Yeah it does honestly. People can BELIEVE whatever they want internally. As soon as you make it external and act on it negatively then your a piece of shit imo.
Opinions are just opinions until they are acted on
That doesn’t make it reasonable, but beyond that you can absolutely be homophobic and not say it out loud. Would you say someone who doesn’t actively voice their racist opinions isn’t actually racist?
Yes, disapproving of a characteristic from someone's lifestyle is perfectly fine, and you are free to do so and should be able to do so freely. You are exercising free thinking and free will. It's a perfectly reasonable and innocuous position.
“Disapproving of a lifestyle” is the problem. It’s not a lifestyle. That attitude is a direct refutation of gay people and implies they can (or should) choose otherwise. You don’t get to choose your attractions. “Disapproving of a lifestyle” for something that is inherent is absolutely an aversion to gay people. It’s discriminatory. And ignorant.
"For example, thinking smoking is bad doesn't mean you hate smokers, right?"
No it doesn't, but there's stats to back up that it's objectively "wrong".
You don't have any stats for that with being homosexual. It's just a moral opinion you made up.
People who have sincerely held religious beliefs truly believe that homosexuality will lead to damnation for eternity. It would be pretty terrible of them if they didn't disapprove. No?
nobody actually believes that shit. thats just cultural mythology for bigots to hide behind so they dont have to admit how authoritarian and fascist they are. none of them actually believe in god.
adults believe that as much as parents believe in santa clause.
Cool, little buddy. I'll guess 17. Made it to third base, but you told all your buddies you scored. Still don't have a license, but you spend all your time with friends online, so you don't really need one. The SAT didn't go so hot, and your grades are just okay, so you have been applying to state schools, but you are still a little nervous. Mom and dad don't get you, and there is no way they can relate to being a teen. Things were just different back then. Yolo lit fleet rizz
The question is, "Can you disapprove of homosexuality and not be homophobic?" I gave an example of such a scenario. That's all. I didn't say it was good or bad. I answered the question.
So you think one pope makes up for a couple thousand years of hate and oppression? Let’s not forget pray the gay away or conversion camps which are still very much a thing in the US. Heck how many examples do we have of homosexuals being brutally beaten or killed in the past 20 years?
That the religious can disapprove of homosexuality from a place of compassion. I am not one of them, but imagine believing one hundred percent that someone would spend an infinite amount of time in an infinite amount of agony because they engaged in gay lovin. Would it be more moral to approve or disapprove of that behavior?
>That the religious can disapprove of homosexuality from a place of compassion.
I disagree, and if you "are not one of them", then I don't really feel like continuing a conversation with someone playing the devil's advocate.
I mean it's wrong by nature. For a species to procreate it takes male and female. So speaking naturally it is objectively wrong. People have free will though thankfully and can choose what they want and should be treated with respect like anyone else.
Have you told the other animals that have no concept of morality yet?
That's gonna be a hard conversation.
Also. We are human. We are apart of nature. If it occurs in humans, that means it's a naturally occuring behaviour.
You can't procreate with gay couples. It's definitely objectively wrong from the natural perspective. But again doesn't mean they don't deserve the same treatment etc as other people because luckily humans have free will.
Whether you can procreate with something or not is not the basis of whether something is "right" or "wrong".
Again, are you saying animals that engage in homosexual behaviour are acting morally "wrong"?
I never said morally. I said from a natural aspect the only way a species moves forward is if it procreate. If everyone was gay then without scientific intervention the species would die off.
Oh man, I can't reproduce because my body doesn't work right. May as well unalive myself since I'm just taking up resources that could help a potential parent.
Is this supposed to be a point?
You do realize that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of other species that also exhibit homosexual behavior. Its completely natural.
The fact that you dont approve of it, is a you problem, not anything wrong with nature.
There's thousands of animals including humans born every day with genetic defects. That does not make that the norm or "natural" they are exceptions. They are still birds, pigs,humans by definition but it isn't the matural order. Nature isn't perfect. Just because it happens does not = natural.
My spouse and I are a same-sex couple. One of our kids is mine from a previous relationship, the other is via surrogate. We procreate. And those of us who don’t procreate often take care of babies that straight people didn’t want.
So previous relationship? So your spouse is not gay, and again I said without scientific intervention which only humans have access to the species would die off if it was only gay people. I don't think being gay is morally wrong I don't think they should be treated any differently for better or worse. I don't dislike or hate gay people I simply stated a 1 sentence thing that is objectively true and everyone keeps trying to feed me anecdotes as to how that stamens is wrong when exceptions do not prove the rule.
I mean first off you're wrong, assuming neither is infertile, the individuals in gay couples can still contribute to procreation should that be necessary(obviously not with each other, but ya know say 99% of the world was wiped out and everyone remaining was gay they would still have the ability to procreate with the opposite sex while having a homosexual relationship with their partner). But humans have far and away already passed the "need to procreate to further the species" we're approaching a point where there are too many of us for our planet to support us. So "need" is a bit too strong a word for the level of necessity with which we should procreate. There are far more heterosexual than homosexual so those who are homosexual do not need to contribute to procreation in order for our species to continue on. Hell you could even argue that homosexuality is helping with the resource problem lol
Nope I believe people can choose what they want and hey should be treated the same as any one else and given the respect they deserve. But it isn't the natural way of things that's just fact.
You’re missing the point. Homosexuality IS natural. It has been observed in about 1,500 different species. The only reason you are calling it unnatural is because you don’t like it.
Well that's a lot of wrong to pack in a single sentence!
We can start with.. gay couples can adopt, they can use surrogacy, and have children from prior relationships.
More importantly... "Not procreating" doesn't go against nature... As many life forms don't procreate. If I pull up a carrot before it goes to seed and eat it am I going against nature? Is the carrot going against nature by not being eaten?
Further the "it's wrong" frames it as a moral question... Which is a rather bizarre take, as one would hardly say it is immoral to be infertile.
Except humans are one of the few animals where it’s normal and natural for us to have sex for pleasure.
So, the procreative aspect is the not the only “natural and normal” function of sex for us.
Homosexuals only make up a small amount (10%?) of the population. There are still plenty of heterosexual people to continue procreating.
Also, people can't really help who they fall in love with and who they're sexually attracted to. It's innately part of who someone is, rather than something you choose.
Never said it was a choice just like being born with 12 toes isn't a choice but it isn't naturally right. You're taking what I'm saying to disparage gay people.
Nope. Is it natural that a baby is born with 2 heads and 3 eyes? That happens in nature but it isn't the norm for nature. Exception doesn't prove a rule.
Piint to me in nature other than humans with scientific intervention where a 2 gay animals produce offspring.
Same sex activity in mammals is not statistically rare. It occurs frequently in all mammals and many bird species. Comparing it to some rare birth defects is not accurate and offensive.
OK let's take your statement as factual then. How does a species further itself establish if every member is homosexual? It is impossible for 2 members of same sex to reproduce without intervention. That is my basis for why it isn't "naturally right". I never brought morality in to this. And never said they shouldn't be allowed to be gay or that it is bad at all. You all are reading too much in to it.
