Inspired by the Nurture vs. Nature debate. I have always wondered, as I think most non-heterosexuals have, why do "they" hate us?
Where does it come from? Homophobes usually justify their POV as being "religious" or that homosexuality is "unnatural", yet these same people don't picket supermarkets selling genetically modified vegetables or picket the Enron executives for their greed.
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.

I don’t think that there is any one thing that can be truly labeled that cause of say homophobia, i also don’t think that it fully is a phobia unless you get the jest of it, like arachno”phobia”, or an irrational rear, etc...

Deep religious or social convictions can obviously lead to it if the religions/societies stance in against homosexuality, more or less being like how Germany supported Hitler in that time and era of the nazi. Or the myth that black slaves were less then human, a lot of it just goes to being human, human development. The society itself can place a good effect on such, like homosexuality is a big issue in most America pro sports, or within the church. Lesbians for the most part get less of the brunt the gays, so that might be a pointer to something. I don’t want to go a far and say that humans cant help but to absorb there environment for cognitive and personality traits, but it seems that way. Children go through stages of development that can be pinpointed, at certain ages become sponges of environment at a level never again reached, as for how this relates to evolutionary psychology, i have no idea but maybe as a survival mechanism, like your emotions and drives and the fact happiness probably cant be obtained while nude and starving in -20 temperatures.

So i guess the moral of the story is children are kind of helpless to the ways of society, if you want bigot children, just teach them something to hate. It will carry with them the span of their life in some form or another. As for getting rid of it, i don’t see how as long as you have cherished structures in society that preach such a thing, or in other words it would be hard to belong to it or be "normal" to go against such.

You are correct, of course. Although it should be noted that plenty of people outgrow the prejudices they were taught- My maternal grandfather, for example was quite a racist. My mother isn't, although she has had to deal with the crap she was brought up with, and raised me to respect others.
This only pushes the question back generations, and raises the question of how the idea has survived.
In the case of the stereotype of gay-bashers suffering from internalized homophobia, no I don't think that's always true- but homophobia is deeply irrational, and it does seem to be rooted in fear.

I have been working with poeple with sexual identity issues for years, and extreme homophobia is indeed a symptom of a sexual identity issue. I suspect that anyone that really perseverates on the issue really does have a problem with sexual identity. If you go out of your way to torment or attack a person simply becuase they are a homosexual- then IMO- you are latently gay.

I don't personally understand homophobia. I've often said that gay men increased the odds that the rest of us could find a date.

At one extreme, i worked with a man who maintained that his brother-in-law should be hung for being homosexual. I worked around another man who was so terrified that it could be caught, that he wouldn't drink homo-genized milk; and he actually complained to my foreman that I had tried to start the rumor that he was a Homo Sapien. He got really angry when my foreman told him that I was probably right.

At the other extreme, my favorite story from thirty years of work revolved around the day that the news carried the story of a major police bust of a ring of homosexuals who were meeting at a rest area on the highway. A dozen guys were sitting in a lunchroom trying to one up each other on what should be done about the men who had been arrested. The laws, of course, were not severe enough. A truck driver who was waiting for his truck to be loaded, or unloaded, was having a cup of coffee. He suddenly interrupted with, "Statistically, one in ten is a homosexual; and since I can count more than ten people in this room, you guys are probably stepping on someone's toes." Something about the way that he said it sunk in. I was in and out of that building for another 18 years without ever hearing the topic discussed in that lunchroom again.

"Hate" is such an extreme word.

Would you automatically categorize someone who disagreed with the homosexual lifestyle as indulging in "hate"?

I can honestly say I don't hate people for who they are.

I do, however, look upon the homosexual lifestyle as not something that I would like my children to be emulating, as I view it as wrong and sinful. It would be similar to living next to a drug user. They could be a perfectly fine, normal person, but I would not want my children exposed to their "lifestyle" choice.

Does that make me irrational? I hope not.
Does that make me fearful? I don't think so.
Does that make me wrong.....?

So you would object to living next to a homosexual for fear of.....?

Well, honestly, I don't think anyone wants to see their children emulating any kind of sexual lifestyle until they reach a certain maturity level. Once they reach that maturity level, they will make their own choices whether it be in regards to drug use or sexuality. It is not wrong to want to shelter your children while they are young, but there is a difference between sheltering them from exposure to sexual activity and sheltering them entirely. Would it bother you for your children to interact with homosexuals in any way, shape, or form? If it would, why?

