Why are People Homophobic?

[Vellosia]

Richard Lionheart

Whether Richard the Lionheart was homosexual or not is a source of considerable debate.

[-St George]

Richard Lionheart

Whether Richard the Lionheart was homosexual or not is a source of considerable debate.

Indeed, the same with Edward II, but its argued he and Philip of France were lovers at some point.

Like you said, it's a matter of debate, but it's no more controversial than using Edward II as an example of a homosexual who has started a war, and a damn sight less controversial than using Edward I as evidence of such.

[Dyakovo]

Whether Richard the Lionheart was homosexual or not is a source of considerable debate.

Indeed, the same with Edward II, but its argued he and Philip of France were lovers at some point.

Like you said, it's a matter of debate, but it's no more controversial than using Edward II as an example of a homosexual who has started a war, and a damn sight less controversial than using Edward I as evidence of such.

Well, if English kings were a bit more original in their names this confusion would not exist...
*nods*

[-St George]

Indeed, the same with Edward II, but its argued he and Philip of France were lovers at some point.

Like you said, it's a matter of debate, but it's no more controversial than using Edward II as an example of a homosexual who has started a war, and a damn sight less controversial than using Edward I as evidence of such.

Well, if English kings were a bit more original in their names this confusion would not exist...
*nods*

Quite. It's worth pointing out that, had the Black Prince survived, he'd have become Edward IV after Ed III (who succeeded Ed II), died, making the English throne a damn site more secure for when Richard II ascended, avoiding the War of the Roses and perhaps winning the Hundred Years War.

Of course, had Edward III not bloody well died, he'd have succeeded to the French throne anyway.

[The Yoke of Oppression]

Why were people once violently opposed to rejection of the trinity? Why are people in some places violently opposed to co-education of boys and girls? Why are some people violently opposed to the pubilc exposure of a certain percentage of a woman's skin, public nudity in general, obscene words, or racial integration? You can make arguments for why any of these things is wrong- but that doesn't explain why people should have such a powerful gut-level aversion to what are essentially very abstract ideas, that don't have much direct impact on us as individuals, and where we observe a lot of variation between societies (suggesting that the ideas themselves don't emerge from an innate human sense of right and wrong).

Here's a question for people who don't understand homophobia at all: if two brothers have sex- gay incest- is that wrong? How about infertile brothers and sisters, or brothers and sisters engaging in non-vaginal sex? Now assume for the previous examples, that they're estranged siblings- separated at birth, meeting as adults. The traditional defense for the incest taboo is that incest can have reproductive consequences- but most of us continue to be disgusted by incest even when there's no possibility of reproduction. Sometimes you also hear the argument that its an abuse of a uniquely close relationship, but in the case of estranged siblings that relationship doesn't exist, and we still tend to think it's gross.* The answer might be as simple as this: there's a strong, and general, incest taboo present in our culture that impresses upon us, and not only becomes part of our intellectual concept of the world, but our emotional experience of it. To most people in our society, ALL incest is gross- not necessarily because we can present a cogent argument against it, but because that's what we've been taught and that's how we feel.

And guess what? The same part of your brain that makes you feel grossed out when you think about eating something disgusting makes you feel grossed out when you think about stuff that you've been taught is morally wrong. It's a fuzzy correlation, though: your brain doesn't make a precise, case-by-case judgment, or evaluate with perfect rational precision the morality of a given act in the context of particular moral axioms. It's a feeling- based on a general sense of whether something is okay or not, and just as we can be tricked by optical illusions, you can construct moral problems where we feel that something is wrong without being able to identify why it's wrong, or even when you can construct an argument for why it isn't wrong using the moral axioms we claim to agree with.

If you're raised to believe that homosexuality is wrong, it will probably seem 'dirty' to you- even if you recognize that it's hard to say why it's actually bad for society. And you can't make it go away by just deciding on the basis of rational argument that isn't wrong. The moral sense persists, and it's easy to see why people seek justifications that sometimes seem to stretch credulity (as the bible says, "seek and ye shall find"- a desire to believe something goes a long way), and why they would want to teach others their views (especially their children).

