You're missing the point. Gay marriage may not have been a tradition in the past, but your idea of one man, one woman is not an exclusive tradition either. Each culture and time period decides what values it will hold, and in our society, there is a significant group of people who believe that homosexuality and homosexual participation in marriage is not destructive.



The sexual revolution has led us to a point of honesty. It has not invented these attitudes. It has merely created a climate where people can actually voice them.

I have a straight face when I say that homosexuality will not lead to beastiality, pedophilia, or necrophilia. There is a huge difference between interacting sexually with a being that you can intellectually connect with who can consent and the other behaviors that you described.

The slippery slope argument in this particular case is merely a gross-out tactic. Why not deal with the subject of homosexuality on its own merits and flaws? I challenge you to describe the problems that homosexuality has caused in the past and is causing right now. Is there truly a logical basis for disagreeing with homosexuality?

You actually think it's practical for government to 1) establish the allowable reasons to fire someone and 2) monitor all companies for compliance? I hire and fire people. I can tell you that it is almost never as cut and dried as one might hope. When we have a business downturn, I consider lots of things in terms of who to let go, and many are very hard to put measurables on, like how they fit into the chemistry of the rest of the team, for example. If my judgement leads me to fire a black person, the laws you suggest could bring holy terror down on me. I just don't see any practical way to make these kinds of laws work.



Remember that housing and employment transactions benefit both participants in the deal. If a landlord is foolish enough to turn away tenants due solely to prejudice, his competitors will benefit and he will lose out. Same with the employer. If either of these people are forced by government to do business with people they don't like (for whatever foolish reason), they will resist the whole way. Their resentment will reinforce their prejudice. And they will have their abilities to address legitimate problems with "protected" tenants or employees undermined, which will only serve to fuel their prejudice further. If, by contrast, they chose to hire or rent to someone they "don't like" because they see it is in their own self interest, there is a much better chance that this association will lead to real heart-level change in how they view that class of people.

One more reason to avoid any "special rights" areas, IMO: If you continue to lobby for "special rights" (based on class), then you give those predudiced against you a valid reason to fight you. If you focus on your equal rights, and respect their rights to be bigots, they got nuthin'.

When MLK said he dreamed of a day when all men are judged not by the color of their skin but the content of their character, it was very hard for anyone to avoid seeing the plain superiority of that vision.

If he had instead run around saying "I have a dream that one day the federal government will make it hard as hell to fire black people", he would have had a very different impact.

So if and when enough people decide, say, mass murder of toddlers is something that should be practiced, the culture should just accept it? I'd hate to tie my own personal sense of right and wrong to the same culture that brought us Britney Spears, Tom Green and The Backstreet Boys.



Wrong. It has made a large number in this culture esteem sexual relations as something to do "because it feels good, baby."



The homosexual activists in this country have striven to push their ideas in from left field. It has nothing to do with consent or caring or anything else. It has only to do with the growing idea that whatever weird, bizarre, strange or odd behavior I'm engaged in must be tolerated and accepted by you or you are a bigot.



If you want the answer to that question, I invite you to start a new thread.

Hmm... So Geraldo can marry and divorce 5 times and that's somehow NOT destroying this so-called institution?

And who hired you to protect this so-called "institution"?

How about this slippery slope:

(1) Gays join in civil unions.
(2) Gays adopt and raise kids.
(3) Those kids turn out to be normal and non-discriminatory members of society.

Oh, my GOD!!! Run!!!!

Oh, right: only "bad scary things" happen on the slippery slope. Happens all the time, right? In fact, you just heard about someone somewhere who had something bad happen to them walking on that slippery slope AND IT WAS THE SLOPE'S FAULT!!

Back to reality: the sexual revolution opened a lot of doors and a lot of eyes. Having better sex these days isn't such a bad thing for most of us.

Sex between same-sex people has been here a long time and that's not why 50% of all married couples now get divorced. That's not where pedophiles come from. That's not why some people want to have sex with animals. Those are all myths propagated through ignorance and religious intolerants. You have NO evidence to the contrary. If you do, please post links to it, because we here certainly want to see it.

Using an extremely offensive example to do so.
Then don't expect me to act as if it doesn't.
I said the sheer idiocy of the claims they make about us indicate they don't know any actual homosexuals.
Interestingly enough, people are not property in this country.
The government is deciding which church's marriages are valid, how is that not the government interfering with religious freedom?
It's "get used to it", by the way. And gee, I guess you're right, that's just soooo much more hateful than calling people "faggot" and "dyke" and beating them...
There is no hatred in saying "I'm not going away", The chant isn't "Die, breeder scum!"