Another question would be, if your mature child was willingly engaging in homosexual activity, what would your reaction be? If it would be rejection of your child, which happens frequently, than I would definitely consider you to be a homophobe. If you were uncomfortable with your child's sexuality, but still maintained your role as a supportive parent, than I would not label you in the same manner. I would still think it was unfortunate that it bothered you to such a great degree, and I would hope that eventually you would have a change of heart, but I wouldn't use a term so closely related to hatred.

Maybe homophobia comes from the fear of something different that you think is either wrong or just disturbing.

It could also come from past abuse as a child kinda like the guy who killed Mathew Shepard

Maybe I just naturally distrust easy answers, but I don't think that's it entirely. I've certainly seen a lot of homophobia that is a form of self hatred, but I don't think that's all there is to it, or even a majority of the reasoning even when it is coming from that. Why, for example, would they hate their own homosexual tendencies.
Beyond that, there are plenty of homophobes who don't seem to have any sexual identity issues. For example, my aunt has refused to speak to me since I came out as a teenager- she is very homophobic, and I am quite sure that she has absolutely no sexual identity issues herself.

I would go with it is irrational. There is no reason behind it, and the outlawing of the people, the shunning and general hatred of them is probably what has its negative effect on them at large. I don’t want to think about how many religious or other families have damaged and ostracized their children over it, how could you expect not to produce something of a counter culture, or even be the real reason behind some serial killers motives. I really think the unfounded hate or what not is the real problem, not the people in question.

I think homophobia is as silly and unfounded as outlawing people with red hair, there is nothing to back it except for the problems the phobia itself makes. The other side of it is its not American in any sense of the word, if homosexuality also meant that you were to be a chainsaw wielding madman, maybe you would have a case, but sexuality in itself does not define that.

I think most homophobia stems from a lack of understanding and being uncomfortable with sex. Even if someone is sure of their sexuality, does not necesarily mean that they are comfortable with it, and we all know how easy it is to become uncomfortable or upset when discussing/ thinking about sexual acts. Most people cant fathom certain acts without getting angry (such as rape, child sexual abuse and willing incest [and read some of the threads here on these issues to see how some people cant think logically about these acts, dismissing them merely as "gross"]), so it shouldnt be that surprising that people act out the way they do when confronted with homosexuality.

Why is it like this? I dont know, but I think the only way to eradicate it is through education. It takes forever for people to start to see people as seperate from their sexual orientation.

People fear what they do not understand. I can't say in other cultures why homophobia exists, but here I believe it is due to placing too much emphasis on the "sex" part of "homosexuality."

I was doing a radio program this weekend and after it was over we sat around talking. A woman asked why is it guys enjoy things like the Madonna/Britney Spears kiss, but are disgusted by two guys in a lip lock.

It's just a theory but men see women's bodies as soft and alluring and stimulating.
Compare that with two muscular, hairy guys swapping spit and the stimulation level sinks like a stone. Furthermore, straight men are terrified of anal penetration. Many guys can handle the idea of going to prison and doing time, but the idea of being raped is terrifying to them.

The idea of the "predatory homosexual" jumping out of trees and hiding behind bushes waiting to bugger some unwary male is a bogeyman that still doesn't go away when the lights go on. I wrote an article called, "The Permissiable Prejudice" that explained in the black community, practicing homophobia is not a sin, especially with much of the black church implicitly condoning it.

Homophobia, like racism and sexism is a dying concept, but it's not going to disappear without effort and hard work from those opposed to it.

I honestly do not care if someone is gay or not. The lifestyle is their choice. I have spent 22 years in the Armed Forces and have met and worked with all kinds of people from all over the world. I saw nothing in their actions which threatened me (except those with guns). My family has a number of gay friends who regularly show up at family functions. I have yet to hear of them "hitting" on someone who was not a part of their lifestyle. So much for homophobia.

However I have one question. The current theory is that homosexuality is caused by genetics. If it is, how do they pass it on?

Homophobia, as with most phobias, stems from ignorance. Homophobes do not understand the causes of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle. The are influenced either by the Religious Right or by the biggotry of other ppl they know. They have never had access to the proper information. If they did, they would realize homosexuality is not something to fear, or hate. Many of them have never met an openly gay person. Some of them are even gay themselves and are in denail, and compensate for it by overly hating other gays. Homophobes are simply miguided ppl who have never recieved the right information.

Thanks for contributing that blanket statement.

