Why are People Homophobic?

[-St George]

And? It isn't forcing them to experiment in homosexuality, it's a damn children's story for crying out loud. I mean, I objected to quite a lot of the stuff I had to read at school (mainly because it was badly written, over-analysed drivel). That didn't give me a valid argument to get out of having to write essays on it.

if it goes against someone's religion then it goes against someone's religion, and therefore parents should be given the choice to opt-out, many christians believe that homosexuality is wrong and should not be taught, since there are around 3 billion christains on Earth, I think it the system should at least offer an opt out option

Homosexuality is not against Christian beliefs.

[Keronians]

if it goes against someone's religion then it goes against someone's religion, and therefore parents should be given the choice to opt-out, many christians believe that homosexuality is wrong and should not be taught, since there are around 3 billion christains on Earth, I think it the system should at least offer an opt out option

So opt your kids out of public schools. Problem solved.

In the secular public school system, reality is what gets taught. Gay people exist, and your children will not be sheltered from that fact any more than they will be sheltered from the fact that straight people exist. Anybody who is bothered that their children might learn that gays exist should probably not be letting the little darlings leave home in the first place.

The problem is that the public school system in Spain (this isn't a US-only discussion, is it? If it is, then I admit it's irrelevant) is NOT secular. Many schools have morning prayers, ceremonies, etc. The system is Catholic.

Anyway, despite it all, we managed to get gay marriage legalised here. There is no rational reason to refuse homosexuals the right to marriage. Some countries try the compromise of "civil union". To be honest, don't understand why, given that it affords all rights, and the only difference is the wording.

[Sociobiology]

So what if it's required reading? Education about LGBT is the only fucking way to stop climates developing that make it seem ok to repeat what happened to Matthew Shepard.

not true, we have education in our health classes, and gay speakers, all of which have opt-out programs, A so-called survey was done at a school of 2,700 students who tried the sort of thing claifornis is proposing, apparantly 300 students reported positive changes, but there is a problem, there were no controls as to indicate what exactly brought the changes, and the survey was completely anonymous and available over the internet for download, which basically means that same person or same groups of people could take duplicate surveys, and the children who were taking the survey, as in collecting data, all had strong ties with gay-activist and gay-rights groups before and at the time of the survey. If it were a scientific study it would be shot down immediately but homosexuals are trying to use the survey for all its flaws to pass legislation. There are LGBT clubs on high school campuses, there are counseling programs, and with zero tolerance policy in our schools anyone who uses the word faggot is in a huge amount of trouble. Also, hostile climates do not form just because of lack of education but also from society, anyone who does not like gays or who is a person who beleives it is against their religion to be gay will not take kindly to pro-homosexual rhetoric being stuffed down their 5 year old child's throat. Parents have a right to decide what they do and do not want their child to learn, Thrusting a forced education system upon people who feel it is against their religion will only breed resentment, like affirmative action, it has breed resentment between whites/asains against minorities.

they can take their child out of the education system at anytime but education should not be a salad bar were you get to pick and choose, you either go to public school and learn everything or you take the responsibility to teach your child everything. in a world with genetic engineering, and nano technology we can no longer afford to encourage ignorance.

[Pauper Kings]

if it goes against someone's religion then it goes against someone's religion, and therefore parents should be given the choice to opt-out, many christians believe that homosexuality is wrong and should not be taught, since there are around 3 billion christains on Earth, I think it the system should at least offer an opt out option

Homosexuality is not against Christian beliefs.

To paraphrase: '"man shall not lie with a man as man with woman'', etc. Something like that. It's in the Bible whether you or anybody want to believe the Bible or not, it's still there. The Bible is kinda the focal point of Christianity, right?

[The Alma Mater]

Yep. It is amazing that people have no problem with a bunch of men living together in celibacy, never reproducing - but find it horrible if those men fuck while still claiming the problem is with the lack of reproduction.

There isn't a problem with the "lack of reproduction". Not everyone needs to reproduce and not every act of reproduction needs to actually end in reproduction occurring. The difference is in the intent. I don't intend to reproduce so I don't have sex. I do intend to reproduce so I do have sex.

So, straight people who are infertile (due to age, illness or whatever) should not have sex; nor should people use condoms etc, nor are blowjobs, handjobs and anal allowed ?