I agree that this debases the institution of marriage as well.

I'll leave the rest of your post to stand on it's own.

Very well.

I don't disagree with what happens between two adults with the requisite mental capacity to consent that have consented to what they are doing.

I disagree with the proposition that homosexuality should be accepted as "normal" in society.

I disagree with the proposition that a union between two people of the same sex does and should have the same validity as a union between a male and a female.

I disagree with the proposition that the above attitudes are based in fear, and they make me a "homophobe."

So far you have only stated your conclusion that it does. How does the government interfere with your religious freedom by not granting you a civil marriage license? The state you live in has not prohibited you from being married in the eyes of your church; they just have not condoned it, which, one might argue, they cannot under the Establishment Clause.

Hmm... Gays make up 11% of the total population, according to latest worldwide surveys. How many more does it take to make it "normal"? Jews make up 1% of the world's population, by the way, and I'm pretty sure you consider them "normal". At least I hope so.

A contract between two people -- and a civil marriage is indeed just a contract between two people and the state -- should be between any two people and have all the same rights and responsibilities as any contract would have.

I'm sure from reading your posting that you don't deny that it's possible for two people of the same sex to fall in love and care for each other and commit to each other.

Would you want to deny one of them the ability to visit the other in the hospital?

Would you want to deny one of them the ability to inherit from the other in the event of intestate death?

Would you want to deny one of them the ability to make medical decisions for the other in the event of a debilitating illness?

Would you want to deny one of them the ability to receive medical benefits if offered from the other person's employer? Remember: they're partners in their lives and are willing to make a legal commitment to that partnership.

But, you're right: homophobia is about fearing the 11% of the population that is homosexual, and not too many people these days are "afraid" of gays. I'd like to coin a new phrase here.

Homoantagonistic: the desire to treat homosexuals as lesser human beings because they desire same-sex partners.

Grendel72:

No, but the money they pay you as a wage for your employ most certainly IS.


Are you really that uninformed about how it works?! The State couldn't care less what church marries you. When I filled out my license, they didn't give a flying crap. It has nothing to do with a recognition of religion whatsoever. And don't say it's different state-to-state, because we're from the same state.


Nobody's arguing in favor of violence here. But it IS "in you're face", I've heard it said first-hand (in quite hostile tones no less). Oh, and "dyke" is a term used by lesbians all the time. There's even a TV show I saw the other day called something like "Dyke TV". Or is that another one of those words like "nigger" where one group can use if freely but other groups are bigots if they use it?

Mass murder of toddlers has a negative impact on society, and it provides no benefit to offset that impact. If this were to change in the future (and I can't imagine a scenario in which it would), than yes the mores of society would change and we'd be throwing babies to the pit.

What you need to ask yourself is what the negative and positive impacts of homosexual relationships are.



Why else would you have sex? I think you confuse sexual freedom with sexual stupidity. Obviously, promiscuity without proper precaution is negative, but a person can be sexually free without being promiscuous.



I hardly think that homosexual activists are walking around saying that their "weird'', "bizarre", "strange" behavior should be accepted. They are trying to fight against the attitude that homosexuality is somehow strange or degenerate. They are trying to show that homosexual relationships are based on the same ideals as heterosexual relationships.



This thread is an appropriate place to discuss this. The questions for debate read:

QUOTE(grendel)

Where does homophobia come from?

QUOTE(grendel)

I have always wondered, as I think most non-heterosexuals have, why do "they" hate us?

QUOTE(grendel)

There has to be some reason they focus on this one issue with such intensity, and I really don't get it. I guess I'm asking from the standpoint of evolutionary psychology how this idea survives, and where it came from.

So tell us? Why do people hate homosexuals? What negative impact does homosexuality have on society?

Sorry, but this is equally invalid. Just because someone disapproves of or dislikes a certain lifestyle doesn't mean they desire to treat them as lesser human beings. You people are constantly trying to paint others with a very negative, broad and, if I may use the term in the "liberal" sense (ie. disagreement), "intolerant" brush. If you have chosen to be homosexual, you must find something undesirable about the heterosexual lifestyle, so why not paint yourselves as heterophobes, or heteroantagonists? Oh, because it doesn't accurately describe your feelings and views? Gee whiz.



Cyan:

A (very distrubed and twisted) argument could be made that it would have a positive impact on society. In fact, I've heard such arguments from your ideological brotheren: "every child should be a wanted child".

"Gay" is a behavioral choice. Being of the Jewish race is not. And yes, Jews are normal.

Are you sure you want culture to define right and wrong? There was a time, not very long ago, when the culture found it perfectly fine to own other human beings. Did that make it right?