Do you have any sources that say that homophobes have never met any gays?
That Homophobes are lacking information?
That homophobes are potential homosexuals?

I need some sources here.

Actually the term homophobia is much overused. People have fears of heights, spiders, public speaking, etc. Few people fear homosexuals. There are people, who based on their religious code, consider homosexual acts wrong. That is fine as long as they don't try to legislate their beliefs or subject homosexuals to harassment. There are other people who have such low self-esteem that they need a group to feel superior to. They do not fear gays, they fear looking at themselves in the mirror.

The only source I can provide for that is the absolute ridiculousness of what they say about us. People who get all up in arms about homosexuals talk about wild parties and the like, not boring guys going out for a beer and to see a movie.
From here:

This test measures homophobia.

The tests say I am not homophobic...I guess that explains my aversion to gay porn...


By the way, Grendel, who are "they"?

People like this.

I'm talking about the people who obsess about how much they hate us, people who go out of their way to harass us.

Bob Hope is in hell? well at least I will have good company.

Which 'lifestyle'? What exactly is the 'homosexual lifestyle'? Please define your terms.



If your children are gay, they're going to do it whether you like it or not. Or do you prefer that they hide who they really are? I guess if you want your kids lying to you... that's your business...



Fearful, perhaps. Irrational, yes. Wrong... absolutely.

It's no different to be a homophobe than it is to be a racist. Hating someone because of the way they were born is ludicrous on the face of it, yet that's exactly what homophobes and racists do.

I think it is also the, respectfuly, straight male factor. Straight men don't like to be leered at like they were a woman (as straight men have been looking and cat calling at women for eons) Hence the "Don't Ask, Don't tell but we need you in the military" policy. Now whether it be out of insecurity or just disinterest is up to debate. I think women have an easier acceptance with another woman looking at her as the woman realizes she is being looked at for her beauty whereas a man-being a man knows the other man only wants one thing maybe two. But seriously, I think hate no matter where it is directed is formed from childhood upbringing, society, personal trial and error, and religion.

Perhaps people need to feel "morally above" others subconsciously, because it feels good to be "right" when others are "wrong".

Even if they have little understanding of the subject at hand.

Because I've noticed how amazingly people who quote Leviticius, usually have not even read the book, know anything about it's laws, or follow any of the laws given in it.

They literally have no understanding of the sources of their own arguments. Same with other quotations from Paul.



There is no choice in homosexuality.



Yes it does. You are afraid clearly of what's different.

My guess would be that you are under the mistaken impression that your child would become it if they see it and are taught it is "ok", thus depriving you of grandchildren.

False. As said by Cephus, if your kids are gay, they will be gay. If they are straight, they will be straight. If they are bisexual, then they could easily channel their lives into being exclusively straight.

Sexual orientation is something drilled into a person, and not changed by acceptance of others. Try looking at a tree and see if you can become aroused by it. You can't change your orientation.

Did it ever occur to anyone that "homophobia" does not exist? Or at least, not as presently defined?

I've been called a homophobe, but I have friends who are homosexual. Nevertheless, I disagree with their lifestyle and think it is wrong.

I also think men and women living together outside of marriage is wrong, but I'm not afraid of them, I'm not a "domestiphobe" or some such thing.

I personally love sex, but I don't think it's appropriate outside of marriage either, but I'm not a sexophobe.

I cannot STAND country music! But I'm not a country-phobe.

I think it is reprehensible for an adult to have sex with a small child, what does that make me afraid of? What kind of phobia will you allege that to be?

The essential principle is that we (speaking for all those oft-maligned "homophobes") do not see homosexual relationships as an appropriate way for people to relate to eachother -- just as it is inappropriate for an adult to relate to a child in a sexual way. It doesn't mean you're afraid of anything, it just means you disagree.

But labelling something as a "phobia" has certain political advantages. It lowers your opponent's viewpoint from being a legitimate opinion to being a product of a mental psychosis. As such, the term should not be used in honest debate as it dishonestly presumes something to be true that is not. It implies something that is intellectually dishonest.

Oh, we've all heard homophobes make that claim. The fact remains that prejudice against homosexuals is completely irrational, and based on fear. Until someone can make a defense of prejudice against gays that isn't based on irrational fear, I think we'll keep the word.
That's not how people talk about their friends.
The difference is that adults and children can not relate sexually- from the simple matter of size differences to the matter of emotional damage, to the fact that children cannot legally consent. Comparing the love of two consenting adults to the abuse of children is irrational and based in fear- hence "phobia".
Bigotry is always intellectually dishonest, no matter what you chose to call it.

