Logical Homophobia

[Norstal]

Then debate, or are you a coward?

Oh, good. Because it's not a logical or rational debate without accusations of cowardice.

Whine moar.

Seriously, if you have nothing to say then stop whining. I'm frankly tired of this crap. "Ooooh I can't debate for shit so I'll blame it on the overwhelming number of people who disagree with my radical views!"

[Risottia]

In this thread, I would like for people that are anti-gay to provide rational arguments that homosexuality is bad, evil, harmful, or whatever other negative connotations they associate with it.

..."Uhh, well, some holes are made for going IN, and some others are made for going OUT"... (well, they said something like that in In&Out)
Really. I think that was the most logical argument against homosexuality I've ever heard. I let you imagine how logical the other ones were.

[Norstal]

In this thread, I would like for people that are anti-gay to provide rational arguments that homosexuality is bad, evil, harmful, or whatever other negative connotations they associate with it.

..."Uhh, well, some holes are made for going IN, and some others are made for going OUT"... (well, they said something like that in In&Out)
Really. I think that was the most logical argument against homosexuality I've ever heard. I let you imagine how logical the other ones were.

Damn, oral sex must be a paradox for them then.

[Zavea]

i lost track of what the actual focus of the argument was in this thread about 5 pages ago.

[Unhealthy2]

As such, demonstrate here your reasoning and how you expect it to stand the test of time regardless of the tides.

Homosexuality does not do inherently do any harm, and acceptance of it allows for more happiness and less suffering. That's really all we need to know.

[Risottia]

..."Uhh, well, some holes are made for going IN, and some others are made for going OUT"... (well, they said something like that in In&Out)
Really. I think that was the most logical argument against homosexuality I've ever heard. I let you imagine how logical the other ones were.

Damn, oral sex must be a paradox for them then.

...as long as you don't spit...

[Natty Narwhal]

Oh, good. Because it's not a logical or rational debate without accusations of cowardice.

Whine moar.

Seriously, if you have nothing to say then stop whining. I'm frankly tired of this crap. "Ooooh I can't debate for shit so I'll blame it on the overwhelming number of people who disagree with my radical views!"

Settle down there, Norstal.

[Nuvalia]

This all in entirely illogical and i'm shocked and offended at the lack of ethics, scope, and brain capacities the poster possess. Far to often people generalize about something they know very little about and only see the surface. People like the poster who even attempt to continue to foster a dieing ideology should be effectively exiled from society and made to live with the animals; which they too posses a sense of ethics far more developed than the poster. Sir I implore you to conduct independent research or else feel freely to kindly shut the fuck up.

[Lexembourg]

practice is the other factor, humans who have more practice at sex (even non-reproductive) preform better and have more offspring, this is the reason for homosexuality in males.

Wow, this really is a fascinating insight. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I get is that I'm gay because my parents were both players?

Seriously though, how can more sex possibly make people gay? I'm so confused by this line of thinking.

The gays are stealin' all the wimminz!

Don't believe me? Then why do all straight women always complain that the only decent guys are gay guys?

Because it's true.
LOL jk
Anyone else think we've come off the topic though? As a frequent subject of homophobic bulling, I would say that there is no logical reason for it, other than a fear and mistrust of that which is different. I feel as though society lumps all LGBT people together and applies the usual stereotypes to us, seemingly unwilling to accept that each of us is an individual and totally unique. Society's somewhat myopic view of LGBTs fails to recognise that all straight people are individuals too; no two people are the same, and to ostracise, belittle or marginalise one group of people because they are "different from the rest" is just lunacy. There is no "rest". We are all different: G-d loves wondrous variety.

All phobias are irrational. Even though I know they cannot harm me (apart from those big venomous ones which eat birds, which thankfully I am unlikely to come into contact with), I am petrified of spiders. I see one and am struck dumb with terror. There is no rational or logical reason for my fear. But that does not stop me being afraid of them.

[Snot Sniper]

i lost track of what the actual focus of the argument was in this thread about 5 pages ago.

Unhealthy2 basically requested arguments in favor of homophobia, and so far only two posters have attempted such arguments (Central Slavia and Moon Cows). They each took different approaches, and either ran out of time or gave up (not sure which).

In short, there isn't a focus to the argument. At least not yet.

[Snot Sniper]

practice is the other factor, humans who have more practice at sex (even non-reproductive) preform better and have more offspring, this is the reason for homosexuality in males.

Wow, this really is a fascinating insight. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I get is that I'm gay because my parents were both players?

Seriously though, how can more sex possibly make people gay? I'm so confused by this line of thinking.

I think it was more "gays get more sex, which makes them attractive to women also and this gives them a breeding advantage". Not sure.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to gynophobic gays or androphobic lesbians. Who certainly exist.

[Lexembourg]

Wow, this really is a fascinating insight. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I get is that I'm gay because my parents were both players?

Seriously though, how can more sex possibly make people gay? I'm so confused by this line of thinking.

I think it was more "gays get more sex, which makes them attractive to women also and this gives them a breeding advantage". Not sure.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to gynophobic gays or androphobic lesbians. Who certainly exist.