So, not recognizing someone's personal preference as being normal and legitimate somehow causes me to view them as "lesser human beings?" I don't understand why people listen to hip-hop, as I don't consider it good music. I still view them as people. Why is it so hard for people like you to grasp the idea that an opinion is an opinion; it doesn't mean I hate anyone or do not respect anyone. Why must you find it necessary to come up with some perjorative label?

Sure it does. Less mouths to feed. Perhaps we could feed them to the poor.

This is the problem with allowing morality to change with the times. I'm sad to think that it's so easy to change wrong to right.



Fostering the building and enhancement of a loving relationship. Why am I not surprised this isn't understood by many people any more?



What exactly are they doing seeking to get married?!?!?!?



I couldn't tell you. Find someone who does and ask them.

AMF



i was just checking out this number and came across a couple things:

Chron watch report on gay population


and just to prove that the article existed in 1993: USA Today's archives (costs money to read entire article)

If someone has an official link to the census, showing sexual alignment, please link to it, i am interested on the actual numbers.

not to rain on anyones parade,



Quane

I was looking for that just a second ago, but couldn't find it.

I think the ten percent number comes from the Kinsey study in 1970. That study has been pretty much totally discredited, so far as I'm aware.

Marriage is a religious institution that the government shouldn't be involved in in the first place, since they are, however, it is simple religious discrimination to only accept the definition of marriages put forth by right-wing congregations.
The most common version of the chant is "get used to it". Note that this MSNBC headline plays on the most common version of the chant. (just for the record, I happen to think chants like that are dumb no matter what side they are on).
It is a hurtful word, the use of it is an attempt to steal it's power. Personally, I tend to not use those terms.
Allow me to note, also, that my use of the term "breeder" in that example was as a phrase I think would be mean spirited and hateful to use. I don't use that term at all, normally. I know enough hetero couples who are trying desperately to have children that I would never use that term as an insult.

::::::::::::::::::::::
Conagher78:You already answered that one:

::::::::::::::::::::::
Orat:I find nothing undesirable about the heterosexual lifestyle, I just happen to be attracted to men. I see straight couples all the time and comment that they make a cute couple.

Wait, I thought marriage was a civil contract of some sort. I guess you and amf need to get it straightened out (no pun intended).



That's cute, taking my words out of context like that.

So marriage is only about sex?

I didn't say it was about sex, I said it is about fostering the building and enhancement of a loving relationship. A commitment to the person you love, and a declaration of that love before God.

Grendel -

Speaking as a straight female I am going to throw this out and hope for some kind of understanding from the homosexuals as well as heteros among us here. To be totally honest with you, I don't know where homophobia comes from but I can try to guess based on my own interactions.

straight males seem to have the biggest problem with gay males. I don't know if it's hate or fear. In my travels and conversations, I found that some males seem to be most threatened by gay males. I'm certainly not saying that all males feel that way, for I don't KNOW all males. I've also known straight guys who don't care one way or the other. Some think for the most part that the act of male homosexual sex is a "submissive" act and not "manly." Men, by nature's design, are basically the dominant partners in hetero sex. I think that sexual submissiveness on their part is seen as "threatening" to their sense of manhood.

This has just been my experience.

The males falling into the threatened category may have thought at one time that homosexuality was "catching," that if exposed to this group of people that they too could be "recruited." They couldn't accept that a man would be attracted to a man in a sexual way. It went against EVERYTHING their bodies told them. But somehow it was perfectly ok for girls to like girls because well, we are the "more attractive" of the species. I have had males tell me point blank that men bodies are just plain gross.

Perhaps now that the possiblity of being "recruited" or "catching" it gives way to the knowledge that people are just either born hetero or homosexual and that sexual preference really cannot be forced onto anyone...maybe things will start to change. We all probably would benefit from giving each other the chance to catch up. Knowledge is power. It's enlightening as well.

i dunno if this helped

The quote you misappropriated from me was in regards to the act of sex and it's ideal meaning. I'll thank you to not take my quotes out of their correct context in the future.

Marriage, in my opinion, is the way in which we bind a man and a woman into a lifelong relationship.

Can you provide some constructive detail about what information assisted you in developing these beliefs? Along with the "what", I'm looking for a "why."



Probably, but how many people will adopt this twisted argument? The strength of numbers makes a difference in defining cultural mores. Additionally, the value normally does not conflict with other societal values.



Less mouths to feed, but also less labor to produce goods. The scenario can't operate in a vacuum. There are so many different societal factors that have to be considered. That's what I'm trying to get you to examine with the issue of homosexuality, but instead, I'm receiving some pretty absurd scenarios that have little to do with the topic.



