What is so wrong with homosexuals? I mean really?

[Minkoff]

Most of our modern ethics come down to 'it just is' in the end. Why is it wrong to steal/kill/beat/decieve someone? Because you shouldn't hurt people. Why not?

That isn't really true. Morality in its most basic form boils down to, basically, that doing something that hurts someone else is bad (a huge oversimplification, but bear with me here). The logical/evolutionary incentive for that general rule is that it's like a contract with others: protection for protection. In the end, everybody wins. Essentially, homophobia is just xenophobia, which also makes evolutionary sense. Fearing things that are different means approaching unfamiliar things with caution, which is good for survival. It really has very little to do with morality.

 

[djzalzer]

I guess a lot of people just see thing differently-I view homosexuality just like pedophilia-perversion. Somehow, though, I doubt that homosexuals on the 'receiving' end dislike the circumstances. Maybe I am wrong.

Everyone in this discussion has had very valid and interesting points (except me). Which is a good thing.

 

[Volrath]

I guess a lot of people just see thing differently-I view homosexuality just like pedophilia-perversion. Somehow, though, I doubt that homosexuals on the 'receiving' end dislike the circumstances. Maybe I am wrong.

I've heard this comparison before, and it's really insulting. The obvious difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is that pedophilia (when acted upon, at least) does terrible damage to children. It's like Minkoff said, you have to think about if people get hurt. Homosexuality involves two consenting adults. I have yet to hear anyone convince me that it does real harm. All I hear is wildly abstract fearmongering ("Humanity will go extinct!" "The foundation of marriage [whatever THAT means] will crumble!") or quotes from the Bible. If Christians want to use the Bible to govern their own actions, that's fine. To imply that those who don't believe in everything it says should be held to the same standards is fairly ludicrous.

 

[Zabby]

I also feel the need to point out that love and companionship can be wonderful things. If you feel that with a member of the same sex, why should you be stopped? You could live a completely chaste, celibate (sp?) life with someone as a homosexual. It isn't always about the sex, although I think that is what a lot of people think about when they say "Ew! Perverted!". Any of the sex acts performed between two members of the same sex can and are often done by heterosexuals, as well.

 

[Prexus]

For the record, homosexuality has nothing to do with love and companionship.

Homosexuality is entirely about the sex.
It's a sexual attraction and desire for another person of the same sex.

Anyone can find love and companionship in anyone. Homosexual or not, I'm sure many of us here have a friend of the same gender who we have a very strong bond with. It may not be the 'true love' we commonly find in sexual spouses, but that, I think, comes from the social bias mindset we, for the most part, all share.

 

[MisterSaturn]

I was reading the an old post from this topic the other day. I forgot who posted that site that said mainly its something that happened in your past that makes a person homosexual, like being touched by a relative or something. I dont see how that makes sense at all. Lets say for example, Jim is friends with Bill. Both of them are straight guys. Then one day Jims uncle sexually abuses him. Now all of a sudden Jim is attracted to Bill. That makes no sense at all, andbody see what im saying?

 

[djzalzer]

That actually disgusted me. Looking back not even Lunar said anything so immature and un-thought out.

Ohh, snap. :-/ Explain, please, why is that immature and badly thought out?

 

[djzalzer]

Because, where are the similarities between homosexuals and paedophiles? For an analogy to work you need some strong links, and someone who forcibly abuses young children is different to two consenting individuals doing something in private away from the world which cause no harm.

If a pedophile is thinking about doing things to children, I think that is still wrong, even if they never commit the acts and cause harm to anyone. Maybe I am afraid of what I don't know. . .

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

I shall whip out a widely used scripture. Corinthians 6:9. Saying the New Covenant covers that, is, I believe, like saying Christians needn't tithe.

I don't see how anyone could see them as some sort of perversion for something they do when I am miles away.