I see... I find it hard to reconcile myself with the idea of me having a breeding advantage over straight men. The fact that I don't sleep with women seems to fly in the face of such a concept.

Also, don't you think that's a pretty shocking generalisation, that gay men get more sex? I can guarantee that for this homosexual, it certainly is not true.

[New Kilballyowen]

Whine moar.

Seriously, if you have nothing to say then stop whining. I'm frankly tired of this crap. "Ooooh I can't debate for shit so I'll blame it on the overwhelming number of people who disagree with my radical views!"

Settle down there, Norstal.

Indeed. I was not aware that I'd said any of that crap that Norstal was whining about, while telling others (presumably me) to stop whining. Not once did I bemoan overwhelming numbers, nor express an opinion on the subject matter. All I did was express my opinion that accusations of cowardice seem ill-suited for logical debate.

[Snot Sniper]

Fear and dislike of the opposite sex is no more acceptable than homophobia, btw.

It's perhaps a bit more understandable. In the same way that I'd be sympathetic to a homophobe who had been (homosexually) molested as a child, I allow for a similar and much more likely explanation for dislike of a whole gender. Because (1) child sexual abuse is predominantly heterosexual (men on girls) and (2) gender is and will remain for years a huge distinction that the child sees between different adults, and if there is only one significant example of an adult of that gender in the child's life, and that person abuses the child (sexually or otherwise), then the idea that the whole gender is bad can be inculcated at an early age and persist for a long time.

The cause of homophobia cannot be just child sexual abuse. It is far too prevalent for that. Fewer boys are sexually molested than girls, and if that was the only cause of homophobia it would be expected to impact girls even more (mostly in the form of androphobia because most molesters are male). I see a lot more homophobia than androphobia. Furthermore, other forms of child abuse are more common and more persistent than child sexual abuse and without the sexual element there is no reason for the enduring dislike to adhere to sexuality instead of gender. The boy who was emotionally abused or beaten by a man has a reason to fear and distrust men, not homosexuals.

But there is a variety of homophobia, particularly irrational and personal, which does make me consider that the sufferer of it is bearing a scar from childhood. It's still not rational of course and I'd wish for the sufferer to overcome it, if only for their own happiness, but it is common enough to look out for and treat differently from imitative homophobia, or learned homophobia like the religious variety.

Homophobia following from sexual abuse (particularly in childhood) deserves therapy. Homophobia which is imitative is something which can be fixed by a strong argument without any special skills in psychology.

[Snot Sniper]

I think it was more "gays get more sex, which makes them attractive to women also and this gives them a breeding advantage". Not sure.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to gynophobic gays or androphobic lesbians. Who certainly exist.

I see... I find it hard to reconcile myself with the idea of me having a breeding advantage over straight men. The fact that I don't sleep with women seems to fly in the face of such a concept.

Also, don't you think that's a pretty shocking generalisation, that gay men get more sex? I can guarantee that for this homosexual, it certainly is not true.

I agree. That was what Sociobiology said and I was paraphrasing rather than making the argument myself. I may have misrepresented it.

Though it would explain somewhat the common phenomenon of predominantly straight young people going with their own gender in their teens. They're practicing. Of course, an equally persuasive explanation is that they're horny as hell and any sex is better than no sex.

[-St George]

And this gives you the right to fear/have an aversion to homosexuals, simply because your religion tells you to? Your religion tells you not to be one, not to declare yourself to be against homosexuality. And, as St. George(The NS poster) has declared, it is a grey area as to if your religion(assuming Christianity) actually states this.

It is not a grey area at all. Look it up, as I don't care to do it for you. No anti-Democrat pun intended.

When you consider the fact that Leviticus is irrelevant, and has been since the 3rd Century, Corinthians and Timothy are mistranslations and Romans is out of context, it very much is a grey area.

[Aeronos]

Though it would explain somewhat the common phenomenon of predominantly straight young people going with their own gender in their teens. They're practicing. Of course, an equally persuasive explanation is that they're horny as hell and any sex is better than no sex.

I'm sure bicuriousness is quite prevalent in the teen years. Obviously most end up heterosexual, some end up homosexual, and some (like myself) end up enjoying it and remaining bisexual. But I would add weight to the homophilia hypothesis, as it's awfully easy to get with the other sex as a bisexual. I'm only average in looks but apparently being a young redhaired bisexual makes one utterly irresistable to males of my age group.
Unfortunately for them I'm not a slut (well, not anymore, I was fairly experimental until I hit 16), and I'm now settled down with a loving boyfriend (<3), but prior to that it was all too easy to get male attention. Two of my straight female friends would occasionally make out with me if the guys they loved was near in hope of attracting attention... and it usually worked for them! <.<

In short, your former argument would seem stronger than the latter in my eyes.

And regarding "logical homophobia", lol. I'll say one thing, and that's, if a god did not want us to engage in homosexual activities, why did he give me a clitoris? And why did he put the prostate gland 2 inches into the male rectum? And thus, why did he make homosexuals/bisexuals, with the above conditions, in the first place, only to banish them to eternal torment for acting on instincts in a way that doesn't affect anyone? Even if homosexuality was wrong, given this, I'd say such a god is a greater threat to our species than homosexuality

[Siorafrica]

i lost track of what the actual focus of the argument was in this thread about 5 pages ago.