Culture does define right and wrong. It's not a question of wanting. I look back on a lot of historical practices, and I find them appalling from my own cultural perspective, but the people who were doing the practicing had rationalized their actions as being for the good of their society. At some point, those tables turned, and the practices were abandoned.



Fostering the building and enhancement of a loving relationship does feel good, and it is often a part of a sexual relationship. Nothing has changed about that since the sexual revolution except perhaps to further open the lines of communication.



You must have missed the sarcasm in my post. They aren't seeking acceptance for their "strange" behavior. It's not strange to them, and if you read the rest of my statement I said:



Edited to fix a spelling error.

Apologies, no offense was intended. I just found it odd that you used a description that is essentially what I think marriage is all about.
I agree with you entirely, aside from the gender specific nature. I feel that love is the essential ingredient, not the genders of the participants.

Wow. This is quite the hot thread. I was saddened to see some of you resort to belittling tactics like "how could you be so ignorant" style lines, but for the most part, you all have remained civil and I thank you for that.

If I may, I'd like to steer this debate back to the original issue by asking a few questions to those of you who have a disdain (I won't call it fear) for homosexuals. I really am interested in understanding about the roots and causes of this disdain/distaste/annoyance.

First and most importantly - just as the title (sortof) asks, where does this homodisdain come from? What part of your worldview does it threaten? Why is this even an issue to you?

I really want to understand the answers to these questions. To me, the only reason I have to have an opinion on homosexual rights is because there are people out there who have thought that it would be worthy to try and deny them. I really just don't get it. It seems like it should be a non-issue to me.

On spellcheck & preview, I see Cyan has touched upon these same questions. Any answers you may have would be greatly appreciated.

I think the whole issue of homosexuality as either a choice or the way you are born is central to this debate.

If you see homosexuality as a choice, it is easier to fall into the line of reasoning that it is an "unnatural" or bad choice. If you believe homosexuality is inborn, you are more likely to be sympathetic.

If homosexuality is a choice, it has to be an incredibly unconscious choice - I've never heard of a single gay person describe their "choice." No one woke up one day and decided to be gay.

While I would agree that a person might disapprove of homosexuality and not be a homophobe, what I'm seeing on this thread is an awful lot of rationalizing. Some of you are starting from a conclusion, and rationalizing like crazy about it. This is evidenced by the fact that most people are very vague on specifics about homosexuality - why exactly it is wrong - and long on comparisons, statistics, slippery slopes, et cetera.

I think that in order to have credibility on this issue, and to show that there is more to peoples' "dislike" of homosexuality than, in fact, homophobia (or its ilk), people ought to get very clear.

If homosexuality is wrong, why is it wrong?

If your answer is, "because it is unnatural," why is it unnatural?

Why should gays not allowed to be married?

How would gay marriage destroy the institution of marriage?

So far, I have seen nothing but evasions about these questions. Can you really base your entire ideology on platitudes? "It will destroy the institution of marriage," and the rest.

If the slippery slope is applicable, perhaps we could blame this on freeing the slaves, or on the founding fathers, who started us down this road of so-called "personal freedom." The truth is, people are picking an arbitrary point at which the slippery slope begins. Heck, didn't it really start as soon as Eve bit the apple?

I guess what amazes me the most, is people who feel SO strongly about this, and yet provide no specific or concrete reasoning, no evidence, to back up their positions.

If "gay" is just a behavioral choice, can't the same be said of heterosexuality? If not, can you show me the scientific links that say being gay is strictly a choice and not a biological response of some kind? I've seen a lot of studies that suggest it is a genetic or biological difference between them and heterosexuals.

I've also see varying studies that show gays to be anywhere from 3% to 10% of the population. If that's the case, you're going to have to start discriminating against me, again, as well. My portion of the population is also between 4% and 10% of the general population, and is primarily caused by genetic differences. I'm left handed.

Not that we weren't discriminated against in the past (and to some extent, even today). At one time in history, "lefties" too were discriminated against in schooling, marriage, and job opportunities. It wasn't until the mid 20th century, in fact, that most of us weren't looked upon as "evil" by a lot of people. In fact, the latin word for "left handed" is "sinister". Even 30 years ago, it was almost common practice to try to change our "behavioral ifestyle choice" by trying our left hands behind us, or hitting us, or medicating us, to attempt to get us to become "normal".

Let's go back and look at amf's questions now, with a change based on my genetic difference, shall we?

"I'm sure from reading your posting that you don't deny that it's possible for two people that are left handed to fall in love and care for each other and commit to each other."

