Why are People Homophobic?

[Ethel mermania]

Apparently I have.

Obviously not.

The 14th amendment does not apply it was Article 4 section 1 DOMA was trying to get around

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Marriage is a public act.

[Pauper Kings]

It can be defined as a right.

And, in fact, is so defined in the US...

There is no right to marry the same sex in the US constitution. No matter from what angle it's looked at. That would take an amendment too.

[Tmutarakhan]

THERYE ABOUT AS USEFUL AS STERILE DOGS!

In the wild, only the "alpha male" and "alpha female" of each pack reproduce. It is in fact extraordinarily useful to the survival of canids (wolves, foxes, feral dogs, coyotes etc.) that the majority do not reproduce.

[Tmutarakhan]

And, in fact, is so defined in the US...

There is no right to marry the same sex in the US constitution. No matter from what angle it's looked at. That would take an amendment too.

There is a right to marry the person of one's choice. You may disagree with that interpretation, but the US Supreme Court's interpretation counts, and yours does not.

[Zebbstar]

People don't like anything different

I don't mind gays/lesbians

But I hate public affection, But that also includes straight couples

Take from that what you will

[Dyakovo]

And, in fact, is so defined in the US...

There is no right to marry the same sex in the US constitution. No matter from what angle it's looked at. That would take an amendment too.

The Supreme Court disagrees...

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

[Pauper Kings]

There is no right to marry the same sex in the US constitution. No matter from what angle it's looked at. That would take an amendment too.

There is a right to marry the person of one's choice. You may disagree with that interpretation, but the US Supreme Court's interpretation counts, and yours does not.

Their interpretation does not support this, look up thread.

[Taraum]

Been backlogging through some of the posts in this thread... so this may or may not still be relevant. Anyways

It seems to me you guys (girls?) are misunderstanding when some people use the word unnatural

A lot of times people, in general, don't use the word in reference to nature, rather they apply it to things that don't seem like something they would be willing or capable of doing.

For example: a common person looking at the Tarahumara Native Americans would state that their ability to run down deer, often by running distances over 100 miles over difficult terrain, is "unnatural," when in reality many of the earliest humans had to hunt that way.

Alright besides that point lets see what these people actually mean when they apply it to GLB's.
First I shall give a couple of statements:
1. NO ONE, bar some hopefully very few exceptions, likes imagining their parents or siblings in sexual acts
2. Extremely Few enjoy sexual pleasure involving children
3.Very Few like the image of extreme pain and/or something resembling torture in their sex life
These are Facts
Another Fact, which if you accept most of these you should hopefully also accept,

PEOPLE, in general, DO NOT LIKE ENVISIONING SEXUAL ACTS THAT THEY ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH DOING.
As a result some people, in combination with latent homosexuality, religion, or some other factor, have chosen to villify homosexuality in an attempt to remove it.

That is my position as to why some people chose to be homophobic, or hate GLB's.
Now, that simple aversion factor is what comes into play when the average, non-homophobic guy gets hit on by a gay guys.

Personally I, and a lot of other people, while not precisly agreeing with homosexuals and their chosen life style, don't agree with and are not homophobes. Becauese these are people we're talking about, and there are a lot more important things to worry about.

[-St George]

States shouldn't have rights.

That's not your call. Now is it.

Unfortunately not.

[Dyakovo]

There is a right to marry the person of one's choice. You may disagree with that interpretation, but the US Supreme Court's interpretation counts, and yours does not.

Their interpretation does not support this, look up thread.

If he looks up the thread what he'll see is the fact that it does indeed support it.

[Dyakovo]

That's not your call. Now is it.

Unfortunately not.

It may not be your call, but the states do not have rights regardless.

[Pauper Kings]

Unfortunately not.

It may not be your call, but the states do not have rights regardless.

Powers--rights. It's semantics.

[Furious Grandmothers]

Been backlogging through some of the posts in this thread... so this may or may not still be relevant. Anyways

It seems to me you guys (girls?) are misunderstanding when some people use the word unnatural

A lot of times people, in general, don't use the word in reference to nature, rather they apply it to things that don't seem like something they would be willing or capable of doing.

For example: a common person looking at the Tarahumara Native Americans would state that their ability to run down deer, often by running distances over 100 miles over difficult terrain, is "unnatural," when in reality many of the earliest humans had to hunt that way.

Alright besides that point lets see what these people actually mean when they apply it to GLB's.
First I shall give a couple of statements:
1. NO ONE, bar some hopefully very few exceptions, likes imagining their parents or siblings in sexual acts
2. Extremely Few enjoy sexual pleasure involving children
3.Very Few like the image of extreme pain and/or something resembling torture in their sex life
These are Facts
Another Fact, which if you accept most of these you should hopefully also accept,

PEOPLE, in general, DO NOT LIKE ENVISIONING SEXUAL ACTS THAT THEY ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH DOING.
As a result some people, in combination with latent homosexuality, religion, or some other factor, have chosen to villify homosexuality in an attempt to remove it.