EDIT: This is not to say that views can't change over time, but only that tolerance and bigotry don't emerge from strong arguments and empirical truth so much as from personal experience and indoctrination, especially in young people (the older you get, the more fixed your impressions tend to become).
_{*There's arguably a more fundamental basis for the incest taboo- children who are toddlers together tend to have a sexual aversion towards one another as adults, and it's thought that that may be a 'natural' defense against incest. But for estranged siblings the opposite is true: perhaps worryingly, they tend to be intensely attracted to one another. And remember- at different times, and in different places, we have NOT had incest taboos, especially relating to cousins.}

[Sidhae]

Well, for a start, most of the so-called homophobes don't really hate homosexuals and the likes, they just don't enjoy having a lifestyle that goes beyond their standards of decency rubbed in their faces all the time.

It's much like why people who don't have a problem with nudists have a problem with homos - nudists are allocated their own secluded places to practice their thing without offending the sensibilities of others. Homosexuals too have gay bars, clubs and, of course, the privacy of their own homes. But yet a certain minority of them aren't content with that and aggressively press their lifestyle on general public by holding obnoxious parades and screaming and whining about their rights all the time. There's a nice word for such people - assholes, and even the most liberal Western nations haven't yet gone as far as to demand tolerating assholes.

In short, if homos and the likes just kept it private, there wouldn't really be a problem. Being... well, genetically and/or psychologically impaired in the sexual sphere isn't really something to brag with anyway.

[Polruan]

Because they're jealous of how bad ass we are and how all the ladies want us but can't have us.

I know, right? Gay men do the single most manly thing a man can do; Fuck a guy. What's more manly than forsaking pansy women and going for huge, buff dudes?

You've been watching Steve Hughes haven't you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in9SiDtJLaU

Homosexuals too have gay bars, clubs and, of course, the privacy of their own homes. But yet a certain minority of them aren't content with that and aggressively press their lifestyle on general public by holding obnoxious parades and screaming and whining about their rights all the time. There's a nice word for such people - assholes, and even the most liberal Western nations haven't yet gone as far as to demand tolerating assholes.

Isn't this a bit like saying "I don't like Black people because Al Sharpton is a shameless ambulance chaser"

[GeneralHaNor]

There was a study where they performed active scans of declared heterosexuals brains as they viewed gay pornography. They found that regardless of the persons declared stance on homosexuality, in all cases, homosexual activity registered as a threat on pre-frontal cortex, in a rather primitive area.

In short, Homophobia is instinctual, it's not a controlled or conditioned response. It is only through public pressure and self denial that heterosexuals tolerate homosexuals, because their primitive brain views them as an unnatural threat, where as the rational brain cannot justify the prejudice of the primitive brain.

[Ceannairceach]

Well, for a start, most of the so-called homophobes don't really hate homosexuals and the likes, they just don't enjoy having a lifestyle that goes beyond their standards of decency rubbed in their faces all the time.

It's much like why people who don't have a problem with nudists have a problem with homos - nudists are allocated their own secluded places to practice their thing without offending the sensibilities of others. Homosexuals too have gay bars, clubs and, of course, the privacy of their own homes. But yet a certain minority of them aren't content with that and aggressively press their lifestyle on general public by holding obnoxious parades and screaming and whining about their rights all the time. There's a nice word for such people - assholes, and even the most liberal Western nations haven't yet gone as far as to demand tolerating assholes.

In short, if homos and the likes just kept it private, there wouldn't really be a problem. Being... well, genetically and/or psychologically impaired in the sexual sphere isn't really something to brag with anyway.

Perhaps if homosexuals had equal rights to heterosexuals, no more parades would occur and the "whining" about rights would end.

But no, you have to take the harder option and force them into hiding.

[Ceannairceach]

There was a study where they performed active scans of declared heterosexuals brains as they viewed gay pornography. They found that regardless of the persons declared stance on homosexuality, in all cases, homosexual activity registered as a threat on pre-frontal cortex, in a rather primitive area.

