Homophobia is so gay

[slingblade]

Can't argue with sentences this coherent.



Like I said - it's the loss of the ability to enjoy reproductive sex which is obviously the phobia in homophobia. I bet homophobia amongst virgins is much less common than amongst those who have experienced the orgasmic rapture of propper heterosexual intercourse - they wouldn't know what they stand to loose.

I am 99.9997% certain I'm correct about this, by the way, and it thoroughly explains why homophopbia persists, although, due to issues such as the OP, indeviduals rarely admit to homophobia (for fear of being judged a closet gay and because the word "phobia" is synonamous with "deluded").

IMO homosexuality should probably be illegal, like adultery. Bisexuality I'm not so sure about.

Hopefully one day everybody will realise that homophobia is rational in a gay affirming society, and is in fact a symptom of having a healthy, experienced heterosexual libido. People who aren't homophobic/heterosexist are stupid or virgins IMO.

I'm heterosexist and proud. Hooray!

Are you joking or serious?

 

[Dessi]

Like I said - it's the loss of the ability to enjoy reproductive sex which is obviously the phobia in homophobia. I bet homophobia amongst virgins is much less common than amongst those who have experienced the orgasmic rapture of propper heterosexual intercourse - they wouldn't know what they stand to loose.

I am 99.9997% certain I'm correct about this, by the way, and it thoroughly explains why homophopbia persists, although, due to issues such as the OP, indeviduals rarely admit to homophobia (for fear of being judged a closet gay and because the word "phobia" is synonamous with "deluded").

So the argument here is that people are homophobic because they believe they'll "catch" homosexuality, therefore stop enjoying reproductive sex. I'm sorry, but this belief is irrational, and if this is the justification for homophobia, then "deluded" is the correct synonym.

As near as I can tell, your explanation for homophobia is confabulation. Homophobia is easy to explain: straight people find it totally gross. Gross to look at, gross to think about, gross to participate in. [Insert hawt lesbian exclusion clause.] Many non-homophobic heterosexuals find homosexuality completely gross, but their homophobic counterparts take it a step further by generalizing their own private disgust as a rule that defines behavior for all others. Religious objections to homosexuality make the disgust feel not just justified, but intuitive -- which is one of the conveniences of worshipping gods whose personal prejudices perfectly mirror your own.

That's really the extent of it, there's not really a lot of backbone to the arguments justifying homophobia. Beyond "its gross", there's nothing left.

IMO homosexuality should probably be illegal

Most people consider the ability to form romantic relationships a fundamental right, one which shouldn't be criminalized without a damn good reason. Do you have a damn good reason to justify criminalizing homosexuality?

Hopefully one day everybody will realise that homophobia is rational in a gay affirming society, and is in fact a symptom of having a healthy, experienced heterosexual libido. People who aren't homophobic/heterosexist are stupid or virgins IMO.

Or, maybe vocally proud homophobes will be regarded as no different from vocally proud racists, and maligned as such.

 

[Arcade22]

Homophobia is a by product of religious idealism. In the ancient world it wasn't stigmatised

Wow, talk about broad strokes! Even from your links It's obvious that "homosexuality" was stigmatized to a varying degree in the "ancient world".

From Ancient Rome:

Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded a citizen even if they were technically free. Although Roman men in general seem to have preferred youths between the ages of 12 and 20 as sexual partners, freeborn male minors were strictly off-limits, and professional prostitutes and entertainers might be considerably older.

Some older men may have at times preferred the passive role. Martial describes, for example, the case of an older man who played the passive role and let a younger slave occupy the active role.[47] An adult male's desire to be penetrated was considered a sickness (morbus); the desire to penetrate a handsome youth was thought normal.[48]

From Ancient Greece:

Given the importance in Greek society of cultivating the masculinity of the adult male and the perceived feminizing effect of being the passive partner, relations between adult men of comparable social status were considered highly problematic, and usually associated with social stigma. This stigma, however, was reserved for only the passive partner in the relationship. According to contemporary opinion, Greeks who engaged in passive homosexuality past the age at which they were the passive members of pederastic relationships "made a woman" of themselves; there is ample evidence in the theater of Aristophanes that derides these passive homosexuals and gives a glimpse of the type of biting social opprobrium heaped upon them by their society.

So "homosexuality" wasn't so unequivocally accepted as you seem to imply. It depended on time, place and the circumstances.

 

[Ocelot]

Not to mention the "ancient world" stretching far further than these two classical civilisations.

 

[Marduk]

So "homosexuality" wasn't so unequivocally accepted as you seem to imply. It depended on time, place and the circumstances.

whats your basis for comparison there
in the UK, up until 1974 you could be arrested and imprisoned for being homosexual, that'll scare them straight eh,

which ancient culture did that ?

 

[Marduk]

Are you joking or serious?

he's a homophobe, can't you tell
I guess he's being vocal about it (again) because he didn't read the OP carefully

 

[slingblade]

he's a homophobe, can't you tell
I guess he's being vocal about it (again) because he didn't read the OP carefully

Sometimes I just can't tell when someone's being sarcastic or ironic.

I appreciate your help here in extending my ignore list.