Why do you automatically determine it is based upon fear? Did I not illustrate to you a whole list of things that are disagreeable to me for various reasons, none of which are fear? And how is homosexuality distinct from the items I listed?



I suppose you suggest that if someone is your friend you abdicate any right to your own opinions?



How do you make the logical leap to conclude that such a comparison is based on fear? You make alot of claims about fear being the root cause but provide no rational argument to support these bold assertions. Who is being irrational?



I see, so any opinion that differs from your own must automatically be bigotry?

Let's examine the "irrationality" of "homophobia" (ie. the opinion that homosexuality is wrong in some way). While I agree that you have a right to live your life as you choose before the law, I do not agree that everything you may do in that life is healthy or a product of healthy psychological adjustment. Let us take, for example, Saddo Masochism. While I'm not suggesting this should be illegal, I do think there's ample reason to believe this is an appetite formed as a result of a decidedly unhealthy (and abnormal) psychological state. This does not constitute fear on the part of those who acknowlege Masochism to be a product of maladjustment. Nor is it bigotry. It is merely opinion, and a reasoned one at that (although I admit that I have not attempted to produce the detailed psychological reasons for this conclusion, nevertheless it is a conclusion arrived at through reason and analysis).

So apart from religious reasons (though we're entitled to our religious beliefs in America last I checked), there are still conceivable justifications for a position opposed to the homosexual lifestyle. Justifications that have nothing to do with "fear".

BTW, although I've endeavored to explain how it is possible to hold a view opposed to the homosexual lifestyle that is not based on fear, the burden of proof is on you to support your assertion that it is based on fear.

I thought you might give us some meat, but after promising to do so ("Let's examine the "irrationality" of "homophobia"") you never delivered. Instead you keep comparing. Sado-masochism isn't homosexuality. I understand what you are trying to say. However, you haven't actually said a single reason as to why homosexuality is wrong, based on reasoning. You have not shown any proof that homosexuality is not innate. You have given no specific reasoning as to why it is a "wrong" lifestyle.

In your last paragraph, you say "I've endeavored to explain how it is possible to hold a view opposed to the homosexual lifestyle that is not based on fear," but you haven't. In fact you've talked quite a bit about all sorts of other things, but you seem to have left a reasoned look at homosexuality out of it.

I would, however agree that "homophobe" is politically used, and that not everyone who disapproves of homosexuality is merely scared of it. I mean, some just hold that position in defiance of reason and inspection.

Why is homosexuality wrong? Simple question. What's your answer?

No, I suggest that people don't make hurtful disparaging remarks about friends. I suggest that mutual respect is an essential component of friendship.
You compare a loving relationship between two adults to the abuse of children. How is that not a fearful reaction?
If I reacted to a miniature poodle as if it were a rabid rottweiler you would say I had an irrational fear of dogs.
No, the fact that I disagree with an opinion is not what makes it bigotry. The fact that an opinion treats an entire class of people as wrong is what makes it bigotry.
You say you dislike country music. I disagree with you on that, but I don't say it is a bigoted opinion. If you were to call country music fans trailer trash, that would be a bigoted opinion.

Grendal, I can't understand why you're arguing with Orat on this one. He has simply stated that disapproval need not be based on fear. I think that statement is plainly true on its face.

You could shift to a discussion on why he disappoves of homosexuality, but to argue that it must be based on fear is completely illogical.

I have friends who smoke. I "disapprove" of their smoking. But I am not in any way afraid of their smoking. Calling me a smokaphobe would be odd. And my disapproval of my friend's smoking doesn't make me a bad friend. I can disapprove while recognizing and even defending my friend's right to smoke.

I guess I'm wondering why you find his disapproval so upsetting. (I take it from your initial post that you yourself are gay.)

My friends who smoke are aware of my disapproval, and it doesn't cause them to get that worked up.

My guess is that you are lumping all those that disapprove of homosexuality together. Your initial posts asks: why do "they" hate us.

Lumping a bunch of people together based on a single shared characteristic and treating them all the same... why that's exactly what prejudice is all about.

Just because someone disapproves of homosexuality doesn't make them a foaming-at-the-mouth fear-driven maniac. I doubt very much that Orat "hates" you.

For myself, I have no issue with homosexuals, and I think that those who do, whether they are fear-driven or not, should find something better to do than express that disapproval. IMO, whether one person "approves" or "disapproves" of another person's sex life is irrelevant and I think that it is arrogant to even state that disapproval. I just wonder why you let it get to you.