There are murders many miles away from you every day. :/

You are right however, that many homosexuals are more ethical than a lot of heterosexuals, and that they should be treated like human beings and equally to the rest of us-after all, who hasn't sinned? Treating homosexuals unequally would be hypocritical. However, I think that it should be acceptable for, say, a pastor not to hire somebody to work as a church secretary if they are homosexual and that violates his religion.

"Judge lest ye be judged"

Very apropos.

 

[Minkoff]

If a pedophile is thinking about doing things to children, I think that is still wrong, even if they never commit the acts and cause harm to anyone. Maybe I am afraid of what I don't know. . .

AGH, that is completely ridiculous. People can not control their desires and the thoughts in their heads. It simply is not possible. If someone is born a certain way that causes them to have the desire to do something immoral, then doesn't it take more moral strength to simply not act upon it?

 

[Volrath]

However, I think that it should be acceptable for, say, a pastor not to hire somebody to work as a church secretary if they are homosexual and that violates his religion.

Any gay person who applies for a job at that kind of church must be a sucker for punishment. That aside, the subtext of your comments disturbs me. What are you exactly saying here? That a limited amount of prejudice towards homosexuals is okay because...well...you don't approve of it?

Quote:
"Judge lest ye be judged"
Very apropos.

Let's clairfy the issue. Nobody is saying you can't hold a certain opinion. The problem arises when people who are anti-gay actively work to deny gay people rights. To say they can't get married, they can't adopt kids, they can't use straight bathrooms. (That's a joke...for now). Personal beliefs are fine, but trying to influence policy that impacts the lives of those who don't agree with said beliefs is indefensible.

I've noticed you haven't been able to come up with any harm caused by homosexuality, despite that point being referenced several times.

 

[Lene]

Going back to what's so wrong with homosexuals...something I was thinking about.

When words like fag, or gay are used so freely and in a way to degrade someone by Americans (I am not sure about the rest of the word here), then is it any wonder that people do consider it wrong. It's the whole gypsy "gypped" thing all over again. The association of homosexuality with something bad, uncool, or stupid, is probably doing a lot more damage behind the scenes than religion, or the government.

The kicker is that it's accepted in the sense that other words (the most immediate example for me are racial slurs) are not. So what's wrong.

Anyways, I do think that things have come a long way from the time that people were diagnosing homosexuality as a mental disease.

 

[Erk]

They have, but people equating homosexuality with things like pedophilia is still not as far a cry from diagnosis it as a disease as the world really needs :p

Homosexuality is entirely about the sex.
It's a sexual attraction and desire for another person of the same sex.

I disagree strongly. It is about attraction and desire for a person of the same sex, but that doesn't mean it is entirely sexual. I'm at least 90% heterosexual; even if my wang (hehehe "wang") was cut off and I could never have sex again, I would not want a male life companion. I just wouldn't be able to love a man in the same way I can love a woman, and it is not an "entirely" sexual matter. It is a matter of attraction, yes, and therefore not separable from the sexual aspects of the attraction, but sex is just one part of it. I don't want to say a small part, but certainly not the only part, and I don't even think the largest part.

I think equating homosexuality entirely with sex actually blinds people to the facts of the matter. Yes, sex is a part of it, but by thinking only about the physical end, homophobes can easily ignore the stickier (morally, not literally) homosexual love.

 

[Minkoff]

When words like fag, or gay are used so freely and in a way to degrade someone by Americans (I am not sure about the rest of the word here), then is it any wonder that people do consider it wrong. It's the whole gypsy "gypped" thing all over again. The association of homosexuality with something bad, uncool, or stupid, is probably doing a lot more damage behind the scenes than religion, or the government.

I don't think you have nearly enough faith in people. You may or may not be surprised at how much people use words like gay and fag around here (you're something of an east coaster too, right?)... it should suffice to say that it's a fucking LOT. It's actually pretty ridiculous. But you know what? Around here, homosexuality is not only accepted, but it's extremely taboo to even suggest that you have a problem with it. Actually, the widespread use is probably beneficial as a whole at this point. Think about it: the more people use the words wrong, the less impact they have. Hell, when someone refers to someone as a faggot the default meaning, at least for me, is a straight faggot, not a homosexual.