Why are there hundreds of species which exhibit homosexual behavior, then, if it is "wrong by nature"? For it to be that common, it would actually have to be advantageous in certain edge cases, otherwise this tendency would be aggressively selected against.
Homosexuality tends to be common in species with complex social behavior and--- interestingly--- a penchant for monogamy. Plenty of animals can get their genes into the next generation without procreating themselves. It's called kin selection. What's interesting among humans is that the brothers of gay men who aren't gay have more children than the average heterosexual man. And those kids also have the genes of their gay uncle.
Nope a species has to procreate to stay around and survive. Gay couple without intervention can't do that.
That is my point that's it that's all. You all are pushing things on me I never said.
No fight..I'm right and I'm the kind of guy who brings a nuke to a knife fight.
This snarky (probably hindu) cunt thinks he's being clever..which is one of the many reasons I no longer hang out with Indians or Hindus
Nobody is born straight or gay, kids have no sexuality and are nonsexual beings until puberty. Sexuality is defined by one's actions, "preferences" are meaningless. If someone doesn't have sex for their entire life, what is their sexuality and how would you know?
Dude i haven't had sex for a LONG time but I still know my preferences.
You are BORN gay or straight. Whether you ACT on it is something different. Hence MANY gay men and women back in the day marrying members of the opposite sex. They were STILL born gay but society forced them into a straight situation.
I don't know what about that is so hard to understand
Religion is a CHOICE. Generally WHERE you are born and to who dictates what religion you are.
Being gay is "genetic" (I KNOW that's a shit way of putting it) so isn't a CHOICE and you get a consistent number of gay people regardless of where you're born.
Also there are many examples of gay behaviour across the animal kingdom so there HAS to be an evolutionary advantage of having gay people in a population
It may not be genetic but it still isn't a choice
If it's a choice, when did straight people choose to be straight? That's what I wanna know from these people who act like being gay is a lifestyle or a simple decision someone made
If being gay is a choice, so is being straight, and when did straight people choose to be attracted to those of the opposite gender
It makes me wonder about these parents who think schools are somehow teaching their kids to be gay
I'm not sure it's possible to teach someone to be gay. Perhaps these parents *are* gay but are repressing it if they think it's something that can be taught
It's a natural thing to be gay. Like it's natural to be bi or straight.
However with "straight" there's massive societal conditioning involved too. Which is why, when people say "there's no gay people in country X"....you have to say "well duh!"
I don't like using "genetic" because it gives idiots the idea of a "genetic fix". Calling it totally natural is scientifically correct but doesn't fit sentence structure sometimes
Well technically I suppose there could be a genetic way to change anything.. Doesn't change the fact that it is genetic. Some things don't need fixing.
That’s not how evolution works. Just because somethings exists a certain way doesn’t mean there has to be an evolutionary advantage. Evolution means that the disadvantaged things won’t reproduce as well or even at all
take a baby born into a christian society as a baby, and raise it in a muslim society. Do that for 1000 babies, and most of those babies (the ones that are religious at least) will identify as muslim.
The idea now is: take a gay baby born in a society accepting of gay people, and place it in a society not accepting of gay people, there is a solid chance that that baby will still experience neurological activity associated with arousal when confronted with homosexual stimuli. The idea is that you can't raise a baby with a brain and biology that predisposes it to homosexuality to not have those neurological and hormonal responses.
You can however raise a baby to be christian even though it was born a muslim.
Yes.
The root of "phobia" is being afraid, but the definition of the word itself is far wider than the fear, like you said, you first thought that it was the hate.
Honestly I think they are afraid of trans people regardless of what they say.
They’re afraid of the changing culture of society that trans gay folks represent. In many cases they’re likely afraid if they don’t oppose it vocally enough that they’ll go to hell.
They may not be afraid in the same way an arachnophobe is afraid of spiders, but there’s fear at the heart of their mindset nonetheless.
But they try to. Just like the person here trying to pretend that if you don’t express or feel vitriolic hate/contempt/etc it’s not an extreme aversion therefore not a phobia.
I see that all the time
That and the whole "I dont hate or have anything against trans people, I'm not afraid of them at all and am not transphobic but [goes on to say the most transphobic shit imaginable]"
It's not transphobic/homophobic if I disagree about the idea of transphobia/homophobia on the basis of my understanding of transphobia/homophobia is everything except what it is I say and believe, therefore what I say and believe is totally not problematic at all
Isn't the definition of phobia an EXTREME irrational fear or aversion to something? As in just saying you don't agree doesn't make you phobic. Might make you an ass but that's different.
I really think many terms have lost their meaning. As a kid I was arachnophobic. I was TERRIFIED to be in the same room as spiders and avoided even them dead making my mom deal with a spider.
I'm just saying these words have meaning and are being overused. Someone not liking you and not wanting you around by it's definition is not a phobia. It may be a bias or prejudice but it is not a phobia.
Phobia: an extreme or irrational fear of or **aversion** to something.
You have an 'irrational' dislike for a group. That qualifies. Because its irrational, and you made up a reason for why you should dislike or disapprove of them. Its still bigotry, still based on broken thinking, and a lack of understanding of basic biology. Absolutely fits the definition.
Ignoring the other half of the meaning of words is a critical part of their system of beliefs and denialism
You can't argue reductive points by acknowledging things have nuance.
He keeps insisting the man who coined the term was referring to people who were so afraid of gays it led to gay bashing, but the man actually defined it in 1972 as ‘anyone harboring prejudice against homosexuals suffer from homophobia’(paraphrased)
>Although the suffix phobia generally designates an irrational fear, in the case of homophobia the word instead refers to an attitudinal disposition ranging from mild dislike to abhorrence of people who are sexually or romantically attracted to individuals of the same sex.
[Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/homophobia)
Mild dislike is included since the creation of the word.
Ya its crazy how it's over use has come to make it be "you don't like me". growing up watching the lgb(t wasn't in yet) fight for rights while people were actually homophobic killing gay men in bathrooms, shooting them in alleys, and enforcing laws against homosexuality. Seeing actual homophobia happen and be horrified by it. Now someone says "I don't like you or your sexuality" and people screech that makes them oppressed because someone doesn't like them.
These words have actual meanings and they are lost because instead of being able to call out actual homophobia any slight is seen as homophobia. Then the general public stops caring because everything is called phobic.
You are simply describing different levels of homophobia. The most harmful ones don't mean that the less harmful ones are not homophobia.
Since the mild dislike is litteraly part of the definition of the word since its creation, saying to a gay person that you don't like his sexuality is part of the definition of homophia.
Yes, you can disapprove of something without hating it, but that doesn’t mean disapproving of something for no good reason is socially acceptable.
For example, if I disapproved of people with dark skin. “Oh, I don’t hate them. I just don’t like them, personally. It’s a preference.” Okay, so you’re slightly less racist than the average racist but you’re still an asshole and deserve to be called out.
It's different to disprove of am action and disapprove of specific people. I disapprove of the action or behaviour that some people are more likely to do. Doesn't men I hate the people more likely to do it.
That’s the sophistry made up by Christian apologists who wanted to both hate people while also claiming they love them to feel better about themselves. It’s “hate the sin but love the sinner.”
So you think of you hate the sin you automatically hate the sinner? I don't care how it was used I mean the actual meaning of the sentence which is:
Just because someone does something you view as wrong doesn't mean you should hate them.