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.

But I'm not extrapolating anything beyond that characteristic they share. To say that light-skinned people sunburn more easily than dark-skinned people is not prejudice, it is extrapolating from their shared characteristic. Likewise to say that those who "disapprove" of something that has no impact on their life, that has nothing to do with them at all, that will never change no matter what their opinion of it... are being irrational is not prejudice.

Maybe, just maybe, because of the rights that are denied us because of what is a fundamentally irrational view. Just maybe because when people discuss why they deny us those rights they invariably mention pedophilia and bestiality as if it had anything to do with the issue.

quarkhead wrote:

It was not my objective to convince you that homosexuality is wrong. It was merely my objective to use a similar example (the sexual appetite of masochism) to illustrate how a negative view of homosexuality is possible without fear being the cause. Essentially, my point is that it is not a phobia. I am, however, no expert in psychology so I would do you a disservice if I tried to authoritatively lay out reasons why homosexuality was misguided. And as I said, my objective is not to convince you that it is wrong, but rather that disagreement is not a phobia.

Grendel72 wrote:


See, this is one of the fundamental problems of the politically correct ideology. It asserts that "tolerance", respect, etc, is synonymous with agreement and acceptance. It is not. To disagree with someone and think they are wrong is not to disparage them. Nor does it show a lack of respect. Ever heard of someone "respectfully disagreeing"?



Sorry, but these are entirely different examples. I am not afraid of a pedophile, nor am I afraid of a homosexual. I was merely pointing out how I am opposed to both (whether they are similar or not) without being afraid of either. Am I afraid of country music? Why didn't you try to say that my comparison of country music to homosexuality was a fearful comparison? Because you know, even if you won't admit it, that I am not comparing country music to homosexuality, but rather I am comparing my dislike of it with my dislike of homosexuality.



Homosexuals are not a "class of people". They can be categorized just as any other demographic, but I think you make the mistake of integrating homosexuality with one's identity. Likewise, I don't think black, white, or <insert color> people should integrate the color of their skin with their identity.



Again, the burden of proof is on you.



Assuming that they must all "hate" you is prejudicial and bigoted. Even moreso is a statement to the effect that no "homophobe" has ever been around or knows any homosexuals personally. This is such an ignorant blanket statement that nobody stating it, or defending it, has a right to label anyone else a bigot.



Exactly what "rights" are denied to you? Marriage? Care to look up the definition of marriage? Unless you're looking in a P.C. dictionary release relatively recently, you'll find that it is defined as a union between a man and a woman. So you have just as much right to marry as anyone else, insofar as how marriage is traditionally defined. If you want to re-define marriage to suit your desires, then that's another matter.

Note that I am not trying to convince you that homosexuality is wrong. Nor am I trying to convince you that I am right in disapproving. I wouldn't have even mentioned my disapproval had it not been for the fact that you and others keep attacking a "whole class of people" (namely, those disapproving of homosexuality) by insinuating that they suffer from a psychological disorder (gotcha!).

Disapproval is not always based upon fear. Actually, it's probably very rarely based upon fear. Disapproving of one's actions does not mean I'm afraid of them, or him. Insinuating that disapproval of homosexuals is somehow a product of fear is merely a tactic for making the "homophobe" seem as though he is the one with some sort of mental problem.



I never have figured out which rights have been denied to homosexuals. As Orat has explained, marriage isn't one of those rights, as marriage is and has always been the union of two people of the opposite sex. Whatever other rights homosexuals feel that they are being denied can in this day and age be obtained by litigation.

Pedophilia and bestiality have everything to do with the issue of homosexuality. It is all considered (or was considered before the militant homosexual lobby infiltrated and/or bullied the psychological field to change their minds) to be a deviant sexual practice. I predict within the next ten to twenty years, depending upon the ability for homosexuals to mainstream their lifestyle, pedophiles, bestialists, necrophiliacs and others practicing deviant sex will push for their own recognition.

Edit:


You're right, Orat, it's plainly obvious that the stage is set and the only unknown is not whether, but when.

It would be naive to think that it is not merely a matter of time.

You see I would think that an irrational concern over how something will effect the future could qualify as a fear. Homosexuality has been around as long as recorded history and all of a sudden a future projection with no basis in a study of history or comparative developments emerges. If that is not a fear then what is it?