That is my position as to why some people chose to be homophobic, or hate GLB's.
Now, that simple aversion factor is what comes into play when the average, non-homophobic guy gets hit on by a gay guys.

Personally I, and a lot of other people, while not precisly agreeing with homosexuals and their chosen life style, don't agree with and are not homophobes. Becauese these are people we're talking about, and there are a lot more important things to worry about.

Actually, all you need to do is to show homophobes that 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality to destroy their dreadful claim that homosexuality is unnatural.

[Sovereign Oppression]

There is no right to marry the same sex in the US constitution. No matter from what angle it's looked at. That would take an amendment too.

The Supreme Court disagrees...

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Again, homosexuals right to marriage is protected. They just can't marry people of the same sex. The only kind of discrimination within marriage is that of race. Nothing about sex.

[Sovereign Oppression]

Apparently I have.

Obviously not.

Obviously you don't have a proper understanding of the law. Show me, exactly where in U.S. law, homosexual marriage is a right.

[Myrensis]

The Supreme Court disagrees...

Again, homosexuals right to marriage is protected. They just can't marry people of the same sex. The only kind of discrimination within marriage is that of race. Nothing about sex.

50 years ago interracial marriage was illegal. Some people seem to feel that minorities, of varying kinds, need to be kept in their place and denied equality. Preventing homosexuals from marrying is blatant discrimination, just because it hasn't been shot down yet doesn't make it any more right or valid than anti-miscegenation laws.

[Sovereign Oppression]

Again, homosexuals right to marriage is protected. They just can't marry people of the same sex. The only kind of discrimination within marriage is that of race. Nothing about sex.

50 years ago interracial marriage was illegal. Some people seem to feel that minorities, of varying kinds, need to be kept in their place and denied equality. Preventing homosexuals from marrying is blatant discrimination, just because it hasn't been shot down yet doesn't make it any more right or valid than anti-miscegenation laws.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm simply saying it's legal. The Supreme Court didn't say having bans on interracial marriage was unconstitutional. they just thought it was wrong, and wanted to make it legal.

It is discriminatory to not allow homosexuals to marry one another, yes. But, sadly, that is completely constitutional. the Constitution only protects the right to marry (homosexuals can get married, just not to each other), and protects the now right to marry inter-racially. It does not secure the right for homosexuals to marry one another in of itself. IT allows for the courts to place bans on what people are allowed to marry. They just can't take marriage away all together, and they can't ban inter-racial marriage. That's all.

[Dyakovo]

Obviously not.

Obviously you don't have a proper understanding of the law.

Show me, exactly where in U.S. law, homosexual marriage is a right.

I have.

[Dyakovo]

The Supreme Court didn't say having bans on interracial marriage was unconstitutional.

Wrong. That is exactly what they said.

[Sovereign Oppression]

Obviously you don't have a proper understanding of the law.

Show me, exactly where in U.S. law, homosexual marriage is a right.

I have.

No, you quoted a supreme court case which in which racial discrimination was banned, and linked me to the fourteenth amendment, which makes it so that ruling is required to be enforced. This says nothing about homosexuality.

[Sovereign Oppression]

The Supreme Court didn't say having bans on interracial marriage was unconstitutional.

Wrong. That is exactly what they said.

No. Read it again. They said it is unconstitutional to deny marriage, and that discrimination on the part of race is unlawful.

And this still has nothing to do with homosexuality. Your lose interpretations do not pass. The Supreme Court made mention of only race.

[Dyakovo]

I have.

No, you quoted a supreme court case which in which racial discrimination was banned, and linked me to the fourteenth amendment, which makes it so that ruling is required to be enforced. This says nothing about homosexuality.

The decision in Loving vs. Virginia rules that marriage is a "basic human right", if it is a basic human right it cannot be denied due to the 14th amendment.
Simple really, but it doesn't surprise me that you still don't get it.

[Dyakovo]

Wrong. That is exactly what they said.

No. Read it again. They said it is unconstitutional to deny marriage...

[Sovereign Oppression]

No, you quoted a supreme court case which in which racial discrimination was banned, and linked me to the fourteenth amendment, which makes it so that ruling is required to be enforced. This says nothing about homosexuality.

The decision in Loving vs. Virginia rules that marriage is a "basic human right", if it is a basic human right it cannot be denied due to the 14th amendment.
Simple really, but it doesn't surprise me that you still don't get it.

You're absolutely right. And, again, homosexuals right to marriage is not being violated. They can marry. There is simply a limit on what they can marry. Quit with the passive aggressive insults, unless you want to be reported for flaming.

[Sovereign Oppression]

No. Read it again. They said it is unconstitutional to deny marriage...

Your sarcasm carries no weight, unless you'd like to actually say something. The U.S. cannot ban marriage. They cannot deny marriage.

They can place limitations on it, but they cannot outright deny marriage.