Why ?

I think Alma Mater might have nailed it with "Some people believe that the world should be based on the reasoning "everything that makes one happy is forbidden, unless I explicitly give permission," except I would change it to "unless I am given a rationale for it."

Why is "it makes me happy" not sufficient rationale ?
Sure - if you can then counter it with a "but it hurts people because..." one can debate - but that is straying into "it is allowed, unless we find reasons to forbid" territory.

To return to my icecream analogy: I understand you do not like chocolate. But what right do you have to tell me I must either eat vanilla or nothing at all ?

[Coccygia]

Don't you mean her word? Connell is transgendered!

The reference was from her study in 1987 on the subject, pronouns weren't given. >.>

No pronouns? Perfect. (Wonder why? ) Understand, I am not laughing because she's transgendered, but because she's transgendered and amazingly concluded that there were "no intrinsic connections between biological sex and gender role". Had an ax to grind, ya think?

[Euronion]

if it goes against someone's religion then it goes against someone's religion, and therefore parents should be given the choice to opt-out, many christians believe that homosexuality is wrong and should not be taught, since there are around 3 billion christains on Earth, I think it the system should at least offer an opt out option

Homosexuality is not against Christian beliefs.

If many people believe so, which many do, than we should respect their beliefs even if we think they are misguided instead of forcing them to accept something that they do not believe is right, Like Muslims who wear Hijabs, Muslims see hair as a symbol of sexuality, we don't, but we still ahve to respect their beliefs. I beleive that it is not right as the Bible says it is not.

[Four-sided Triangles]

So, straight people who are infertile (due to age, illness or whatever) should not have sex; nor should people use condoms etc, nor are blowjobs, handjobs and anal allowed ?

Why ?

Because the possibly schizophrenic leader of a tribe of socially backwards, scientifically and philosophically illiterate ancient goat herders wrote something about how evil god said it is over 2,000 years ago in some desert somewhere.

[The Alma Mater]

So, straight people who are infertile (due to age, illness or whatever) should not have sex; nor should people use condoms etc, nor are blowjobs, handjobs and anal allowed ?

Why ?

Because the possibly schizophrenic leader of a tribe of socially backwards, scientifically and philosophically illiterate ancient goat herders wrote something about how evil god said it is over 2,000 years ago in some desert somewhere.

Well, yes. We could round up a few kids and start singing "every sperm is sacred" - but why should we Heck - an average male ejaculation contains about 500 million sperms. One of them might make someone pregnant - and then the other 499.999.999 die. So even God does not value sperms.

[Euronion]

So, straight people who are infertile (due to age, illness or whatever) should not have sex; nor should people use condoms etc, nor are blowjobs, handjobs and anal allowed ?

Why ?

Because the possibly schizophrenic leader of a tribe of socially backwards, scientifically and philosophically illiterate ancient goat herders wrote something about how evil god said it is over 2,000 years ago in some desert somewhere.

insulting the Christain God and christian beliefs is no better than insulting homosexuals for their beliefs. You have a right to state your opinion but I think that statement was rather unnecessary, insulting someone for their religious beliefs is not right, do so and you emulate Adolf Hitler and Socialist Germany

[The Alma Mater]

Because the possibly schizophrenic leader of a tribe of socially backwards, scientifically and philosophically illiterate ancient goat herders wrote something about how evil god said it is over 2,000 years ago in some desert somewhere.

insulting the Christain God and christian beliefs is no better than insulting homosexuals for their beliefs. You have a right to state your opinion but I think that statement was rather unnecessary, insulting someone for their religious beliefs is not right, do so and you emulate Adolf Hitler and Socialist Germany

Aww. A Godloss

[Johz]

Homosexuality is not against Christian beliefs.

To paraphrase: '"man shall not lie with a man as man with woman'', etc. Something like that. It's in the Bible whether you or anybody want to believe the Bible or not, it's still there. The Bible is kinda the focal point of Christianity, right?

I recommend you take the time to read every single one of the posts in -StGeorge's sigature, partly because they are extremely interesting, and partly because I wrote one of them.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Having gay sex is wrong, because god "designed" sex originally to be for the purposes of reproduction.