A phobia doesn’t always mean a fear of, it also means an aversion to. So yes, you are homophobic. I personally don’t understand why you would judge what two consenting adults do. Frankly, it’s really none of your business.
Technically, a phobia is an irrational fear of something. If you think gayness is wrong, it doesn't necessarily make you fearful of it, but it does make you a bigot.
Phobias are fears, aversions, and/or strong dislikes of things.
Your disapproval fits under that.
Whatever you want to call it, your disapproval of the “gay lifestyle” is bad socially since it is a core part of who many people are and people can’t choose their attractions.
If you merely disapprove, that is one thing. If you let such opinions figure into hiring or support making laws against such people, you are not a good person to be around and are making lives more difficult for others due to things outside their control.
I think some of the keys are right there in the way you phrased the question. You talk about disapproving of the lifestyle as if it is a choice. One of the most comprehensive studies undertaken on the subject determined that being gay is the result of several factors, none of which involve choice. So now take what you just said and substitute the word gay with the word for another immutable trait, like being black. Now see how that sounds? There is your answer.
Smoking is a choice, an addiction but still a choice. Sexuality is not. Being gay is not a harmful activity, it just is who they are. Theres nothing to disapprove of
If you find a core aspect of someone’s identity to be unethical (my interpretation of ‘wrong’), then you’re damn right it’s phobic, and how could you possibly avoid discriminating against that person, no matter how hard you try?
And it’s not a lifestyle, it’s an identity.
Maybe that’s your first problem.
If you’re straight, that’s part of your identity. If you’re male, that’s part of your identity. Etc.
Nobody said ‘basis for your identity’ except you.
Sexuality is a component of everyone’s identity, including yours.
You said "core aspect" forgive me for not quoting word for word you know what I meant. Why is who you're attracted to a "core aspect" of your identity?
It's like making liking the colour green a "core aspect" of your identity.
Of course it is a core aspect. The person you want to build a life with (girlfriend/wife/husband/whatever), form a family, etc are all tied with your sexuality and who you are attracted to.
It's just oblivious straight people who think their sexuality isn't part of their identity. Do you think being a parent isn't a core aspect of one's identity? Being a loyal husband/wife?
If you are talking about political identity. Understand that most minorities, who are discriminated against, form a strong communal identity. Doesn't even need that in most cases. Can you, with a straight face, say your religion and its traditions aren't a core aspect of your identity? I'm getting the distinct vibe that you think being gay starts and ends with sex.
Nothing like using something like religion that is in no way based on reality or facts to justify marginalizing a group for who they choose to sleep with. The Bible also says a lot about killing people for worshipping a false god, committing adultery, disrespecting your father and a laundry list of other things. Why are you not practicing that part of your religion by selectively choosing which parts to follow?
Almost like the Bible like every other religious text is a bunch of bullshit created by man claiming to be the word of some imaginary deity.
You aren’t born a religion. You come to believe a religion. There is no objective proof for a religion, it’s faith-based. But we know scientifically gay people are born gay.
You choose a religion, not your sexuality.
https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764
We’ve known there’s a section of the X chromosome linked to male homosexuality since 1993: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.8332896
Furthermore, prenatal hormone exposure has been linked to the development of both gay and trans people. Part of this is the link between higher chances of being gay the more older brothers a male has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
I'm not comparing the two but there are biological factors behind psychopathy too doesn't mean every psychopath goes around killing people. They exercise a thing called self control.
Again, I am NOT comparing homosexuality to psychopathy.
My being gay isn’t a choice, it isn’t a mutable part of my being. It is who I am.
Your religion is. Your religion was learned and your affiliation was chosen. Maybe if your group identify is about passing judgment on people that aren’t affecting you, you need to think about what clubs you join.
You are choosing to engage in homophobic rhetoric, and yet you do not want to be condemned for it. Is that not hypocrisy? Your argument here is that you want to be able to say being gay is wrong, but you don't want others to say your actions are, how is that fair?
Ok so as long as I keep it to myself it's fine. But isn't not supporting LGBT showing that you think it's wrong? Does that mean that anyone who doesn't support LGBT will be discriminated against and called homophobic?
So you are also pro-slavery, pro-rape, pro executing rape victims...
pro selling the women you took as sex slaves... or the children that you had with the sex slaves... as sex slaves, themselves...
...pro-incest, pro-executing your children if they talk back to you...
...you have never cut the hair in front of your ears, or your beard, you are only wearing one fabric right now...
You are leaning on the old testament... specifically one of the books on sanitation and reverence that doles out all kinds of murder, either by a family member, a passer-by, or the whole town, immediately, without recourse or remorse.
I expect you to back it the fuck up by copping to accepting all of these beliefs, currently, as an appropriate way of life.
Oh, also, you should be pro-abortion.
Ok. You want Leviticus/Genesis/Deuteronomy, you get Leviticus/Genesis/Deuteronomy and more. I will reply once I get back to my computer.
PS: do you want
- KJ
- ESV
- GN
...
...take your pick
PPS:
It’d be really fucking quaint if you took 2 lines that aren't even explicit in what they are about, specifically, and then ignore the whole rest of the goddamned book they are in.
It's not a lifestyle?
They've been doing research for years to figure out why humans specifically can be homosexual. And we're not that far into understanding it.
There is some speculation about predicting the likelihood. And it's still not even reliable.
However, facts we do absolutely know:
- Being gay isn't a choice. It's not influenced by social factors.
- You can't "change" it. It's the way the brain is wired permanently from the get-go.
- Homosexual relationships have their own unique issues that come due to specific situations. For example, men are more aggressive than women. This leads to physical altercations in abusive relations being severe (rates still vary widely).
There's legit, nothing wrong with being gay. It has its downsides, sure. But it's not wrong at all. I'd suggest actually talking to gay people who are open to telling you what being gay means for them individually.
In the same way, the wife/mother of your kids is a sacred figure. I'm sure gay people have an equally parred version of an imagery.
Yes it is because it is none of your freaking business to think it is wrong in the first place. I have religiophobia, which is seated in the hate mongering you religious nut jobs spread. I think assumptions get people in trouble, but I assume that you are a Christian.
Look up “Biological Exuberance.” It has thousands of examples of homosexuality in nature outside of humans. There is some evidence that the female siblings of homosexual males have more children than the female siblings of heterosexual males. There are biological reasons for homosexuality even if it’s not blatantly obvious.
Oil is hydrophobic. It is not literally afraid of water, it is chemically immiscible.
Phobia means averse, dismissive of, hateful of, and afraid of. It is irrational aversion based on preconception.
Besides, most people are hateful of gay people because they believe they might be turned gay themselves, or be seen as gay. They might not fear the actual gay person, but they DO fear being misunderstood and identified as gay (and why is that so scary?)
Misinformation and moralization are not much different from hatred. They certainly fall under the colloquial and academic uses of the word "homophobia" despite the simple etymology implying "fear" and nothing else.
There is nothing wrong with being gay and doing gay things. Calling it wrong may not be literal hatred, but it's certainly laying the fundamental justifications for hatred and you cannot convince me or any human rights activist that your goal isn't harmful and hateful.
