gay culture, so it should not be the only reason why such attitudes persist.  Of course, one could say that attitudes are different now from the '70s and that such extreme behavior has outlived its usefulness.  I just feel that if people are using something like gay culture as a reason to gay-bash or deny rights, they probably aren't the most tolerant people to begin with.

Offline MasterMischief

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #80 on: February 22, 2012, 08:56:05 AM »
When it comes down to it, most people I've known who are "against" homosexuality are simply against having it shoved in their faces all the time.

Is it not possible many homosexuals are equally offended by militant heterosexuals who are always so up in their face?  Can you turn on the t.v., go to a movie or even read a book where heterosexual romance is not a major theme?

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #81 on: February 22, 2012, 09:30:42 AM »
Is it not possible many homosexuals are equally offended by militant heterosexuals who are always so up in their face?  Can you turn on the t.v., go to a movie or even read a book where heterosexual romance is not a major theme?

Read a non-romantic book or watch a non-romantic movie? Sure, heterosexual romance is going to be a lot more prevalent even as minor themes, but lacking homosexual romance isn't the same being up in someone's face about it.

Offline MasterMischief

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #82 on: February 22, 2012, 09:35:32 AM »
Read a non-romantic book or watch a non-romantic movie? Sure, heterosexual romance is going to be a lot more prevalent even as minor themes, but lacking homosexual romance isn't the same being up in someone's face about it.

Would you please rephrase.  I am not sure I understand you.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #83 on: February 22, 2012, 09:42:24 AM »
Would you please rephrase.  I am not sure I understand you.

Maybe I misunderstood you. I interpreted your post as saying it was impossible to watch a movie, read a book, or watch T.V. without having heterosexual romance shoved in one's face as a major theme, and was pointing out that there is no lack of entertainment material where that is not the case.

Offline MasterMischief

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #84 on: February 22, 2012, 10:08:45 AM »
Oh, sure, it can be found.  I will concede that.  I just think the argument that homosexuals are trying to cram it down our throat is a hypocrisy.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #85 on: February 22, 2012, 10:48:17 AM »
Oh, sure, it can be found.  I will concede that.  I just think the argument that homosexuals are trying to cram it down our throat is a hypocrisy.
I don't think that was really his argument (at least, in the universal tense you seem to be taking it as), but I won't put words in his mouth erroneously.

Offline MasterMischief

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #86 on: February 22, 2012, 11:00:23 AM »
No, not all homosexuals.  Just those damn uppity ones.   ::)

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #87 on: February 22, 2012, 11:16:39 AM »
No, not all homosexuals.  Just those damn uppity ones.   ::)

See, I can kinda empathize with him there though - one of the people in my social circle is pretty well known for being, shall we say, excessively enthusiastic (sounds better than militant) about gay rights. Even holding a conversation within earshot of him that so much as brushes up against the issue will find him interjecting himself into the discussion and derail it through sheer single-minded argumentativeness (one example, if two people are talking about science fiction and happen to offhandedly mention the Turing Test standard for A.I., that's a giant invitation to have him break in talking about Alan Turing's mistreatment). Most of the time, he's a decent enough person to be around, but he definitely does his best to 'shove the issue in people's faces', and it's not a positive trait.

Offline MasterMischief

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #88 on: February 22, 2012, 11:24:54 AM »
Allow me to come at this from a different direction.  Do you feel there are important issues that should be 'shoved in someone's face'?

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #89 on: February 22, 2012, 11:43:09 AM »
Allow me to come at this from a different direction.  Do you feel there are important issues that should be 'shoved in someone's face'?

I don't think anything should be shoved in anyone's face, because to me, that act by definition is knowingly and deliberately seeking to press your agenda despite your victim's dislike, discomfort, or indifference to the topic. Vegans/organic food advocates harassing meat-eaters, obnoxious burger-lovers in reverse, door-to-door religious proselytizers, militant feminists, gay rights crusaders, etc. There are important issues that should be advocated, but no matter what issue is involved, there's a line of zeal and personal boundaries that can be crossed to the point where said advocate is actually doing more harm than good to their cause simply by virtue of their aggressive approach.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2012, 11:44:34 AM by TheGlyphstone »

Offline MasterMischief

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #90 on: February 22, 2012, 12:02:53 PM »
So nineteenth century abolitionists should have stayed home and wrote strongly worded protest to their Senators?  Please understand I am not trying to compare slavery to banning same sex marriage.  I just want to verify your position that no issue warrants such zealous advocacy. 

If that is the case, I have to agree to disagree.  I believe some issues do warrant zealous advocacy.


If that is not the case, and you do agree that some issues do warrant zealous advocacy, then we are arguing over which issues.  I understand that homosexuality is not one such issue for you.  Can you at least empathize with your friend that for him, it is?

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #91 on: February 22, 2012, 12:23:41 PM »
So nineteenth century abolitionists should have stayed home and wrote strongly worded protest to their Senators?  Please understand I am not trying to compare slavery to banning same sex marriage.  I just want to verify your position that no issue warrants such zealous advocacy. 