As such, it is also wrong to use capacitors for timing control because scientists "designed" capacitors originally to be for the purpose of creating uniform electric fields. In fact, it's even more wrong, since we actually know that the scientists who designed capacitors actually exist. We also know that capacitors were designed and why they were designed. We don't even know that god exists, and we certainly don't know that he designed sex, nor do we know what his purpose for designing sex was, if he even intended to design it to begin with.

If using something in a way different than its original purpose is wrong, then almost all modern engineering is extremely evil. Thus, GTFO my internet.

If you say that going against purpose is only bad when it's god, you're pleading special. The argument is either valid, or it isn't. You can't pick and choose when you want it to apply.

[Euronion]

Because the possibly schizophrenic leader of a tribe of socially backwards, scientifically and philosophically illiterate ancient goat herders wrote something about how evil god said it is over 2,000 years ago in some desert somewhere.

Well, yes. We could round up a few kids and start singing "every sperm is sacred" - but why should we

easy, because back then, over 2,000 years ago, children died often and died young, if you had a child grow up to adulthood it was a miracle, why? because the desert was a very harsh place and life back then was very primitive, this is why in the old testiment, there is support for polygamy, because having many children was necessary for the survival of the human race and your family, the reason why "Every sperm was sacred" is because if you masterbated every time you were horny back then there wouldn't be as much sex and therefore not as much children. The reason why polygamy is frowned upon by chritains today is because there is because we are not in the same situation as that of the old testiment or after the Black Plague. We do not share their hardships now.

[Four-sided Triangles]

insulting the Christain God and christian beliefs is no better than insulting homosexuals for their beliefs. You have a right to state your opinion but I think that statement was rather unnecessary, insulting someone for their religious beliefs is not right, do so and you emulate Adolf Hitler and Socialist Germany

1. I didn't insult the people with the beliefs. I insulted the basis for the beliefs. Criticizing and mocking beliefs is not the same as mocking people holding said beliefs. Lots of good and intelligent people believe pretty stupid stuff.

2. Homosexuality is not a belief.

3. Mocking beliefs is not tantamount to insisting that we genocide an entire group of people. To suggest otherwise is transcendentally idiotic.

[Galla-]

Well, yes. We could round up a few kids and start singing "every sperm is sacred" - but why should we

easy, because back then, over 2,000 years ago, children died often and died young, if you had a child grow up to adulthood it was a miracle, why? because the desert was a very harsh place and life back then was very primitive, this is why in the old testiment, there is support for polygamy, because having many children was necessary for the survival of the human race and your family, the reason why "Every sperm was sacred" is because if you masterbated every time you were horny back then there wouldn't be as much sex and therefore not as much children. The reason why polygamy is frowned upon by chritains today is because there is because we are not in the same situation as that of the old testiment or after the Black Plague. We do not share their hardships now.

Which means, clearly, that not every male should be required to be locked into a potentially reproducing relationship with a female.

Thus, homosexual marriage should be legal.

[Coccygia]

Because the possibly schizophrenic leader of a tribe of socially backwards, scientifically and philosophically illiterate ancient goat herders wrote something about how evil god said it is over 2,000 years ago in some desert somewhere.

insulting the Christain God and christian beliefs is no better than insulting homosexuals for their beliefs. You have a right to state your opinion but I think that statement was rather unnecessary, insulting someone for their religious beliefs is not right, do so and you emulate Adolf Hitler and Socialist Germany

Oh, if only we could have a Final Solution for religious wackos...

[Four-sided Triangles]

the reason why "Every sperm was sacred" is because if you masterbated every time you were horny back then there wouldn't be as much sex and therefore not as much children.

No, the main reason was because they were ignorant and thought that you could "use up" all of your seed. They weren't aware that men produce an unlimited amount of reproductive material over their lifetimes.

The reason why polygamy is frowned upon by chritains today is because there is because we are not in the same situation as that of the old testiment or after the Black Plague. We do not share their hardships now.

The reason why polygamy is frowned upon by Christians today is largely because polygamy is outside of normal practice. That's it. It's different, so it's bad.