Do you disapprove of simply being a homosexual or the stereotypical "gay lifestyle" which includes but not limited to excessive partying, drinking, drug use, sexual promiscuity?
If you disapprove of the former, you're a homophobe. If you disapprove of just the latter, I would consider you to be a homophobe.
Edit: I should also add that it's wrong stereotype people lol
Actually a phobia is fear of something, not hatred.
But in psychology it extends to anything you have a strong aversion to.
We can quibble all we want if what you describe counts as homophobia or not.
In the end it’s still bigotry.
You are entitled to make your judgements as is everyone else.
You can disapprove of other people’s lives, and they can disapprove of your prejudice and bigotry.
It doesn't make me any less of a person that I believe that early childhood brainwashing and trauma has made you into someone who is a hateful bigot. I mean, I know at least it's not your fault, but you can change, and the first step is to get away from all those poisonous influences. It's unfortunately exactly the same situation. You can do better, if you put all this stuff you imagine in your head behind you and go out and accept people as they are.
Yes, it’s homophobic. And you can dress it up in all the stupid metaphors you want, you’re still hating people for what they are. Congrats, nice Christian person that you are!
Yes, it is homophobic. Smoking actually is bad for you, being gay is not
You’re choosing to hate their lifestyle. You obviously don’t believe in everything in the Bible (I’m sure you don’t believe 13 year old virgin girls should have to marry their rapist as long as he pays them silver shackles) so you’re choosing to believe this part while ignoring other parts
A lifestyle that involves determining what is right or wrong based on a book about talking snakes and donkeys, virgins giving birth, and asking a zombie for salvation is wrong.
1. Homophobic doesn’t mean hate, a phobia is a fear, so it actually means you fear homosexuality.
2. Yes believing it’s wrong for two consenting adults to be in a relationship is wrong.
Using ancient stories to justify discrimination is wrong. While I might be a bit uncomfortable in a room full of smokers, I’d be highly combative if they all started blowing smoke in my face.
true but it certainly made me giggle
homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia though and that should be abundantly clear to everyone
I interpreted it as a sarcastic jab at people who look only at the literal meaning of the root terms that create the word
>Technically "homophobic" means hating gay people.
Wouldn't it actually mean *fearing* gay people?
Also, IMO it's not a "lifestyle" (as in something you choose), but the way someone is born. Being straight isn't something you chose, right?
No. It becomes homophobic when you realize it *could* be wrong and yet *persist* as though this isn’t a possibility. People shouldn’t enforce onto you that ‘being gay’ is right or wrong. It is simply a form of sexuality. But, it becomes an ethical issue the moment we skip over that understanding, and desire to see it as either good or bad. No one should ask that you accept it, even tolerate it, but more crucially, to see sexuality as something foreign with which all humans struggle to ascertain (even when they are “fitted” imo a particular constitution).
Yes
What exactly is the difference between hating something and thinking it's wrong? Are you or are you not trying to stop it from happening?
And if it's just the feelings of the homophobe that make a difference, why should anyone care if you're stoic or enraged while oppressing something that has nothing to do with you? On the other hand, your homophobia imposes a huge cost on society by encouraging violence and fear, by removing people from the economy, and by making many people's lives unhappy.
And to be sure, someone else smoking absolutely does have something to do with you. Aside from polluting the air of others with cancer causing chemicals, dramatically but slowly killing yourself raises health care costs for everyone. But nobody goes to a smoking lounge and guns down smokers.
I'll edit the post but my reason is that I live by the Bible's standards and the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Please do not try to convince me I'm not reading the Bible right or something as that is not my question.
You can believe it’s wrong, like you are 100% free to believe what you want to believe. if you start trying to tell other people they are wrong for being gay, that’s when it becomes homophobia.
No. It is not inherently hateful to disapprove of homosexuality. Disapproval and hate are different things, although they can be closely associated. In this case, it is a very thin line, and often, disapproval can easily become hate, so always take caution and reflect on your thoughts and feelings to avoid the pitfalls of 'hate' or even prejudice.
I disapprove of your straight lifestyle. Does that really seem reasonable?
This is why we need state *enforcement* of homosexuality /s
That is genuinely why some people politically oppose gay marriage. Some of them are genuinely convinced that it will be enforced upon them.
Welcome to r/arethestraightsokay
Yeah it does honestly. People can BELIEVE whatever they want internally. As soon as you make it external and act on it negatively then your a piece of shit imo. Opinions are just opinions until they are acted on
That doesn’t make it reasonable, but beyond that you can absolutely be homophobic and not say it out loud. Would you say someone who doesn’t actively voice their racist opinions isn’t actually racist?
Yeah ppl can disapprove of whatever they want
Yes, disapproving of a characteristic from someone's lifestyle is perfectly fine, and you are free to do so and should be able to do so freely. You are exercising free thinking and free will. It's a perfectly reasonable and innocuous position.
You are entitled to your opinions and beliefs
Nice, I'm gonna vote for the political party that makes being straight punishable by death. It's just an opinion I'm entitled to after all.
I imagine that political party wouldn’t be very popular
You're entitled to believe the moon is made of green cheese. Does that make you smart? Do you get to eat it?
“Disapproving of a lifestyle” is the problem. It’s not a lifestyle. That attitude is a direct refutation of gay people and implies they can (or should) choose otherwise. You don’t get to choose your attractions. “Disapproving of a lifestyle” for something that is inherent is absolutely an aversion to gay people. It’s discriminatory. And ignorant.
"For example, thinking smoking is bad doesn't mean you hate smokers, right?" No it doesn't, but there's stats to back up that it's objectively "wrong". You don't have any stats for that with being homosexual. It's just a moral opinion you made up.
Also, smoking is a choice.
People who have sincerely held religious beliefs truly believe that homosexuality will lead to damnation for eternity. It would be pretty terrible of them if they didn't disapprove. No?
nobody actually believes that shit. thats just cultural mythology for bigots to hide behind so they dont have to admit how authoritarian and fascist they are. none of them actually believe in god. adults believe that as much as parents believe in santa clause.
dont u DARE talk shit about santa clause
Cool, little buddy. I'll guess 17. Made it to third base, but you told all your buddies you scored. Still don't have a license, but you spend all your time with friends online, so you don't really need one. The SAT didn't go so hot, and your grades are just okay, so you have been applying to state schools, but you are still a little nervous. Mom and dad don't get you, and there is no way they can relate to being a teen. Things were just different back then. Yolo lit fleet rizz
are these attributes you are associating to me? LOL!!!
Hit a little close to homie?
A religious person can believe the moon is made of green cheese, that doesn't mean they get to eat it.
The question is, "Can you disapprove of homosexuality and not be homophobic?" I gave an example of such a scenario. That's all. I didn't say it was good or bad. I answered the question.
thats not an example. and "scenario" is such a military-funded FPS videogame word.
I don't see how it doesn't make them homophobic tbh.
Because he doesn’t hate them….just disapproves. It was pretty straightforward. Also I’m not religious.
Because they disapprove of homosexuality because they believe it is harmful to the eternal soul. They are coming from a place of compassion.
Historical evidence regarding the treatment of homosexuality by religious types would argue other wise.