"Would you want to deny a "lefty" the ability to visit the other in the hospital?"

"Would you want to deny a lefty the ability to inherit from the other in the event of intestate death?"

"Would you want to deny a lefty the ability to make medical decisions for the other in the event of a debilitating illness?"

"Would you want to deny a lefty the ability to receive medical benefits if offered from the other person's employer? Remember: they're partners in their lives and are willing to make a legal commitment to that partnership."

Sounds stupid, doesn't it? But most of it happened to us "left handers" in the not so distant past, as well.

So, if this is a genetic thing, and not a "behavioral choice", why all the prejudice against gays, and not us lefties anymore?

This thread, unless I'm mistaken, seems to be targeted primarily towards homosexual males. I would like hear what the males here have to say about homosexual females.

One thing about the "in your face" stance some in the gay community (not here at AD) have taken. It's a turn off. there is nothing like militancy to shut off communications. But then I'm turned off by ANY group that employs the in my face tactic.

Grendel72:

So then you would have no problem whatsoever kissing or having sex with a female?



Cyan:

Are you actually suggesting that we let morals be determined by majority-rule? That is tantamount to "might makes right".



Jaime:

It is not even disdain. "Disdain for homosexuals" implies a dislike for the people themselves. It does not distinguish between the person comitting an act and the act itself. This is one of the fundamental misunderstandings/fallacies.



quarkhead:

I am naturally attracted to women, some whom it would be unfaithful for me to have relations, and some whom it would be illegal to have relations. So by choice I do not. Urge does not make right. There is still a choice whether to act on an urge. Primal urges cannot be used as a defense of behavior. If it was a valid defense, then murder would be equally defensible by the same logic.

What if it were illegal for you to have relations with any woman? Would your charge be so easy then?

What is sin for one is not necessarily sin for another (the words of Paul upon whose writings traditional Christianity's bans on homosexuality are based). Maybe it's wrong for you to have sex with a man, but not for someone who was born attracted to men and not to women.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't live by Leviticus (are you wearing any clothes spun from two different types of fabric?)

What frustrates me the most about Christians (or those who adhere to those traditional values) who try to force their own beliefs on others is that, while their hearts are almost always in the right place, they've missed the big picture. What is the greatest commandment? And the second greatest? If you can't answer those questions, you've been paying too much attention to the rest of the Bible and not to the words of the man for whom your faith is named.

The point of my post: homophobia comes from ancient religious laws which for some reason have not yet been accepted as dated.

People hold on to these views not out of reason but out of tradition. "It just ain't natural!" is the heart of most arguments and there is little else to argue for. All in all, there are much more important issues we could be investing our time into (as a nation), but these traditions die hard.

I don't find the idea of having sex with a woman appealing at all- however, I don't go around telling straight people that I disapprove of their "lifestyle" choice. If straight folks had to face prejudice based on their sexuality I would be opposed to it, and I certainly wouldn't try to pretend that they brought it on themselves with their "deviant" "lifestyle".
I've been a best man at a heterosexual wedding, would you offer as much support for your gay "friends"?
Really, you mean exactly like how I don't cheat on my boyfriend. What exactly is the difference?

You employ a twisted sort of logic here, friend.

Once again you resort to inapt comparisons. Don't you think that the main issue with what you're saying is that of infringement or damages? Someone may not follow their urge to kill or assault someone based on the fact that following that urge directly abrogates someone else's right to follow their non-harmful urges.

You may think you are making a point based on principle - and that you are not actually comparing killing someone to being gay, but really, you are. Because the principle is not the same. Unless, of course, you can show me how practicing homosexuality harms the person with whom you practice it.



"Hate the sin, not the sinner" is fine, but what if there is no sin? Apparently there isn't since even after repeated and pointed questions you haven't come up with anything resembling answers. Instead, you continue to debate by arguing semantics, making comparisons, and issuing decrees. You are employing false logic, wrapped in the trappings of erudition. Your credibility is dropping like a stone with each additional evasion. They really are simple questions...

Why do you "disdain" the act?

If homosexuality is wrong, why is it wrong?

If your answer is, "because it is unnatural," why is it unnatural?

Why should gays not allowed to be married?

How would gay marriage destroy the institution of marriage?

I'm suggesting that each person develops his/her own individual morals based on deductive reasoning, personal experience, upbringing, etc., but societal values are determined by a cost/benefit ratio, and the people within the society define what the positive and negative impact of certain values are to their society. That doesn't mean that I, as an individual, necessarily hold all of those values to be "right", but it does explain how the beliefs come about on a societal scale.