In short, Homophobia is instinctual, it's not a controlled or conditioned response. It is only through public pressure and self denial that heterosexuals tolerate homosexuals, because their primitive brain views them as an unnatural threat, where as the rational brain cannot justify the prejudice of the primitive brain.

Source on that study?

[The Alma Mater]

But yet a certain minority of them aren't content with that and aggressively press their lifestyle on general public by holding obnoxious parades and screaming and whining about their rights all the time. There's a nice word for such people - assholes, and even the most liberal Western nations haven't yet gone as far as to demand tolerating assholes.

Calling the parades obnoxious I can agree with.

But really - wanting to be granted the same rights as straight couples makes one an asshole ? Don' t be silly.

In short, if homos and the likes just kept it private, there wouldn't really be a problem. Being... well, genetically and/or psychologically impaired in the sexual sphere isn't really something to brag with anyway.

And we should totally look down on lefthanded people and gingers as well.
(And before you say that is totally different - I suggest looking up how society viewed lefthanded people up to well into last century. A hint: " sinister people" means " lefthanded people". Yet the word sinister does not imply left for most.)

In fact - we should look down on everyone who is different. The incredibly smart and the incredibly athletic, as well the dumb and and the clumsy.

DIFFERENT IS WRONG ! ALL PRAISE THE HANDICAPPER GENERAL !

[Ethel mermania]

Homosexuals are sinners. Period.


But anyway, religion is not that important for you, isn' it?

Prove. It.

And I am a Christian AND a homosexual.

Get the fuck out of my religion with your outdated and backward bigotry. I hope a bird shits upon from a great height. I hope your children are ugly and your wife is fat. I fart in your general direction.

So much for "turn the other cheeck", eh?

[GeneralHaNor]

There was a study where they performed active scans of declared heterosexuals brains as they viewed gay pornography. They found that regardless of the persons declared stance on homosexuality, in all cases, homosexual activity registered as a threat on pre-frontal cortex, in a rather primitive area.

In short, Homophobia is instinctual, it's not a controlled or conditioned response. It is only through public pressure and self denial that heterosexuals tolerate homosexuals, because their primitive brain views them as an unnatural threat, where as the rational brain cannot justify the prejudice of the primitive brain.

Source on that study?

Funny thing is, I had the link in a bookmark, the link doesn't work

Google is not very forthcoming.
I originally heard this From Dr. Drew, so take it with a grain of salt.

[Ceannairceach]

Source on that study?

Funny thing is, I had the link in a bookmark, the link doesn't work

Google is not very forthcoming.
I originally heard this From Dr. Drew, so take it with a grain of salt.

I am, which is why I'm asking for a source.

[GeneralHaNor]

Funny thing is, I had the link in a bookmark, the link doesn't work

Google is not very forthcoming.
I originally heard this From Dr. Drew, so take it with a grain of salt.

I am, which is why I'm asking for a source.

No Source Available

Logically, it makes sense to me, but then again I place alot of faith in Neuroscience.

[Ceannairceach]

I am, which is why I'm asking for a source.

No Source Available

Logically, it makes sense to me, but then again I place alot of faith in Neuroscience.

I could see it being a real thing, but I cannot trust it out of faith, as you must understand.

[Keronians]

Homosexuals are sinners. Period.


But anyway, religion is not that important for you, isn' it?

Prove. It.

And I am a Christian AND a homosexual.

Get the fuck out of my religion with your outdated and backward bigotry. I hope a bird shits upon from a great height. I hope your children are ugly and your wife is fat. I fart in your general direction.

Calm down, man.

Also, I thought you were bi?

[The Yoke of Oppression]

Homosexuals too have gay bars, clubs and, of course, the privacy of their own homes. But yet a certain minority of them aren't content with that and aggressively press their lifestyle on general public by holding obnoxious parades and screaming and whining about their rights all the time. There's a nice word for such people - assholes, and even the most liberal Western nations haven't yet gone as far as to demand tolerating assholes.

Isn't this a bit like saying "I don't like Black people because Al Sharpton is a shameless ambulance chaser"

I think it's more like saying "I would like black people more if they just stuck to their own water fountains, and stopped with all this 'civil rights' BS."