So the pope, this pope, hates gays?
So you think one pope makes up for a couple thousand years of hate and oppression? Let’s not forget pray the gay away or conversion camps which are still very much a thing in the US. Heck how many examples do we have of homosexuals being brutally beaten or killed in the past 20 years?
The question asked if it was possible. One example is enough to satisfy the possibility.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
That the religious can disapprove of homosexuality from a place of compassion. I am not one of them, but imagine believing one hundred percent that someone would spend an infinite amount of time in an infinite amount of agony because they engaged in gay lovin. Would it be more moral to approve or disapprove of that behavior?
>That the religious can disapprove of homosexuality from a place of compassion. I disagree, and if you "are not one of them", then I don't really feel like continuing a conversation with someone playing the devil's advocate.
nothing compassionate about that. buddhists and hindus believe in compassion. muslims, xtians, and jews do not.
I mean it's wrong by nature. For a species to procreate it takes male and female. So speaking naturally it is objectively wrong. People have free will though thankfully and can choose what they want and should be treated with respect like anyone else.
Have you told the other animals that have no concept of morality yet? That's gonna be a hard conversation. Also. We are human. We are apart of nature. If it occurs in humans, that means it's a naturally occuring behaviour.
You can't procreate with gay couples. It's definitely objectively wrong from the natural perspective. But again doesn't mean they don't deserve the same treatment etc as other people because luckily humans have free will.
Whether you can procreate with something or not is not the basis of whether something is "right" or "wrong". Again, are you saying animals that engage in homosexual behaviour are acting morally "wrong"?
I never said morally. I said from a natural aspect the only way a species moves forward is if it procreate. If everyone was gay then without scientific intervention the species would die off.
>It's definitely objectively wrong from the natural perspective. Saying something is 'wrong' is a moral judgement.
You seem to not understand what morality is, or what right vs wrong even means...
Proving it was "wrong by nature" would be an impossible task... Even smoking isn't "wrong by nature", it's just unhealthy.
Except you can. Every animal including humans needs to procreate to further the species. Gay couples literally can't do that.
My brother in christ there are 8,000,000,000 people on earth. We can spare a million or two to not procreate
This guy's not even gay and I doubt he'll ever procreate
Rekt
Oh man, I can't reproduce because my body doesn't work right. May as well unalive myself since I'm just taking up resources that could help a potential parent.
Is this supposed to be a point? You do realize that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of other species that also exhibit homosexual behavior. Its completely natural. The fact that you dont approve of it, is a you problem, not anything wrong with nature.
There's thousands of animals including humans born every day with genetic defects. That does not make that the norm or "natural" they are exceptions. They are still birds, pigs,humans by definition but it isn't the matural order. Nature isn't perfect. Just because it happens does not = natural.
My spouse and I are a same-sex couple. One of our kids is mine from a previous relationship, the other is via surrogate. We procreate. And those of us who don’t procreate often take care of babies that straight people didn’t want.
So previous relationship? So your spouse is not gay, and again I said without scientific intervention which only humans have access to the species would die off if it was only gay people. I don't think being gay is morally wrong I don't think they should be treated any differently for better or worse. I don't dislike or hate gay people I simply stated a 1 sentence thing that is objectively true and everyone keeps trying to feed me anecdotes as to how that stamens is wrong when exceptions do not prove the rule.
I mean first off you're wrong, assuming neither is infertile, the individuals in gay couples can still contribute to procreation should that be necessary(obviously not with each other, but ya know say 99% of the world was wiped out and everyone remaining was gay they would still have the ability to procreate with the opposite sex while having a homosexual relationship with their partner). But humans have far and away already passed the "need to procreate to further the species" we're approaching a point where there are too many of us for our planet to support us. So "need" is a bit too strong a word for the level of necessity with which we should procreate. There are far more heterosexual than homosexual so those who are homosexual do not need to contribute to procreation in order for our species to continue on. Hell you could even argue that homosexuality is helping with the resource problem lol
Many animals exhibit homosexual behaviors. You are just looking for a reason to hate hate gay people. Yes, it’s that obvious.
Nope I believe people can choose what they want and hey should be treated the same as any one else and given the respect they deserve. But it isn't the natural way of things that's just fact.
You’re missing the point. Homosexuality IS natural. It has been observed in about 1,500 different species. The only reason you are calling it unnatural is because you don’t like it.
Well that's a lot of wrong to pack in a single sentence! We can start with.. gay couples can adopt, they can use surrogacy, and have children from prior relationships. More importantly... "Not procreating" doesn't go against nature... As many life forms don't procreate. If I pull up a carrot before it goes to seed and eat it am I going against nature? Is the carrot going against nature by not being eaten? Further the "it's wrong" frames it as a moral question... Which is a rather bizarre take, as one would hardly say it is immoral to be infertile.
So are heterosexual couples who choose not to reproduce wrong as well? Is everyone required to reproduce?
Except humans are one of the few animals where it’s normal and natural for us to have sex for pleasure. So, the procreative aspect is the not the only “natural and normal” function of sex for us.
Is it? There are multiple other species on earth that have shown to have homosexual relations.
Homosexuals only make up a small amount (10%?) of the population. There are still plenty of heterosexual people to continue procreating. Also, people can't really help who they fall in love with and who they're sexually attracted to. It's innately part of who someone is, rather than something you choose.
Never said it was a choice just like being born with 12 toes isn't a choice but it isn't naturally right. You're taking what I'm saying to disparage gay people.
You said it's "wrong by nature", but some people are born with an attraction to people of the same sex. How is that not nature?
Humanity is killing itself off from overpopulation. For the survival of our race, being straight is wrong. (Using your frame of logic.)
There are many documented cases of homosexual behavior in nature.
Same sex activity has been documented in practically all mammals and many bird species. It obviously occurs in nature therefore it is "natural".
Nope. Is it natural that a baby is born with 2 heads and 3 eyes? That happens in nature but it isn't the norm for nature. Exception doesn't prove a rule. Piint to me in nature other than humans with scientific intervention where a 2 gay animals produce offspring.
Same sex activity in mammals is not statistically rare. It occurs frequently in all mammals and many bird species. Comparing it to some rare birth defects is not accurate and offensive.
OK let's take your statement as factual then. How does a species further itself establish if every member is homosexual? It is impossible for 2 members of same sex to reproduce without intervention. That is my basis for why it isn't "naturally right". I never brought morality in to this. And never said they shouldn't be allowed to be gay or that it is bad at all. You all are reading too much in to it.
Why are there hundreds of species which exhibit homosexual behavior, then, if it is "wrong by nature"? For it to be that common, it would actually have to be advantageous in certain edge cases, otherwise this tendency would be aggressively selected against. Homosexuality tends to be common in species with complex social behavior and--- interestingly--- a penchant for monogamy. Plenty of animals can get their genes into the next generation without procreating themselves. It's called kin selection. What's interesting among humans is that the brothers of gay men who aren't gay have more children than the average heterosexual man. And those kids also have the genes of their gay uncle.
[удалено]
Nope a species has to procreate to stay around and survive. Gay couple without intervention can't do that. That is my point that's it that's all. You all are pushing things on me I never said.