In the past, homosexuality has been looked down upon by societies that were bound together by religion and by a need to propagate the species. With the increase in technology, propagating the species is no longer a problem, and religion does not have as dominant a role, thus homosexuality is naturally becoming a more acceptable practice, yet there are those who still have a problem with homosexuality. The question is: why?

I can accept that some people still have religious beliefs that condemn homosexuality. People are entitled to their religious beliefs, but in a society in which religion is separate from government, religious beliefs alone should not influence policy. Heterosexuals and homosexuals should be treated equally under the law, meaning that homosexuals should be entitled to participate in the government's marriage contract for as long as heterosexuals are able to.

Beyond the legal issue, I would like to understand why people personally feel that homosexuality is wrong, and I have not seen much explanation of that. If it's religion, say so. If you there are other reasons, I want to hear them, but just saying that it's wrong doesn't further my understanding.

Okay! Since everyone's asking...

As a former homophobe (and yes, I think that term accurately described me), I can give 4 REAL reasons why some men disdain (and I think that too is an accurate term) homosexuals.

I'd like to say in advance though, that while I can speak from background, I do not have any problem with homosexuals, as I think my earlier posts make clear.

I am not defending these, just pointing out that they are real and exist. None of them are rational in my view.

Here we go:

1. The "Yuck" factor. At a visceral level, many men have the same reaction to 2 guys kiss as some might have to watching live surgery. It is just plain and simply a gross-out. From an early age, I recall this reaction. The thought of...well...other things that homosexual males do has a similar affect. This is heavily reinforced by peer humur in formative years. It is the root of sayings like "<> my <>" and so on... If you recall Eddie Murphy's "Raw" his routine about playing tennis with a gay guy was all about this.

2. The "God" factor. There are many who are taught from a young age that homosexuality is a sin, plain and simple. So there are many out there that look at any gay relationship as a sinful one and probably always will. It is as arbitarary, irrational, and unfortunate as many other elements of many religions. But what are you gonna do?

3. The "Tradition" factor. There are many who are very uncomfortable with anything unconventional, especially in flyover country. I grew up in a small Michigan farming town where guys played football, drank beer, and talked about which girls they'd like to... get to know better. Picture lots of plaid flannel, blue jeans, and pickup trucks. Such boys grow up to be men that are suspicious of anything different.

4. The "what if" factor. I heard once that most people are not "hetero" or "homo" like a light switch, but rather most are somewhere on a scale, like a dimmer switch. That is, everyone has some latent curiosity about sex with someone of the same sex, however small. I don't think you can overestimate the impact of that little spark of curiosity, that some men feel, to throw them into psychic fits, at least subconsciously. In short, I think that some of the most vehement anti-homosexuals are acting out against their biggest fear: that they might have just a little of that going on themselves...

Now really, I think I'm about has heterosexual as they come. (Does anyone else notice that it's almost impossible to avoid double entendres in this thread). But I've definately experienced that momentary fear. Remember George on Seinfeld: "It moved!". I really think the "what if" factor is big, and explains some of the most vehement anti-gays. My guess is that their dimmer switch is turned much closer to the middle than they would ever admit, if you catch my drift...

Notice that #1 and #4 do no apply to lesbians, which helps explain why they may have an easier go of it.

Grendel72:

FEAR!


Neither do I to homosexual people. The only reason I'm involved in this thread now is because I take issue with the way in which you use the term "homophobe".


What are you trying to imply? Are you trying to insult me, sir?


You are taking my comments out of context and intentionally avoiding the point I was making. My point was not any disparity with regard to fidelity, but rather to illustrate that not all urges are justifications in themselves.




quarkhead:

I wasn't saying there's a 1:1 correlation between those examples. The point, once again, was not to say that there's a moral equivelance of murder to homosexuality. It was to say that not every urge is a justification in itself, as your comment seemed to indicate. Desire is not sufficient ground to say something is "normal" or acceptable.


Simple questions with extremely long, drawn out, complex, and most importantly, off-topic answers. I've already stated that my intention is not to convince you that homosexuality is wrong, but rather to convince you that a disapproval of homosexuality is not based on fear and therefore the use of the term "homophobe" is inappropriate.

Were I to answer your "simple questions", I could provide you with answers based on religion. Now that religion itself I could justify through reason and logic (yes, believe it). So, the religion having been justified by logic, then gains credibility as a source for one's standards. I am not, however, inclined to embark upon a debate as to the veracity of my religious views. These forums are not for religious debates and I have no interest in breaking these rules. So for the last time, please be content with my statement that I do not wish to pursuade you away from homosexuality (or acceptance of it), but only to pursuade you to lose the illogical term "homophobe".