[Vellosia]

I suggest looking up how society viewed lefthanded people up to well into last century. A hint: " sinister people" means " lefthanded people". Yet the word sinister does not imply left for most.)

And it is Latin (and Italian) for 'left'. In the Victorian times (and before), left-handed children were forced to write with their right hand.

[Bulgharia]

The so-called "Moderator" (Sorry, I don't have time to look at your proper nickname), is there problem? I am telling the truth, if you ban me for calling the truth, it is very confusing. But anyway, I'll try to be more polite with the so-called 'homosexuals'


The guy who said heterosexuals are inferior is simply retarded - homosexuals did started wars, there are very few homosexual scientists / actors, so that argument lose it's weight too.

There is no such thing as inferior - neither black people, neither homosexuals. I have met homosexuals thorough my life, and all of them were dressing like women, were polishing their nails, were wearing make-up, were dressing like women, were talking from female point of view. I never met 'active' gay, but probably they are one idea better.

Do you know how UGLY is that from heterosexual point of view? When I see a male dressed like this, I feel only negative things - this is blasphemy and ugly.

Homosexuals already have too many rights: If they receive more, they will have more rights than the heterosexuals. Which is indeed not O.K.

People hate you for a reason. It is not homophobes who have to change, you have to.

[The Alma Mater]

I suggest looking up how society viewed lefthanded people up to well into last century. A hint: " sinister people" means " lefthanded people". Yet the word sinister does not imply left for most.)

And it is Latin (and Italian) for 'left'. In the Victorian times (and before), left-handed children were forced to write with their right hand.

This was done well into the 1950s. Because the Church deemed lefthanded people the servants of Satan (no joke!). Kids that did use the left hand were beaten.

[GeneralHaNor]

No Source Available

Logically, it makes sense to me, but then again I place alot of faith in Neuroscience.

I could see it being a real thing, but I cannot trust it out of faith, as you must understand.

I'm checking Google Scholar to see if I can find it
No promises

edit

This is a better link
This proves the concept of a neurological basis for homophobia
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sbs/media/pdf ... 006_SN.pdf

[Sidhae]

Well, for a start, most of the so-called homophobes don't really hate homosexuals and the likes, they just don't enjoy having a lifestyle that goes beyond their standards of decency rubbed in their faces all the time.

It's much like why people who don't have a problem with nudists have a problem with homos - nudists are allocated their own secluded places to practice their thing without offending the sensibilities of others. Homosexuals too have gay bars, clubs and, of course, the privacy of their own homes. But yet a certain minority of them aren't content with that and aggressively press their lifestyle on general public by holding obnoxious parades and screaming and whining about their rights all the time. There's a nice word for such people - assholes, and even the most liberal Western nations haven't yet gone as far as to demand tolerating assholes.

In short, if homos and the likes just kept it private, there wouldn't really be a problem. Being... well, genetically and/or psychologically impaired in the sexual sphere isn't really something to brag with anyway.

Perhaps if homosexuals had equal rights to heterosexuals, no more parades would occur and the "whining" about rights would end.

But no, you have to take the harder option and force them into hiding.

For analogy, look at Black people. It's been what, 40 years since they got their equal rights. Has that stopped them from asking for more? Of course, it hasn't - it has just given them an excuse to feel entitled to something simply because they are Black. Have gay parades stopped in countries where gay marriage and adoption is legal? No.

[Ceannairceach]

Homosexuals already have too many rights: If they receive more, they will have more rights than the heterosexuals. Which is indeed not O.K.

People hate you for a reason. It is not homophobes who have to change, you have to.

Wrong. Homosexuals want very specific rights that heterosexuals either have or are also denied; The right to marry those of the same sex, the right to adopt children, and so on. As I said, heterosexuals have these rights, or are also denied them.

Why should we change when it is homophobes who are the oppressors?

[Bulgharia]

No, you cannot be given the right to adopt. It will ruin children life. If I am child and I am adopted by a man who wear female things, I'll commit suicide.