[Sociobiology]

Well, yes. We could round up a few kids and start singing "every sperm is sacred" - but why should we

easy, because back then, over 2,000 years ago, children died often and died young, if you had a child grow up to adulthood it was a miracle, why? because the desert was a very harsh place and life back then was very primitive, this is why in the old testiment, there is support for polygamy, because having many children was necessary for the survival of the human race and your family, the reason why "Every sperm was sacred" is because if you masterbated every time you were horny back then there wouldn't be as much sex and therefore not as much children. The reason why polygamy is frowned upon by chritains today is because there is because we are not in the same situation as that of the old testiment or after the Black Plague. We do not share their hardships now.

actually masturbation increases fertility, so it fails at the first step.

[Four-sided Triangles]

actually masturbation increases fertility, so it fails at the first step.

Which again goes back to the my point that the people were against this stuff for reasons of scientific illiteracy. They had an excuse. Today, in first world 21st century nations with all the aid of modern science and all the information we can call up with a few mouse clicks, there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever.

[Galla-]

actually masturbation increases fertility, so it fails at the first step.

Which again goes back to the my point that the people were against this stuff for reasons of scientific illiteracy. They had an excuse. Today, in first world 21st century nations with all the aid of modern science and all the information we can call up with a few mouse clicks, there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever.

2,000 years of cultural momentum will not be stopped by a century, or less, of scientific discovery.

At least 500 years.

[Arborlawn]

People are homophobic because homosexuals are not components of normal society. People, specifically along the conservative ideologies, are afraid of things that are not within their sphere of acceptance. And, as usual, when humans are scared and fearful, they attack what is scaring them. In this case, conservatives attacking homosexuals. However, since hanging people for simple objecture of conforming to society is not allowed these days, conservatives have made homosexuals seem to be worthless non human individuals, to spread the fear. In which case, we now have homophobic individuals.

[Galla-]

People are homophobic because homosexuals are not components of normal society.

No.

[Jasonovia]

There isn't a problem with the "lack of reproduction". Not everyone needs to reproduce and not every act of reproduction needs to actually end in reproduction occurring. The difference is in the intent. I don't intend to reproduce so I don't have sex. I do intend to reproduce so I do have sex.

So, straight people who are infertile (due to age, illness or whatever) should not have sex; nor should people use condoms etc, nor are blowjobs, handjobs and anal allowed ?

Why ?

With the exception of infertile couples since as I said before reproduction doesn't have to actually occur. Taking an attitude of "well good thing we're infertile and don't have to worry about having any more kids" would make it problematic, however. This is because it separates the act from its function. It is below us as rational animals to act purely on pleasure or instinct. We are most dignified and most happy when we have both pleasure and purpose.

I think Alma Mater might have nailed it with "Some people believe that the world should be based on the reasoning "everything that makes one happy is forbidden, unless I explicitly give permission," except I would change it to "unless I am given a rationale for it."

Why is "it makes me happy" not sufficient rationale ?
Sure - if you can then counter it with a "but it hurts people because..." one can debate - but that is straying into "it is allowed, unless we find reasons to forbid" territory.

To return to my icecream analogy: I understand you do not like chocolate. But what right do you have to tell me I must either eat vanilla or nothing at all ?

[/quote]

I don't think the ice cream analogy fits, as here both flavors achieve the exact same ends. Now if you just had a filling supper and reach for the ice cream and the only answer to why you're getting ice cream is "because I like it" I might accuse you of being mildly gluttonous or something.

[Johz]

Having gay sex is wrong, because god "designed" sex originally to be for the purposes of reproduction.

As such, it is also wrong to use capacitors for timing control because scientists "designed" capacitors originally to be for the purpose of creating uniform electric fields. In fact, it's even more wrong, since we actually know that the scientists who designed capacitors actually exist. We also know that capacitors were designed and why they were designed. We don't even know that god exists, and we certainly don't know that he designed sex, nor do we know what his purpose for designing sex was, if he even intended to design it to begin with.

If using something in a way different than its original purpose is wrong, then almost all modern engineering is extremely evil. Thus, GTFO my internet.

If you say that going against purpose is only bad when it's god, you're pleading special. The argument is either valid, or it isn't. You can't pick and choose when you want it to apply.

Interestingly, Paul actually says that sex serves two purposes. The first is procreation, and the second is mutual accord between two partners. Indeed, Paul is of the opinion that one should not withhold from sexual intercourse, but should partake of it in a natural relationship. If we are accepting of a gay relationship, then we should be accepting of gay sexual intercourse.