The "rights" of pedophiles, necrophiliacs and their ilk have not changed at any point over the last century. They have never been tolerated by society or law. Their respective status has NOT followed the progress of the homosexual movement. So what RATIONAL process of thought leads you to believe that the next decade or two will deviate widely from the entire rest of human history?

It is still not a fear. It is a belief that homosexuality is not a valid classification that deserves recognition to the same degree that other classifications, such as race or sex, deserve. There is no emotion in that belief.

The future projection to which you refer is the product of the increased political clout of homosexuals, which has not existed as long as recorded history.



The rights of homosexuals had not changed for centuries until the last several decades. They had never been tolerated by society or law, either. Once the other groups of individuals practicing deviant sex see the progress that homosexuals have made, it is only natural and rational to assume that they will follow in the path the homosexuals have blazed.

If you want to say I'm afraid that eventually all these disparate groups will be applying for special rights and recognition, then yes, I think that is not only a fear, but a well founded one. People forget that we all have the same rights -- we don't need special rights for certain groups.



Not significantly... yet.



Neither have homosexuals in most societies. That's exactly our point, however. I'm not contending that homosexuality should be illegal, but I do think it's naive to believe that it will stop with homosexuality.



This is precisely the point. The rapid (forced?) acceptance of homosexuality in wester civilization is a HUGE deviation from the normative social attitude of the past 1,000 years or so. Now that this feat of breaking with the past has been accomplished, what makes you so certain that other similar feats will not meet with similar results?

Incedentally, regarding pedophilia, ever heard of NAMBLA? They're definitely a political lobby that's pushing for wider acceptance of homosexual, pedophilic relationships. It remains to be seen how much "success" they will have. My prediction is that culturally we've moved onto the slippery slope and that these kinds of things lay ahead of us.

I have never heard of people who respectfully disagree with each other comparing each other to child molesters.
When bigots assault you, whether using the law, or their religion, or violence- because of your "group identity", I think it's pretty frikkin' idiotic to ask people to pretend there is no such thing. Until the day that I don't have to worry about prejudice in any form there most certainly is a "group identity".
What other possible reason could there be to disapprove of something than that you fear it will have bad repercussions?
BULL. I never said what you are claiming I said.
Until just last year we could be arrested for having sex in the privacy of our own homes in some states. Right now in my home state if my employer chooses to fire me because I'm gay I would have no recourse.
There's a thread already dealing with the issue of same sex marriage, but let me just briefly state my reaction to this idiotic semantic game: People marry each other because they love each other. The traditional marriage vows promise to love honor and protect- these are all things that two people of the same gender can and do do for each other. As it stands right now, my church would marry me to my boyfriend- yet the government would not recognize it. That is the government establishing religion, deciding which church marriage is valid.
So it's perfectly fine for you to "disapprove" of homosexuals and imply they are mentally ill, comparing them to pedophiles- that doesn't make you a bigot. But for me to disapprove of those who go out of their way to make my life a living hell, and imply they suffer from a psychological disorder because I have yet to hear a rational defense of their view somehow makes me a bigot? That makes no sense.
Nobody anywhere supports discrimination against homophobes, we just disapprove of their lifestyle of hate.

I seriously doubt that.



The government's not recognizing your marriage has no implications whatsoever on its position toward religion. It is basically two parallel systems. The fact that you cannot get one license does not mean that you cannot get the other.



The only reason you haven't heard a rational defense of the position against homosexuality's mainstreaming into society is because you haven't been listening. No one here is going out of their way to make your life a living hell, so far as I know, anyway. All anyone is saying is that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and ought not to be sanctioned, condoned nor given special rights.

I happen to work for a decent upstanding employer where I don't have to worry about that, but in my state sexual orientation is not covered under anti-discrimination laws.
Like I said, that's really a different discussion. I will continue to note however that the (simply goofy) semantic argument that it isn't discrimination to prevent me from marrying the person I love because I could marry a woman is just plain wrong.
I find it amusing that those claiming to "protect" the sacred institution of marriage are the ones trying to claim it has nothing to do with love. Actually, it's more sad than amusing...
I don't want special rights, I want the same rights everyone else has. If by "sanctioning" and "condoning" you mean allowing innocent people to live in peace without being harassed, I don't think that's too much to ask.

This is really getting good, from a "debate observers" viewpoint.