No please don't retort that my religious beliefs are irrational out of hand. This is not the place for religious debate and it would be unfair for you to determine my beliefs to be unfounded without affording me an opportunity to state my case.

So there you have it.

If you go back to my post a few posts back, you will see that factors #1 (yuck) and #2 (God) don't have much to do with fear at all. Factors #3 (tradition) and #4 (what if) are definately fear related.

So, I'd have to agree that disapproval of homosexuals is not necessarily fear driven, and hence the word "homophobe" is a strange way to describe all those who disapprove of homosexuality.

Seems as if Orat fits in the #2 category more so that anything else. Big deal.

Is this all the huffing and puffing in the thread amounts to? Gee whiz.

<---I know, it's a weak post, but it got me over the CENTURY MARK!

Come on, now. Do you like garlic-flavored ice cream? Are you afraid of it? There really is a difference between fear, dislike, and disinterest. Your hasty response to an expression of selective sexual disinterest only lends credence to the theory that fear and selective sexual disinterest are linked in your mind. Might not that be true of other (so-called, if you must) homophobes as well?

I'm guessing from your post, Platypus, that you didn't read the whole thread.

The point you make that:



Is exactly what Orat has been arguing this whole time.

No, actually, I did slog through the whole thing. I was particularly amused by the attempt to defend the slippery-slope fallacy. What I'm saying is that all of his efforts to disengage fear from anti-homosexual sentiment are undermined by the rapidity with which he associated sexual disinterest and fear as soon as it was someone else's disinterest being discussed. If I had been loudly proclaiming that there's no relationship between dogs and fleas, and then started scratching as soon as a dog appeared, my proclamations might seem almost as insincere.

I don't disagree with that point either, all I've been saying is that I honestly don't get it and to me "disapproval" of homosexuals seems irrationally fearful.
As I said, I don't have any interest in hetero sex- but I don't obsess on it the way the anti-gay crowd seem to obsess on gay sex. I started this thread, and have posted to it quite a bit, because it is an issue that effects me personally. I honestly don't understand the obsession coming from those who "disapprove".

good grief this topic is relentless!

Grendal-

do you believe that you were born a homosexual, as I assume you do, therfore cannot change your sexual preference?

That being the case and knowing it to be true, science has just recently caught up with you. The rest of society has to as well.

It's really neither fear nor hatred as much as it is acceptance. Aceptance of the FACT that some people are born homosexual just as some people are born with cleft paletes, or left handed or with blue eyes in a brown eyed family or any number of anomalies. the reason I choose the word anomaly when speaking about being born homosexal is that it ISN't the norm.

heterosexuality is the norm. Had homosexuality been the norn, procreation would be non-existant.

It is neither wrong or sinfull. Homosexuality just is. period. society just has to catch up with the fact that it ISN'T a lifestyle choice but biologically pre-determined based on genetics.

I am sure there is no way you can become a hetero just as heteros cannot become homosexual.

It's called facetiousness, Platypus. I was using his own argument against him to illustrate its absurdity. But surely you knew that, right?

No, you were using a strawman argument against me.
I never claimed that all heterosexuals are homophobic, that would be a ridiculous argument to make.

To clarify my question (Which PrismPaul has already provided some interesting thoughts on, though I'm not sure I agree with him entirely) and sidestep this silly semantic game: Why do people who have no personal stake in the issue of homosexuality get so worked up over it?

That's not what I'm arguing either. My facetious remark was directed at your statements along the lines that any aversion someone might have to a particular thing is unquestionably the result of fear. You have an aversion to having sex with a female, so by your own logic that aversion is a result of some fear lurking beneath the surface. There's no strawman here, only your own argument staring back at you.

Hmmm... let's look at my actual words:"Disapproval is always based on fear- for most of us those fears are well founded, as in your smoking example. You disapprove of smoking presumably because of the documented health risks, When we disapprove of something it is because we fear it will lead to disaster."
Surely you will acknowledge that not wanting to do something is a far cry from "disapproving" of it. In fact, while it's not for me I still heartily approve of hetero sex. Any straight folks out there involved in a sexual relationship, good for you!
The strawman is first in equating disinterest with aversion, the with equating aversion with disapproval.

Not to throw fuel on this fire, but why is the point So_Caliente making imporatant?

Whether homosexuality is a born-in condition or a lifestyle choice is irrelevant to me. You are free to excersize your freedom in either case.

I've heard much debate about whether this was biologically predetermined or choice.

It seems like a weird thing to even argue about. What if tomorrow science utterly disproved the biological argument beyond the shadow of a doubt? Would that in any way impact the equal rights of gays to practice whatever lifestyle choices they choose? I don't think so, but I'm curious if others feel differently.