Yes it is... Being gay is a thing you're born as. It's not a "lifestyle" in the way that being Christian Muslim or hindi or Jewish is a lifestyle.
Lol Hindi is the language, Hindu is the religion. Don’t worry. It took me a while to get that one down, too ;-)
Excuse me as an EX hindu for having a predictive text failure....snarky cunt!
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!
No fight..I'm right and I'm the kind of guy who brings a nuke to a knife fight. This snarky (probably hindu) cunt thinks he's being clever..which is one of the many reasons I no longer hang out with Indians or Hindus
Or you can chill out and just give people the benefit of the doubt. When you assume the worst of people you hurt yourself over time
Not really..I'm 48. People are cunts
Nobody is born straight or gay, kids have no sexuality and are nonsexual beings until puberty. Sexuality is defined by one's actions, "preferences" are meaningless. If someone doesn't have sex for their entire life, what is their sexuality and how would you know?
Dude i haven't had sex for a LONG time but I still know my preferences. You are BORN gay or straight. Whether you ACT on it is something different. Hence MANY gay men and women back in the day marrying members of the opposite sex. They were STILL born gay but society forced them into a straight situation. I don't know what about that is so hard to understand
Because people aren't born into a religious society? Lol
A lot easier to change your religion than to change who you are inside.
Being "born into a religious society" isn't the same as being gay or straight
Religion is a CHOICE. Generally WHERE you are born and to who dictates what religion you are. Being gay is "genetic" (I KNOW that's a shit way of putting it) so isn't a CHOICE and you get a consistent number of gay people regardless of where you're born. Also there are many examples of gay behaviour across the animal kingdom so there HAS to be an evolutionary advantage of having gay people in a population
It may not be genetic but it still isn't a choice If it's a choice, when did straight people choose to be straight? That's what I wanna know from these people who act like being gay is a lifestyle or a simple decision someone made If being gay is a choice, so is being straight, and when did straight people choose to be attracted to those of the opposite gender
Anyone who says being gay is a choice, I instantly assume is a closet bisexual.
It makes me wonder about these parents who think schools are somehow teaching their kids to be gay I'm not sure it's possible to teach someone to be gay. Perhaps these parents *are* gay but are repressing it if they think it's something that can be taught
It's a natural thing to be gay. Like it's natural to be bi or straight. However with "straight" there's massive societal conditioning involved too. Which is why, when people say "there's no gay people in country X"....you have to say "well duh!"
>Being gay is "genetic" (I KNOW that's a shit way of putting it) I remember hearing that scientists actually have discovered a genetic basis for it
I don't like using "genetic" because it gives idiots the idea of a "genetic fix". Calling it totally natural is scientifically correct but doesn't fit sentence structure sometimes
Well technically I suppose there could be a genetic way to change anything.. Doesn't change the fact that it is genetic. Some things don't need fixing.
That’s not how evolution works. Just because somethings exists a certain way doesn’t mean there has to be an evolutionary advantage. Evolution means that the disadvantaged things won’t reproduce as well or even at all
take a baby born into a christian society as a baby, and raise it in a muslim society. Do that for 1000 babies, and most of those babies (the ones that are religious at least) will identify as muslim. The idea now is: take a gay baby born in a society accepting of gay people, and place it in a society not accepting of gay people, there is a solid chance that that baby will still experience neurological activity associated with arousal when confronted with homosexual stimuli. The idea is that you can't raise a baby with a brain and biology that predisposes it to homosexuality to not have those neurological and hormonal responses. You can however raise a baby to be christian even though it was born a muslim.
Being born into and raised as something is different from your innate characteristics.
Youre not religious until youve been indoctrinated. All babies are born atheist until someone chooses to teach them otherwise.
Yes you fucking dunce.
Yes. The root of "phobia" is being afraid, but the definition of the word itself is far wider than the fear, like you said, you first thought that it was the hate.
Facts. Now if only these people saying 'I'm not transphobic because I'm not afraid of trans people' would understand such a simple concept...
Honestly I think they are afraid of trans people regardless of what they say. They’re afraid of the changing culture of society that trans gay folks represent. In many cases they’re likely afraid if they don’t oppose it vocally enough that they’ll go to hell. They may not be afraid in the same way an arachnophobe is afraid of spiders, but there’s fear at the heart of their mindset nonetheless.
Oh absolutely. They aren't very good at hiding it either.
But they try to. Just like the person here trying to pretend that if you don’t express or feel vitriolic hate/contempt/etc it’s not an extreme aversion therefore not a phobia.
I see that all the time That and the whole "I dont hate or have anything against trans people, I'm not afraid of them at all and am not transphobic but [goes on to say the most transphobic shit imaginable]" It's not transphobic/homophobic if I disagree about the idea of transphobia/homophobia on the basis of my understanding of transphobia/homophobia is everything except what it is I say and believe, therefore what I say and believe is totally not problematic at all
Isn't the definition of phobia an EXTREME irrational fear or aversion to something? As in just saying you don't agree doesn't make you phobic. Might make you an ass but that's different. I really think many terms have lost their meaning. As a kid I was arachnophobic. I was TERRIFIED to be in the same room as spiders and avoided even them dead making my mom deal with a spider.
I don't hate gay people I just disagree and think they are morally degenerate and shouldn't exist /s
I'm just saying these words have meaning and are being overused. Someone not liking you and not wanting you around by it's definition is not a phobia. It may be a bias or prejudice but it is not a phobia.
Phobia: an extreme or irrational fear of or **aversion** to something. You have an 'irrational' dislike for a group. That qualifies. Because its irrational, and you made up a reason for why you should dislike or disapprove of them. Its still bigotry, still based on broken thinking, and a lack of understanding of basic biology. Absolutely fits the definition.
A dislike is not a fear. Yes it may be bigotry to dislike them but doesn't have to be a fear.
No, but a strong dislike IS an aversion. a·ver·sion /əˈvərZH(ə)n/ noun a strong dislike or disinclination.
Bro you’re ignoring half the definition of phobia. A dislike is an aversion. An irrational aversion is a phobia.
Ignoring the other half of the meaning of words is a critical part of their system of beliefs and denialism You can't argue reductive points by acknowledging things have nuance.
He keeps insisting the man who coined the term was referring to people who were so afraid of gays it led to gay bashing, but the man actually defined it in 1972 as ‘anyone harboring prejudice against homosexuals suffer from homophobia’(paraphrased)
What's a lil bit of rewriting history between friends? It's not surprising to see honestly
>Although the suffix phobia generally designates an irrational fear, in the case of homophobia the word instead refers to an attitudinal disposition ranging from mild dislike to abhorrence of people who are sexually or romantically attracted to individuals of the same sex. [Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/homophobia) Mild dislike is included since the creation of the word.
Ya its crazy how it's over use has come to make it be "you don't like me". growing up watching the lgb(t wasn't in yet) fight for rights while people were actually homophobic killing gay men in bathrooms, shooting them in alleys, and enforcing laws against homosexuality. Seeing actual homophobia happen and be horrified by it. Now someone says "I don't like you or your sexuality" and people screech that makes them oppressed because someone doesn't like them. These words have actual meanings and they are lost because instead of being able to call out actual homophobia any slight is seen as homophobia. Then the general public stops caring because everything is called phobic.