If that is the case, I have to agree to disagree.  I believe some issues do warrant zealous advocacy.


If that is not the case, and you do agree that some issues do warrant zealous advocacy, then we are arguing over which issues.  I understand that homosexuality is not one such issue for you.  Can you at least empathize with your friend that for him, it is?

Abolition isn't a fair comparison because you're fusing all anti-slavery advocates into one homogenous group. Public, loud advocacy of abolition was a good thing. The massacre conducted by John Brown's militia squad, or the slaughter during Nat Turner's rebellion, were not - that was certainly zealous, but I don't believe you think slavery should have been solved by hunting down all pro-slavery individuals, breaking into their houses, and hacking them to death with swords.

Polarizing positions only leads to strawmanning, though, and isn't really going to help the argument though. I do support homosexual rights and consider it worth of advocacy, but the manner and degree of advocacy that friend I mentioned takes it to only ends up hurting him and his cause; he's rather unpopular among the rest of the community in question primarily because of that inability to let any issue not be made into a gay rights debate whether or not it was the original topic or even if he was involved in the conversation.

Offline Cel

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #92 on: February 22, 2012, 02:46:50 PM »
I apologize if I bring up an already-said point:

I think there are two "homophobias" here. One is the colloquial usage of the word, which, as many psychological disorders that are used colloquially—is incorrect. Many people say others are "schizophrenic", "bipolar", "psychotic", "OCD" etc. Sure, these terms are commonly used, and someone can make the argument that "language is always evolving"... but... they're wrong. Just because the term "bipolar" is always used does not mean that when it's used it's right because it's always used. That logic doesn't work.

Similarly, because the term "homophobic" is commonly used to refer to someone who [negative action toward] homosexuals does not mean that the person is homophobic.

My Extreme Animal Phobia: Tough guy afraid of a puppy
Spider Phobia
Cat Phobia

These are phobic reactions. If someone has this type of reaction to homosexuals, then they're homophobic.

Offline MasterMischief

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #93 on: February 22, 2012, 03:03:51 PM »
Quote from: TheGlyphstone
Abolition isn't a fair comparison because you're fusing all anti-slavery advocates into one homogenous group

I came right out and said I was not comparing the two.  I wanted to make sure I understood your position.

Quote from: TheGlyphstone
Public, loud advocacy of abolition was a good thing. The massacre conducted by John Brown's militia squad, or the slaughter during Nat Turner's rebellion, were not...

Agreed.

Quote from: TheGlyphstone
I do support homosexual rights and consider it worth of advocacy, but the manner and degree of advocacy that friend I mentioned takes it to only ends up hurting him and his cause...

Your friend obviously feels it is worthy of such advocacy.  I am somewhat torn.  I do understand your position, however, the only reason this is even part of the national conversation now is because someone made someone else uncomfortable.  Change does not happen when everyone is comfortable.

Yes, I realize those against same sex marriage are only going to become entrenched.  I am not sure there is anything that can ever be done to win them over.  And yes, some that were only leaning against it might be pushed to be more firmly against it.  However, if nothing is done then there will never be change.  It may not affect you, so it may not be a big deal.  For your friend, this is a large part of his life.  This is about who he is.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #94 on: February 22, 2012, 04:28:17 PM »
Actually, I know him well enough that his bigger priority varies between being the center of attention and making other people uncomfortable, but that's not really the issue at hand. The thing is that he's far from the only gay guy around - I live in a city with a fairly notable LGBT population, so there are plenty of LGBT people to contrast with. He even annoys other LGBT people because of his...monomania, I guess is the only word to describe it, and it's a shame because he's a rather magnetic person who can easily get people to listen to him on the rare occasions he chooses to talk about something else.

Going back to the original quote that you were disputing, the idea that an anti-gay attitude could result from having the issue 'shoved down one's throat'. Living in a diverse environment where he's just one voice among many more rational ones, I don't have that issue, but personally knowing such an individual who IMO takes the issue several degrees too far, it's easy for me to picture someone exposed to him as their primary example of a gay rights advocate developing an aversion to supporting said freedoms out of a Pavlovian association with his behavior. It's not reasonable or rational, but it's very believable.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2012, 04:29:23 PM by TheGlyphstone »

Offline Petronius

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #95 on: February 23, 2012, 06:09:02 AM »
I may not agree with it

What, exactly, don't you agree with?

Offline Hurricane

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #96 on: March 09, 2012, 01:13:58 PM »
The issue comes into play when someone believes that LGBT is a lifestyle choice (which is now a minority belief in the United States). I wouldn't choose to be hated by people who are seemingly nice. I wouldn't choose to not have the same rights to a relationship with the person I love and have been with over 15 years.

The questions that are often posed to somewhat snickering results are:

Question: Do you think being gay is a choice?
Answer: Yes
Question: When did you choose to be straight?
Answer: ...

For my personal use I believe anyone that is against homosexuality is homophobic. I don't hate your mother, but I would find it difficult to befriend anyone that is against my core being of who I am.

This is precisely the kind of mindset that amuses me the most.