 

[Vortigern99]

Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know Americans have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because, as you know, a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
--------------------------------------------------------

This is so priceless it merits being quoted on each new page of this thread.

I have a subset of #1:

1a. Being gay is not natural. All the non-human animals that have been filmed and observed engaging in homosexual activity are unnatural and must be destroyed.

 

[Matthew Best]

I agree it was very good and I was going to compliment Poison Oak on his excellent post. Then I discovered it was a copy and paste.

 

[slingblade]

This shows why attribution is so important. You might get nom'd for a TLA you don't deserve. And other stuff.

 

[Skepticemea]

This shows why attribution is so important. You might get nom'd for a TLA you don't deserve. And other stuff.

 

[pgwenthold]

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

This one made me laugh.

 

[Darat]

whats your basis for comparison there
in the UK, up until 1974 you could be arrested and imprisoned for being homosexual, that'll scare them straight eh,

which ancient culture did that ?

That was 1967, for acts in private.

 

[Darat]

This shows why attribution is so important. You might get nom'd for a TLA you don't deserve. And other stuff.

 

[Darat]

This bloke's story has been discussed on the Forum before but the BBC site is running a story on it today so I thought I'd throw it in: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17703018

 

[Baloney]

1a. Being gay is not natural. All the non-human animals that have been filmed and observed engaging in homosexual activity are unnatural and must be destroyed.

Porn?

 

[Marduk]

That was 1967, for acts in private.

my bad, thats right, also it was 1980 in Scotland and iirc 1982 in N Ireland

 

[Arcade22]

Not to mention the "ancient world" stretching far further than these two classical civilisations.

Yeah i was going to mention that. I remember reading that some (if not most?) of the Germanic tribes had the death penalty for people who had homosexual sex, although i don't know the extent of that. Another example is of the Chinese Emperor Gaozu who had a "intimate male companion" as wikipedia politely puts it. There was apparently nothing controversial about this.

So to say that "In the ancient world it wasn't stigmatised" is just wrong. Whether having homosexual sex was either acceptable, stigmatized or outright illegal depended on where you were and at what time, just like now.

whats your basis for comparison there
in the UK, up until 1974 you could be arrested and imprisoned for being homosexual, that'll scare them straight eh

What the hell are you on about? You said that "In the ancient world it wasn't stigmatised" even-though, according to your own links even, many types of homosexual sex WAS considered bad or even worse. Do you deny this?

which ancient culture did that ?

They usually didn't have prisons in "ancient cultures". Punishments for crimes were usually a mix of the death penalty, corporal punishment, shunning, exile and compensation. Making someone a slave also happened in some societies.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Not all cultures regarded sexuality as a trait possessed by a person. Some considered it as behavior prompted by personal tastes. Ancient Romans wouldn't have said "Julius Caesar is a bisexual", they'd say "Julius Caesar beds both men and women". Our modern culture is the opposite--we regard sexuality as a permanent trait, an attribute of the person, and then consider their behavior as being driven by it. Then we consider people as being "in denial" if their behavior doesn't match what we think their sexuality is.

 

[Marduk]

So to say that "In the ancient world it wasn't stigmatised" is just wrong. Whether having homosexual sex was either acceptable, stigmatized or outright illegal depended on where you were and at what time, just like now..

so you don't know much about the ancient world do you

What the hell are you on about? You said that "In the ancient world it wasn't stigmatised" even-though, according to your own links even, many types of homosexual sex WAS considered bad or even worse. Do you deny this?.

no, in fact you cherry picked sentences to support your point and ignored the fact that everything you didn't pick doesn't support your position,

Given the importance in Greek society of cultivating the masculinity of the adult male and the perceived feminizing effect of being the passive partner, relations between adult men of comparable social status were considered highly problematic, and usually associated with social stigma. This stigma, however, was reserved for only the passive partner in the relationship. According to contemporary opinion, Greeks who engaged in passive homosexuality past the age at which they were the passive members of pederastic relationships "made a woman" of themselves; there is ample evidence in the theater of Aristophanes that derides these passive homosexuals and gives a glimpse of the type of biting social opprobrium heaped upon them by their society.

Law codes in the ancient Near East – including those of Urukagina (2375 B.C.), Ur-Nammu (2100 B.C.), Eshnunna (1750 B.C.), and Hammurabi (1726 B.C.) – virtually ignore homosexual acts

The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role.

In Greece and Rome it was considered unmasculine to be the bottom, you have somehow misread that as "all homosexuality was perceived as wrong"
so its clear that you have an obvious bias, tell me why are you so determined to believe that homosexuality has always been wrong ?

They usually didn't have prisons in "ancient cultures". Punishments for crimes were usually a mix of the death penalty, corporal punishment, shunning, exile and compensation. Making someone a slave also happened in some societies.

there you go again, making it up as you go along
lets me have a play at your game

There was widespread use of prisons in the ancient world

http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/history-of-prisons-51759106
see, got it totally wrong again didn't you, your claim is also straw, perhaps as you're trying to claim that people were likely to be punished for being homosexual in the ancient world you'll be able to show me an example of ancient world law that states its a crime