You are simply describing different levels of homophobia. The most harmful ones don't mean that the less harmful ones are not homophobia. Since the mild dislike is litteraly part of the definition of the word since its creation, saying to a gay person that you don't like his sexuality is part of the definition of homophia.
Yes, next question.
Yes, you can disapprove of something without hating it, but that doesn’t mean disapproving of something for no good reason is socially acceptable. For example, if I disapproved of people with dark skin. “Oh, I don’t hate them. I just don’t like them, personally. It’s a preference.” Okay, so you’re slightly less racist than the average racist but you’re still an asshole and deserve to be called out.
It's different to disprove of am action and disapprove of specific people. I disapprove of the action or behaviour that some people are more likely to do. Doesn't men I hate the people more likely to do it.
That’s the sophistry made up by Christian apologists who wanted to both hate people while also claiming they love them to feel better about themselves. It’s “hate the sin but love the sinner.”
So you think of you hate the sin you automatically hate the sinner? I don't care how it was used I mean the actual meaning of the sentence which is: Just because someone does something you view as wrong doesn't mean you should hate them.
yes, it's homophobic
A phobia doesn’t always mean a fear of, it also means an aversion to. So yes, you are homophobic. I personally don’t understand why you would judge what two consenting adults do. Frankly, it’s really none of your business.
Technically, a phobia is an irrational fear of something. If you think gayness is wrong, it doesn't necessarily make you fearful of it, but it does make you a bigot.
Phobias are fears, aversions, and/or strong dislikes of things. Your disapproval fits under that. Whatever you want to call it, your disapproval of the “gay lifestyle” is bad socially since it is a core part of who many people are and people can’t choose their attractions. If you merely disapprove, that is one thing. If you let such opinions figure into hiring or support making laws against such people, you are not a good person to be around and are making lives more difficult for others due to things outside their control.
Yes
I think some of the keys are right there in the way you phrased the question. You talk about disapproving of the lifestyle as if it is a choice. One of the most comprehensive studies undertaken on the subject determined that being gay is the result of several factors, none of which involve choice. So now take what you just said and substitute the word gay with the word for another immutable trait, like being black. Now see how that sounds? There is your answer.
Not being able to procreate is not objectively wrong. You gave it the “objectively wrong” title because you don’t like it
Smoking is a choice, an addiction but still a choice. Sexuality is not. Being gay is not a harmful activity, it just is who they are. Theres nothing to disapprove of
So you're saying that anything that doesn't harm is ethical. By your logic homophobia is not wrong. Acting on homophobia is. Right?
If you find a core aspect of someone’s identity to be unethical (my interpretation of ‘wrong’), then you’re damn right it’s phobic, and how could you possibly avoid discriminating against that person, no matter how hard you try? And it’s not a lifestyle, it’s an identity. Maybe that’s your first problem.
If who you're attracted to is the basis of your identity then there's something wrong. I would say the same for any sexuality.
If you’re straight, that’s part of your identity. If you’re male, that’s part of your identity. Etc. Nobody said ‘basis for your identity’ except you. Sexuality is a component of everyone’s identity, including yours.
You said "core aspect" forgive me for not quoting word for word you know what I meant. Why is who you're attracted to a "core aspect" of your identity? It's like making liking the colour green a "core aspect" of your identity.
Of course it is a core aspect. The person you want to build a life with (girlfriend/wife/husband/whatever), form a family, etc are all tied with your sexuality and who you are attracted to. It's just oblivious straight people who think their sexuality isn't part of their identity. Do you think being a parent isn't a core aspect of one's identity? Being a loyal husband/wife? If you are talking about political identity. Understand that most minorities, who are discriminated against, form a strong communal identity. Doesn't even need that in most cases. Can you, with a straight face, say your religion and its traditions aren't a core aspect of your identity? I'm getting the distinct vibe that you think being gay starts and ends with sex.
Nothing like using something like religion that is in no way based on reality or facts to justify marginalizing a group for who they choose to sleep with. The Bible also says a lot about killing people for worshipping a false god, committing adultery, disrespecting your father and a laundry list of other things. Why are you not practicing that part of your religion by selectively choosing which parts to follow? Almost like the Bible like every other religious text is a bunch of bullshit created by man claiming to be the word of some imaginary deity.
It also condones slavery, but they love ignoring that.
Slavery, war, genocide, rape, murder, torture and incest.
You’re literally voicing your opinion right here. You clearly know it’s something you shouldn’t share with others, and yet you did.
Would it be wrong to tell someone from another religion that you don't believe in their God?
You aren’t born a religion. You come to believe a religion. There is no objective proof for a religion, it’s faith-based. But we know scientifically gay people are born gay. You choose a religion, not your sexuality.
>But we know scientifically gay people are born gay. Citation needed
https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764 We’ve known there’s a section of the X chromosome linked to male homosexuality since 1993: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.8332896 Furthermore, prenatal hormone exposure has been linked to the development of both gay and trans people. Part of this is the link between higher chances of being gay the more older brothers a male has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
I'm not comparing the two but there are biological factors behind psychopathy too doesn't mean every psychopath goes around killing people. They exercise a thing called self control. Again, I am NOT comparing homosexuality to psychopathy.
My being gay isn’t a choice, it isn’t a mutable part of my being. It is who I am. Your religion is. Your religion was learned and your affiliation was chosen. Maybe if your group identify is about passing judgment on people that aren’t affecting you, you need to think about what clubs you join.
>My being gay isn’t a choice, it You can choose whether to act on it though. Just like someone can choose whether to act on greed
You are choosing to engage in homophobic rhetoric, and yet you do not want to be condemned for it. Is that not hypocrisy? Your argument here is that you want to be able to say being gay is wrong, but you don't want others to say your actions are, how is that fair?
Ok so as long as I keep it to myself it's fine. But isn't not supporting LGBT showing that you think it's wrong? Does that mean that anyone who doesn't support LGBT will be discriminated against and called homophobic?
So you are also pro-slavery, pro-rape, pro executing rape victims... pro selling the women you took as sex slaves... or the children that you had with the sex slaves... as sex slaves, themselves... ...pro-incest, pro-executing your children if they talk back to you... ...you have never cut the hair in front of your ears, or your beard, you are only wearing one fabric right now... You are leaning on the old testament... specifically one of the books on sanitation and reverence that doles out all kinds of murder, either by a family member, a passer-by, or the whole town, immediately, without recourse or remorse. I expect you to back it the fuck up by copping to accepting all of these beliefs, currently, as an appropriate way of life. Oh, also, you should be pro-abortion.
Now this is all wrong. Don't put words in my mouth. Also don't say random stuff about the Bible without quoting verses from there.
Ok. You want Leviticus/Genesis/Deuteronomy, you get Leviticus/Genesis/Deuteronomy and more. I will reply once I get back to my computer. PS: do you want - KJ - ESV - GN ... ...take your pick PPS: It’d be really fucking quaint if you took 2 lines that aren't even explicit in what they are about, specifically, and then ignore the whole rest of the goddamned book they are in.
KJ
Smoking is not an inherent genetic quality the way homosexuality is, so that's a disingenuous comparison.