I'd like to quickly respond to Grendal that there are certainly causes of disapproval other than fear. Annoyance is one. My mother used to disapprove of me smacking my gum, for no other reason than it got on her nerves. Another is just plain "busibodyism" (to invent a term). My neighbors may disapprove of the color I painted my front door. I'm sure there are many more examples. None of these involve fear in any meaningful way.

You should really drop that line of argument, because it is silly.

But that said, you do have some strong points that I hope you continue to argue. particularly the point about sodomy laws as an example of people's rights being violated due to their homosexual status.

I disagree with you about marraige, but only because I believe in a separation of marraige and state. Marraige has two aspects: it has a personal (and usually religious) aspect, which the law should stay competely out of, and it has a legal aspect, as a contract between two adults. As far as the legal aspect goes, any two people (or even more) should be able to agree to any contract they choose, and hold the other party to the terms of that contract. There is no reason for the state to approve or disapprove of the particular terms of any particular marraige contract. But I realize that view is way out there, so it doesn't help much. Although it is worth pointing out that as long as government defines what is and is not a valid marraige, there will always be people unhappy with things. How much better it would be if people could just select the contract that suits them best?

Regarding your employer firing you because you are gay: I believe that your employer has a right to fire you for any reason. You do not have a right to a job. I believe that he would be foolish to do so based on your sexual preference alone, and his loss would be someone else's gain. But we can't have the government reading people's minds to determine why they chose to hire this person or fire that person. Attempts to enforce non-discriminatory employment are doomed to failure, and cause far more problems than they solve.

I don't believe that government should discriminate for or against any individual for any reason. But humans have always and will always discriminate against one another for a whole host of reasons, and we can't fix that through government. I encourage you to fight for your rights, but be careful to understand which are legitimate rights and which are not. A right to be left alone in your bedroom? Absolutely. A right to a job? No such thing.

An etymological breakdown of the word "homophobia" refers to fear, but the meaning of words changes over time, and in our culture, "homophobia" is not exclusively about fear. The word encompasses fear and also contempt for the homosexual population.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:



Miriam Webster:



Cambridge Dictionary:



We can argue semantics all day, but even if a person's contempt has nothing to do with personal fear, it can still be classified as homophobia.

No one is saying that the idea of love is being separated from the institution of marriage. What is happening, however, is an attempt to separate the idea of the union of a man and a woman, which has been the very foundation of culture as we know it. Today some want to change it to a man and a man. Tomorrow, a man and a boy, or a man and an animal. Perhaps later it will be a man and a corpse, or a man and an inanimate object.



How are you being harassed?

Culture has not had one idea as its foundation, and marriage has had many different forms throughout many different cultures. As a society, we decide what works the best within our system, and we reserve the right to change that system.



The slippery slope argument is not valid. It's a logical fallacy that seems to peek its head in the homosexuality threads quite often. The acceptance of homosexuality does not necessarily open the door for acceptance of other less acceptable acts.

You make a sound point. I still remain unconvinced that disapproval of homosexuality isn't due to fear (although that is one reason I started this thread- I honestly don't understand it, and although I will never agree with it I would like to understand where the opposition is coming from).
I actually agree with you there as well- if the government didn't recognize hetero marriages. In all honesty it just irks me that a straight couple can get married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas and it is defended as a "sacred institution".
In all honesty, I agree with you to a large extent (I just wish there were a better solution to the problem). However, when the law offers remedy for an employee being fired for their race, religion or gender- it is discriminatory to not include sexual orientation in the law.
I think it can be changed, and to a large extent the government has played a positive role in ending discrimination (I'm sure glad black folks don't have to drink from separate water fountains), however I think the biggest change is accomplished through people as individuals.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Conagher78:And there are rational reasons to oppose those without having to resort to a slippery-slope argument.
Are you kidding? Why do you think some homosexuals are in the closet? Because being openly gay is an invitation to harassment and physical violence.
Your entire claim that it isn't discriminatory to prevent same sex couples from marrying is that they could marry someone of the opposite gender. You are suggesting they marry someone they don't love.

Such a great point. I love it.



Sort of, but that's where the slippery slope argument does reasonably come into play. If blacks are "protected", then why not gays and lesbians, and then why not short people, and then people with premature balding, etc, etc, etc. Lots of folks are discriminated against for all kinds of reasons that could reasonably be called "unfair". But government simply can't fix that. Don't jump on the bandwagon with race, religion, or gender non-discrimination laws: it's not a good bandwagon. We should work for repeal of these laws, not expansion to ever more "classifications".