 

[Prexus]

They have, but people equating homosexuality with things like pedophilia is still not as far a cry from diagnosis it as a disease as the world really needs :p


I disagree strongly. It is about attraction and desire for a person of the same sex, but that doesn't mean it is entirely sexual. I'm at least 90% heterosexual; even if my wang (hehehe "wang") was cut off and I could never have sex again, I would not want a male life companion. I just wouldn't be able to love a man in the same way I can love a woman, and it is not an "entirely" sexual matter. It is a matter of attraction, yes, and therefore not separable from the sexual aspects of the attraction, but sex is just one part of it. I don't want to say a small part, but certainly not the only part, and I don't even think the largest part.

I think equating homosexuality entirely with sex actually blinds people to the facts of the matter. Yes, sex is a part of it, but by thinking only about the physical end, homophobes can easily ignore the stickier (morally, not literally) homosexual love.

You did notice the link to several dictionary definitions right?

Whether or not your belief of Homosexuality is different. This is the definition that any official would use in a debate.

 

[Zabby]

Prexus: Dictionary definitions aside, when we talk about homosexuality or heterosexuality, we do not always *mean* the sex. In the English language there are few if any terms for love that separate the genders, so homosexual/heterosexual is all-encompassing in that sense (maybe if we spoke in latin, we would have better words to talk about brotherly love, or sexual love, or romantic love as separate items). I suppose I am just repeating erk now, though...

When I think about who I want in life, I don't mean who I want to spend the rest of my life fucking, although that comes into it a bit.
I only mentioned love and companionship to illustrate that perhaps homosexuality isn't so "wrong" or "perverted" to people when you take out the "nasty sex" bits. (Holy quotation mark abuse, Batman)

 

[Lene]

I don't think you have nearly enough faith in people. You may or may not be surprised at how much people use words like gay and fag around here (you're something of an east coaster too, right?)... it should suffice to say that it's a fucking LOT. It's actually pretty ridiculous. But you know what?

Around here, homosexuality is not only accepted, but it's extremely taboo to even suggest that you have a problem with it. Actually, the widespread use is probably beneficial as a whole at this point. Think about it: the more people use the words wrong, the less impact they have.

The word isn't being treated as wrong, it's being treated as a colloquialism. It's like saying "I got gypped." Seemingly innocent, but your associating an entire group of people with being ripped off.

You may not think of it as damaging because its effect is so subtle, but it's
When a kid goes, "That's so gay!" they're associating anyone who identify themselves as gay as bad, stupid and lame.

Here's an article I found...apparently it's being used in the UK as well.

Concern over school 'gay' insults.

Also a good blog entry about the issue:
http://www.ninepearls.com/article/60/gay-as-an-insult

It might seem like trying to be overly PC, but in this case, I think people who tolerate the use of the word in that way, are being homophobic even if they don't realize it. JMO.

 

[Minkoff]

You may not think of it as damaging because its effect is so subtle, but it's
When a kid goes, "That's so gay!" they're associating anyone who identify themselves as gay as bad, stupid and lame.

No, they aren't. Are you associating being born out of wedlock with being an asshole when you call someone a bastard? Do you have a serious problem with people saying bastard? Because seriously, that would be completely ridiculous.

http://www.ninepearls.com/article/60/gay-as-an-insult

I understand what the author is trying to say. I also understand that the author is trying to prove their possibly valid point with very broken logic. The circumstances are completely different and, no, I don't think I would really care if people referred to having herpes as being Alexed. At all. Because I would know it had nothing to do with me specifically.

Actually, I have a real life example. By most people I'd be considered a Jew (despite my religious beliefs being atheistic). I have certain stereotypically Jewish tendencies, look Jewish, have a Jewish family, etc. A fairly common phrase is to be "Jewed" out of something, I guess cheated would be a simple way of describing it. It isn't incredibly easy to describe. And you know what? I don't give a shit. I've actually used the phrase myself because as a concept it is not incredibly easy to find the proper words for. I don't think it would be very rational to get upset over it. If someone says it, I know they don't mean me. That is a rational response.