Grendal: You indicated that you don't agree with me entirely on the 4 factors I posted in answer to the actual question being debated here: the yuck, god, tradition, and "what if" factors. I'd be curious to hear more specific feedback if you are willing to share.

Actually, it really isn't, IMHO. In fact, while I think there may be a genetic/biological component at work I find it hard to believe that it could be solely genetic. I think the tendency to look for a genetic cause for homosexuality lies in our disinclination to see sexuality as the complicated thing it is.
OK. As I noted in the OP, the thing that I really don't get is the intensity with which people who have no personal stake in the issue focus on it.
1. Yuck: I see this reaction all the time, and for the most part it's just joking around. Here's the thing, and this gets back to the intensity issue: I don't tend to spend a lot of time thinking about things that gross me out. I know I said earlier that I don't often buy into the idea of "self loathing" going on with anti-gay people, but in the case of the "YUCK!" reaction it often seems like the lady doth protest too much...
2. God: I can really only speak for religious beliefs I know first hand here. The focus on Levitican prohibitions seems like justification after the fact- "God says it's OK to hate on fags." I have a hard time taking anyone who eats shellfish and wears mixed fibers seriously when they quote Leviticus at me.
3. Tradition: I find it hard to comprehend taking anything more than a casual indifference from tradition. I would say that this is the biggest point you raised that gives me pause.
4. "What if": I can buy this one, although I don't think it's all that common.

For all of your points (except 2) I can see where you're coming from, but I just don't see how those factors alone could elicit the reactions I've seen. It takes motivation to be actively opposed to something, even to the extent of playing silly semantic games on a message board, motivation I don't see coming from the reasons you suggest.
BTW, I would like to thank you for your thoughtful responses in this thread.

Homosexuality is a variation of human sexual orientation that is as old as the human race. It is not anomalous; it is different.

I am a Catholic. I know there are some Protestants who will maintain that I am not a Christian and/or I am headed for hell even though I believe in and have accepted the same God and his Son that they do. They are not going to change their minds about me. It would be a waste of my time trying to convince them.

It is the same with homosexuality. There are heterosexuals who, no matter what, will not accept gays, lesbians and bisexuals regardless of what they do. While it may be helpful to help spread awareness that gays aren't all a bunch of histrionic, promiscuous attention seekers, it probably will not change a lot of minds.

It is only the gay community that can decide how important it is to try to educate and inform the professed heterosexual community.

The roots of homophobia were established back in the times when gays were used as tinder to light the fires of heretics and accused witches. Countless generations of parents have told their children not to exhibit non-conforming behavior for fear of being labeled and persecuted. The Bible was used as much as a tool for seizing land from accused heretics/witches/gays as it was to prescribe right behavior. It was all too easy to accuse someone--after torture anyone would admit to anything. Fortunes and lands were forfeit.

What I am trying to say is that it wasn't always for moral reasons that people were singled out because of their lifestyle. Sometimes it was awfully darned convenient.
In our so-called enlightened times, it behooves us to educate ourselves before we pontificate on what constitutes aberrancy and what constitutes normalcy.

Here's why it's important:

Because if it's entirely genetic and not a "lifestyle choice", then those who are antagonistic to -- and/or those who don't believe in fundamental equality for -- homosexuals and homosexuality will no longer have their favorite arguments: that it might be transmittable to someone else, like a child. Then the Boy Scouts wouldn't be able to come up with a valid reason for not having gay leaders, people wouldn't have a reason that a gay couple couldn't adopt kids, etc.

If it's genetic, then it might really be GOD'S WILL that homosexuality exists, and that's just too horrible of a thought for them to consider.

But, what if it isn't simply genetic? There's obviously a component of homosexuality that is choice. My husband was reading some of the writings of Plato. The subject of love came up between the philosophers as the what the true nature of love was. They were not speaking of love between a man and woman, but love between men. It was a completely accepted paradigm of the time that men were for generally for pleasure just like women. This indicates (at least to me) that sexuality is, to a certain extent, a choice. I've also known (and dated) men who were simply homosexual. I believe the truth is something between the two. Homosexuality could be either a choice or inherent depending on the individual.

Regarding the 'yuck' factor previously stated....I believe it's usually genuine and not 'protesteth too much'. I believe the 'yuck' factor is the result of subliminal messages everywhere, exactly the same types of messages that constantly bombard us with conceptions of what is beautiful (pulchritude of Christmases past meant obesity...isn't that a 'yuck' image today?) create our conceptions of what is acceptable with our sexuality.