That's actually pretty good for NSG. Drinks all round.

[Desperate Measures]

This all in entirely illogical and i'm shocked and offended at the lack of ethics, scope, and brain capacities the poster possess. Far to often people generalize about something they know very little about and only see the surface. People like the poster who even attempt to continue to foster a dieing ideology should be effectively exiled from society and made to live with the animals; which they too posses a sense of ethics far more developed than the poster. Sir I implore you to conduct independent research or else feel freely to kindly shut the fuck up.

What?

[Snot Sniper]

Though it would explain somewhat the common phenomenon of predominantly straight young people going with their own gender in their teens. They're practicing. Of course, an equally persuasive explanation is that they're horny as hell and any sex is better than no sex.

I'm sure bicuriousness is quite prevalent in the teen years. Obviously most end up heterosexual, some end up homosexual, and some (like myself) end up enjoying it and remaining bisexual. But I would add weight to the homophilia hypothesis, as it's awfully easy to get with the other sex as a bisexual. I'm only average in looks but apparently being a young redhaired bisexual makes one utterly irresistable to males of my age group.
Unfortunately for them I'm not a slut (well, not anymore, I was fairly experimental until I hit 16), and I'm now settled down with a loving boyfriend (<3),

I'm following your testament just fine ... but "a loving boyfriend under 3" sent my eyebrows into orbit before I realized that's a smiley.

but prior to that it was all too easy to get male attention. Two of my straight female friends would occasionally make out with me if the guys they loved was near in hope of attracting attention... and it usually worked for them! <.<

In short, your former argument would seem stronger than the latter in my eyes.

Well OK. The latter was kind of a joke, though I think in some social environments (peer groups) there is a lot of competition to get sexual experience which might over-ride sexual attraction. Like, they go with people they aren't really attracted to, for "practice" or to prove that they're game.

And regarding "logical homophobia", lol. I'll say one thing, and that's, if a god did not want us to engage in homosexual activities, why did he give me a clitoris?

To tempt you. So you have free will! So you have choice.

Or was that the Devil? I was told that stuff when I was very young, and I could never really tell the difference. A bully versus a cheat, I'd rather not take a side.

[Bottle]

And regarding "logical homophobia", lol. I'll say one thing, and that's, if a god did not want us to engage in homosexual activities, why did he give me a clitoris? And why did he put the prostate gland 2 inches into the male rectum?

My hetero male partner is confused by the implication that he cannot play with a clitoris or prostate.

Your point is taken, but do remember that STRAIGHT PEOPLE fuck around with clits and assholes too.

[Risottia]

if a god did not want us to engage in homosexual activities, why did he give me a clitoris?

Non-sequitur.
The explanation would be extremely heterosexual and explicit. So I'll leave it for you to figure out on your own.

[Aeronos]

if a god did not want us to engage in homosexual activities, why did he give me a clitoris?

Non-sequitur.
The explanation would be extremely heterosexual and explicit. So I'll leave it for you to figure out on your own.

It's not a non-sequitur. It provides a very efficient means for homosexuals to have pleasure. A god who didn't want this would've perhaps been a little more careful...

Obviously the entire argument is itself one giant non-sequitur in a different sense in that we know now why that is in both cases thanks to our understanding of how evolution and sexual dimorphism works

[Risottia]

Non-sequitur.
The explanation would be extremely heterosexual and explicit. So I'll leave it for you to figure out on your own.

It's not a non-sequitur. It provides a very efficient means for homosexuals to have pleasure.

But it doesn't imply heterosexuals can't use the very same organs for the very same purpose... hence, non sequitur.

Anyway, I guess you got the gist.

[Dyakovo]

Well, simple enough.
Homosexuals are people whose part is defunct - mentally, their reproductive processes doesn't ring the right bell... it's similar to other paraphillias in this aspect.(1)

Even though i don't mind registered partnerships all that much.. well, they aren't hurting anyone else and at least it makes them happy and shut up, we should look for ways to identify kids at risk of homosexuality and prevent it.. i mean probably fetuses as some theory i have heard of says it has to do with wrong hormonal levels in mothers' body.(2)
Which is why various homosexual groups annoy me - i don't know if they are simply envious that we might come up with a way to prevent the kids who'd otherwise be homosexual from developing the affliction, or simply refusing to admit there's something wrong with them(3)... this by the way is true for loads of psychiatric patients .. classic example is paranoia. After all, you can't deny you are missing a leg, but what goes on in your mind is a totally different matter.

1. Tell that to Bonobos. They're bisexual and still have a functioning population.
2. What harms are associated with homosexuality? How would we prevent it? Is it even caused by hormonal levels in the mother?
3. Woohoo! Another person who thinks I'm a freak!
And no, they're angry at people like you because you seem insistant that homosexuality is a disease, when it isn't.

Don't we all?

Wait... You're gay?
.
.
.
My thinking you're a freak had nothing to do with your sexuality...