Choosing to indulge one's homosexual impulses is not the same as the biological urge to reproduce. There are a lot of species on Earth that will engage in homosexual relations if the circumstances for the creatures in question don't allow for other outlets of sexual energies. However there are NO species on Earth other than a tiny minority of Humans who continually choose to indulge their home-erotic impulses to the exclusion of biological male/female reproduction.

In other words, get two young bull steers together when they are in rut and one might mount the other to relive their sexual urges. Get them in proximity to a female and they will stop seeking homoerotic couplings in favor of reproduction.

People like the OP take a stance that their orientation is somehow just as valid as that of traditional male/female pairings. Sorry, but it simply isn't. It's a biological aberration. It might be fun. You might be 'wired' so you're not compelled to seek out male/female pairings but the fact of the matter is that in terms of simple natural selection, given time and without the ability to sexually reproduce your particular bloodline traits would disappear.

And before anyone jumps that that conclusion: No I'm not saying that if we could just outlaw homosexuality that all gays would disappear in a few generations. The behavioral abnormality would remain as a small percentage of the population as a whole, and the impulse to engage in homosexual behavior would always exist in Humans just like it does in those other species.

But that brings me to the issue of "gay marriage". I don't CARE if people choose to indulge their homoerotic impulses. But if the issue becomes whether or not those behaviors should be formally accepted or instituted into the fabric of society as 'rights' I say absolutely not. You only have to look at the declining birthrates of progressive countries around the world to realize that western civilization needs to protect and nurture the normal biological impulse to sexually reproduce.

Sleep with whoever you like. Just don't ask me to accept your choice as equally valid to real biology and the long term needs of society.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 01:17:38 PM by Hurricane »

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #97 on: March 09, 2012, 01:34:24 PM »
Normally, when humans do something that animals generally don't (like, say, building computers), it's taken as evidence of how advanced we are. ::)

The things is that 'real' biology and biological imperative is not a valid justification for any behavior, or for rejecting other behavior. Ruminating on life after death is not geared toward survival, reproduction, or any of the things that Hurricane appears to deem "real biology". However, religion is an important part of humanity. It provides a basis for ethics and gives people structure by which to live their lives. Biological imperative would also drive one not to adopt, but to go to any lengths possible to carry on your own genes. Yet we see people who choose to be childless, though they are fertile, in favor of adopting those who need adopting.

"Well and good, Trie, but that still protects the interests of the species," you might be thinking. What about people who go to severe lengths to raise sterile or impaired children? What about parents that spend their entire lives looking after one child that has little-to-no possibility of reproduction? No real possibility of contributing anything to their fellow man? What about the parents who actively make the decision not to have further children because those children would be overshadowed by their impaired older sibling? Biologically, it would make a whole lot more sense to focus energies on children who are more likely to be evolutionarily successful.

There are many things we do that go against biological imperative. It doesn't govern everything we do. Furthermore, it costs a heterosexual person nothing to recognize the rights of homosexual couples. It doesn't take away from hetero relationships, and it isn't as if there are only a certain number of marriages that are allowed in this country and we don't want the queers taking all the slots.

No.

Refusing to recognize someone else's right to live their lives the way they see fit is petty and, I daresay, amoral. It's saying to others, "I have it. It won't cost me anything to share it with you. But I'm not going to let you have some." If one kid did that to another on a playground, we would call them spiteful and mean, possibly a bully. How is it any more acceptable for grown-ups? The answer is: it's not.

Offline Hurricane

Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #98 on: March 09, 2012, 01:47:33 PM »
There are many things we do that go against biological imperative. It doesn't govern everything we do. Furthermore, it costs a heterosexual person nothing to recognize the rights of homosexual couples. It doesn't take away from hetero relationships, and it isn't as if there are only a certain number of marriages that are allowed in this country and we don't want the queers taking all the slots.

Unfortunately, I just don't think that's true. Again - look at the declining birthrates in western civilization. Of course it's not all attributable to the rise of 'gay culture', but progressive social mores are most certainly a contributing factor.

For me it's a simple question - would I want the most successful expression of Human culture to disappear from the Earth simply because of emotional factors? To use your term:

No.

Refusing to recognize someone else's right to live their lives the way they see fit is petty and, I daresay, amoral. It's saying to others, "I have it. It won't cost me anything to share it with you. But I'm not going to let you have some." If one kid did that to another on a playground, we would call them spiteful and mean, possibly a bully. How is it any more acceptable for grown-ups? The answer is: it's not.

It does cost to share it. I believe that there is always a cost to society to embrace whatever values they choose to express. And often those costs are not clear until their unintended consequences are expressed years, decades or even centuries later.

This is a pretty simple equation isn't it? Do you choose to embrace a set of behaviors that DOES NOT reinforce your long-term viability as a civilization? Besides the heartstrings appeals that you're making, how could that possibly make sense?

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Being against homosexuality is homophobic?
« Reply #99 on: March 09, 2012, 01:50:39 PM »
Just a clarification, which part is "the most successful expression of Human (sic) culture"?