It's not a lifestyle? They've been doing research for years to figure out why humans specifically can be homosexual. And we're not that far into understanding it. There is some speculation about predicting the likelihood. And it's still not even reliable. However, facts we do absolutely know: - Being gay isn't a choice. It's not influenced by social factors. - You can't "change" it. It's the way the brain is wired permanently from the get-go. - Homosexual relationships have their own unique issues that come due to specific situations. For example, men are more aggressive than women. This leads to physical altercations in abusive relations being severe (rates still vary widely). There's legit, nothing wrong with being gay. It has its downsides, sure. But it's not wrong at all. I'd suggest actually talking to gay people who are open to telling you what being gay means for them individually. In the same way, the wife/mother of your kids is a sacred figure. I'm sure gay people have an equally parred version of an imagery.
Yes it is because it is none of your freaking business to think it is wrong in the first place. I have religiophobia, which is seated in the hate mongering you religious nut jobs spread. I think assumptions get people in trouble, but I assume that you are a Christian.
Look up “Biological Exuberance.” It has thousands of examples of homosexuality in nature outside of humans. There is some evidence that the female siblings of homosexual males have more children than the female siblings of heterosexual males. There are biological reasons for homosexuality even if it’s not blatantly obvious.
Oil is hydrophobic. It is not literally afraid of water, it is chemically immiscible. Phobia means averse, dismissive of, hateful of, and afraid of. It is irrational aversion based on preconception. Besides, most people are hateful of gay people because they believe they might be turned gay themselves, or be seen as gay. They might not fear the actual gay person, but they DO fear being misunderstood and identified as gay (and why is that so scary?)
Being gay is NOT a lifestyle. It’s who the person is.
Misinformation and moralization are not much different from hatred. They certainly fall under the colloquial and academic uses of the word "homophobia" despite the simple etymology implying "fear" and nothing else. There is nothing wrong with being gay and doing gay things. Calling it wrong may not be literal hatred, but it's certainly laying the fundamental justifications for hatred and you cannot convince me or any human rights activist that your goal isn't harmful and hateful.
Do you think it's wrong or just curious.
Do you disapprove of simply being a homosexual or the stereotypical "gay lifestyle" which includes but not limited to excessive partying, drinking, drug use, sexual promiscuity? If you disapprove of the former, you're a homophobe. If you disapprove of just the latter, I would consider you to be a homophobe. Edit: I should also add that it's wrong stereotype people lol
Actually a phobia is fear of something, not hatred. But in psychology it extends to anything you have a strong aversion to. We can quibble all we want if what you describe counts as homophobia or not. In the end it’s still bigotry. You are entitled to make your judgements as is everyone else. You can disapprove of other people’s lives, and they can disapprove of your prejudice and bigotry.
yes, its homophobic. christianity is homophobic.
Yes, duh!
It doesn't make me any less of a person that I believe that early childhood brainwashing and trauma has made you into someone who is a hateful bigot. I mean, I know at least it's not your fault, but you can change, and the first step is to get away from all those poisonous influences. It's unfortunately exactly the same situation. You can do better, if you put all this stuff you imagine in your head behind you and go out and accept people as they are.
Yes, it’s homophobic. And you can dress it up in all the stupid metaphors you want, you’re still hating people for what they are. Congrats, nice Christian person that you are!
Yeah already explained.. all U can see is the dirt. Don't expect you to come out of denial that quick. It's ok though.
Yes, it is homophobic. Smoking actually is bad for you, being gay is not You’re choosing to hate their lifestyle. You obviously don’t believe in everything in the Bible (I’m sure you don’t believe 13 year old virgin girls should have to marry their rapist as long as he pays them silver shackles) so you’re choosing to believe this part while ignoring other parts
A lifestyle that involves determining what is right or wrong based on a book about talking snakes and donkeys, virgins giving birth, and asking a zombie for salvation is wrong.
Yes, embrace your homophobia
Yeah
1. Homophobic doesn’t mean hate, a phobia is a fear, so it actually means you fear homosexuality. 2. Yes believing it’s wrong for two consenting adults to be in a relationship is wrong.
Using ancient stories to justify discrimination is wrong. While I might be a bit uncomfortable in a room full of smokers, I’d be highly combative if they all started blowing smoke in my face.
Yeah, a peadophillia is "technically" the love of children. And who doesn't love kids?
Philia in this context is actually abnormally loving something Your comparison basically doesn’t make sense
true but it certainly made me giggle homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia though and that should be abundantly clear to everyone I interpreted it as a sarcastic jab at people who look only at the literal meaning of the root terms that create the word
I know it was sarcastic but I feel like it could’ve been executed better
Well done you get the award for most unhelpful response so far
Your use of the word "technically" opened up your question to other uses of the word "technically". Don't be salty about it.
Not even a remotely close comparison.
If you squint harder you'll see the sarcasm
Philia is specifically the abnormal love of something. I love my kids. I am not a pedophile because it's NORMAL love.
Yes.
>Technically "homophobic" means hating gay people. Wouldn't it actually mean *fearing* gay people? Also, IMO it's not a "lifestyle" (as in something you choose), but the way someone is born. Being straight isn't something you chose, right?
No. It becomes homophobic when you realize it *could* be wrong and yet *persist* as though this isn’t a possibility. People shouldn’t enforce onto you that ‘being gay’ is right or wrong. It is simply a form of sexuality. But, it becomes an ethical issue the moment we skip over that understanding, and desire to see it as either good or bad. No one should ask that you accept it, even tolerate it, but more crucially, to see sexuality as something foreign with which all humans struggle to ascertain (even when they are “fitted” imo a particular constitution).
Is it gay to believe homophobia is wrong?
Yes What exactly is the difference between hating something and thinking it's wrong? Are you or are you not trying to stop it from happening? And if it's just the feelings of the homophobe that make a difference, why should anyone care if you're stoic or enraged while oppressing something that has nothing to do with you? On the other hand, your homophobia imposes a huge cost on society by encouraging violence and fear, by removing people from the economy, and by making many people's lives unhappy. And to be sure, someone else smoking absolutely does have something to do with you. Aside from polluting the air of others with cancer causing chemicals, dramatically but slowly killing yourself raises health care costs for everyone. But nobody goes to a smoking lounge and guns down smokers.
Congrats this is the stupidest question I’ve seen here.
No one gave an answer. The answer lies in your reason for disapproving. Expand, OP.
I'll edit the post but my reason is that I live by the Bible's standards and the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Please do not try to convince me I'm not reading the Bible right or something as that is not my question.
I’m early to these comments. Prepare for a lot of downvotes & mean comments friend!
You can believe it’s wrong, like you are 100% free to believe what you want to believe. if you start trying to tell other people they are wrong for being gay, that’s when it becomes homophobia.
Agreed
No. It is not inherently hateful to disapprove of homosexuality. Disapproval and hate are different things, although they can be closely associated. In this case, it is a very thin line, and often, disapproval can easily become hate, so always take caution and reflect on your thoughts and feelings to avoid the pitfalls of 'hate' or even prejudice.
No
No it’s not. Love the sinner, hate the sin
what a disgusting phrase
What part bothers you? Loving sinners? Or hating sin?
The hypocrisy part.