On the other hand, it's good to be careful about your audience anyway. I wouldn't say "Jewed" at a temple because I'm sure someone not used to the phrase might be offended. I wouldn't say it on TV either. I also wouldn't call something "gay" in a group of PC 50-somethings. The thing is, the people I've grown up with are totally accepting of homosexuality and use the word gay in a way that has nothing to do with its intended meaning. It's a descriptive word with no direct synonym.

It might seem like trying to be overly PC,

Yup.

but in this case, I think people who tolerate the use of the word in that way, are being homophobic even if they don't realize it. JMO.

That is completely ridiculous and borderline ad hominem. JMO.

 

[Roman Candle]

After the whole of my old school last year became aware of my 'deviant' sexuality, people kind of stopped using the word gay as an insult. That, I have to say boosted my faith in humanity a little. But oh wait, a few months later, everything is gay. That party that sucked - that was gay. This homework - it's so gay. Oh my god, Man U lost last night - that's so fucking gay. It did piss me off, because it didn't happen by accident, and it is offencive. The only thing was, I felt I couldn't say anything about it because either someone would turn around and say "Gay things are bad", or it'd just be some general idiot who would just say that I was being overly PC. So I never said anything, but that didn't mean it didn't really piss me off. I consider it a real step back.

Edit:

No, they aren't. Are you associating being born out of wedlock with being an asshole when you call someone a bastard? Do you have a serious problem with people saying bastard? Because seriously, that would be completely ridiculous

No. The original meaning of bastard is almost archaic. People might find out later what it means, as a miscillanious point of interest. Gay means homosexual, right now, and it is actually relevent in modern society, (being born out of wedlock really isn't). Now we can look back and say "Ha, how wierd that they thought bastard was an insult," But at this very moment, people are beaten up, ostracised or just looked down on for being gay. Some people really do think that everything gay is everything bad. And every time you use gay as an insult, you are validating that view for them. It's as simple as that. Unless you are specifically being ironic, in what sense is it acceptable? It's not like bastard, the original meaning of which is essentially gone: Gay is used as an insult because of it's other contemporary meaning.

Actually, I have a real life example. By most people I'd be considered a Jew (despite my religious beliefs being atheistic). I have certain stereotypically Jewish tendencies, look Jewish, have a Jewish family, etc. A fairly common phrase is to be "Jewed" out of something, I guess cheated would be a simple way of describing it. It isn't incredibly easy to describe. And you know what? I don't give a shit. I've actually used the phrase myself because as a concept it is not incredibly easy to find the proper words for. I don't think it would be very rational to get upset over it. If someone says it, I know they don't mean me. That is a rational response.

Because you are jewish, it's ironic. ie you obviously don't think that Jews are totally stingy. Your friends, and anyone around you - whenever they say 'Jewed', it's clearly not because they think Jews are bad. That whole idea is a bit outdated anyway. But when any random person, who's doesn't know/has never met someone who is actually gay, who's thoughts on the subject are ambigous, goes around calling things gay, it doesn't work in the same way.

 

[Roman Candle]

I am British, and I do have gay sex, and I can tell you that as well as being playful in that way (being ironic), it's also a lovely way for people who don't want direct confrontation with someone but are homophobic to make a nasty little point by calling everything gay. Regardless, calling something gay, when one of your gay friends is around, in a lighthearted way, is entirely different from when they are not.

 

[Lene]

In Britain, gay is freely used to refer to homosexuals in a "nice" way, although usually if you know the individual. Its still used as an offensive term, but I know people who prefer gay over homosexual.


(They stole our word)

Gay as homosexual is an accepted way to identify yourself. So that's my problem with people using the word to mean stupid.

I agree with everything that Roman Candle said. He said it very well.