Just wanted to point out that the water fountain example you gave was government discrimination. I agree that the fed gov't played a large role in ending state and local gov't discrimination in the south. However, I think it is wrong to think that they had much to with the progress made in individual discrimination. That progress is much more due to people like MLK that forced people to confront their consciences. Discrimination is only truly dangerous when it is backed up by force. We can't allow individuals to use force against one another based on prejudice (KKK, lynchings, etc.). And we can't allow government to discriminate, because government is always backed up with force (Jim Crow, Japanese Internment, etc).

But "peaceful" discrimination, such as refusing to do business with someone because they are black, or firing someone because they are gay must be tolerated. That is, we can't legitimately use government force to try to end it. I believe that society tends toward more tolerance over time and that you actually disrupt that process when you try to use force (through government) to make people tolerant when they are not yet ready to be.

So I encourage you to demand your equal rights to live your life as you see fit, while respecting the equal rights of bigots to be bigotted. And don't ask for special rights, like non-discrimination. I really believe your cause has a better chance of quicker success with that emphasis.

Which cultural tradition is gay marriage drawn from? And what compelling reason is there to continue to destroy the institution of marriage by opening it up to people of the same sex?



Practical experience tells us that more permissive attitudes lead to . . . more permissive attitudes! I realize what a slippery slope argument is, but can you tell me with a straight face that the sexual revolution and accompanying attitudes have not led us to this point? If I had made an argument against the sexual revolution then, predicting what has happened now, I would be correct, logical fallacy or no.

Ah, but the law has a valid point while being poorly written IMHO. (it is also my opinion that the law was so poorly written specifically in order to protect certain forms of discrimination.)
The sensible way to simplify the law would be to have a specific list of acceptable reasons to fire an employee (all of which should be related to job performance) rather than a list of groups you can't discriminate against.
Another very good point. I would suggest, however, that ignoring "peaceful" forms of discrimination leads to the problem of people remaining ignorant by simply not being exposed to others, which is the main thing keeping prejudice around. If a private club chooses to discriminate, that is their business- although I think it is every right-thinking citizen's duty to mock them. However, housing and employment discrimination affect people where they live, as well as providing the additional "benefit" of keeping people ignorant of others.
Honestly, it's difficult to be prejudiced against someone you actually know.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Conagher78:First of all, how is it destroying the institution of marriage to allow others to marry. As for the compelling reason,aside from the simple fact that discrimination is wrong, marriage stabilizes society.

And the government provides you no remedy for this?

You know, when I was in school, I was harassed, too. I am still harassed today for various reasons. Do I qualify for special treatment?



I'm not suggesting that they marry someone they don't love. I'm not even suggesting that they not love whomever they wish. I am suggesting that the government ought not to sanction and/or condone such unions under the guise of "marriage."

You completely ignored what I said once again. I told you, I'm not comparing country music to you, I'm comparing my dislike of country music to my dislike of what you do.


You are living a utopian dream to think that day will come when prejudice will not exist.


Excuse me, but simply read this very thread. Someone said something to the effect that "homophobes" do not know any homosexuals personally. This statement was challenged, and you came to its defense.


And I am opposed to such laws, so we agree here.


Too bad. You don't have a right to be employed by your current employer. Your employer, on the other hand, has a right to dispose of his/her property as he/she sees fit. That means if they don't want to pay you to work there any more, they don't have to -- regardless of their reasons.


This is one of the more ridiculous statements I've ever heard. It has nothing to do with an establishment of religion.


Oh really? Ever heard the mantra, "we're here, we're queer, and we're IN YOUR FACE!"? Who's got the hate? BTW, I didn't know that disapproval was synonymous with hatred. Guess you learn something new every day.



Cyan:

Hmmm... reminds me of the "good ol' days" of Bolshivism when yesterday's weather could be changed by decree. This is a similar idea that language can be legitimately politically manipulated. Essentially what you're saying is that the classical standard of Latin etymology and the attendant meaning of words can be disregarded if the right political interest manages to use a term incorrectly enough times or manages to get the editor of a dictionary to cow to their pressure or interests. The idea that words can be changed in this manner is chillingly Orwellian.


I disagree. In fact, the examples given at the page you cited illustrate the absurdity of saying that the slippery slope argument is invalid. While it is not empirical and should not be used for rigorous scientific purposes, it has plenty of value in socio-political discussions. There are social and political tendencies. The "slippery slope" device is merely an illustration of how these tendencies and dynamics operate.



PrismPaul:

Hey, less government is ALWAYS a good thing.