Can Homophobia Be Justified?

[Picairn]

Furthermore, for those who follow religions that disapprove of homosexuality, it is misguided to call them bigots because they are simply doing as their God commands. If you want tolerance, then start tolerating.

Why exactly should homosexuals roll over and lick the religious' boots? This reeks of theocracy.

[The New California Republic]

No it cannot.

[Miku the Based]

Being kinder to kin (by getting kin more stuff) does not equate to protecting kin with ones life to ensure survival of kin, or enabling kin a higher chance at reproductive success.
I highly doubt it's instinctual (genetic) this behavior and instead postulate it is cultural (learned behaviour).

[Chuukango]

With respect- I don't see what's genocidal in implying that evolution is cold, unforgiving, and purely driven by a need to survive.

It literally calls for turning people infertile or killing them... literally...

No, I think they're just saying that heterosexually is how we reproduce because it worked for humans and kept them surviving. I don't think "gay (or het) people should be killed or or infertile" was the intended message unless I REALLY am misreading what they said.

[Page]

With respect- I don't see what's genocidal in implying that evolution is cold, unforgiving, and purely driven by a need to survive.

It literally calls for turning people infertile or killing them... literally...

I certainly did not imply that humans should be killing or sterilizing anyone, indeed, most instances of a human being killed or rendered infertile are not the result of deliberate human action.

I was not arguing for eugenics, in fact, I was making the point that evolution does not even naturally tend toward eugenics. Natural selection doesn't mean ideal traits for survival are passed on, only that any mutation can be passed on if an organism lives to procreate.

[Daarwyrth]

Yes. If the God of your religion, an all powerful being, threatens to send you to hell for homosexuality, and this is all you have known since you were a child, then yes, it can be justified because when people genuinely believe in and follow a religion that is anti-gay, they thoroughly believe that if they are homosexual then they will live a life of eternal damnation and suffering in hell. As long as freedom of religion is upheld, then this will coincide with disapproval of homosexuality, as the three largest religions are the three Abrahamic religions, which all denounce homosexuality. And on that note, for those who follow religions that disapprove of homosexuality, it is misguided to call them bigots because they are simply doing as their God commands.

So, If you want tolerance, then start tolerating. Religious “discrimination” isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

Religion is not a viable wall to hide homophobia behind. If you express a hateful and harmful opinion, then claiming religious views is not a justification of that. It is simply putting a pretty little pink bow on bigotry.

[Daarwyrth]

It literally calls for turning people infertile or killing them... literally...

I certainly did not imply that humans should be killing or sterilizing anyone, indeed, most instances of a human being killed or rendered infertile are not the result of deliberate human action.

I was not arguing for eugenics, in fact, I was making the point that evolution does not even naturally tend toward eugenics. Natural selection doesn't mean ideal traits for survival are passed on, only that any mutation can be passed on if an organism lives to procreate.

In that case I misunderstood in the heat of the moment and apologise.

[Caraani]

Yes. If the God of your religion, an all powerful being, threatens to send you to hell for homosexuality, and this is all you have known since you were a child, then yes, it can be justified because when people genuinely believe in and follow a religion that is anti-gay, they thoroughly believe that if they are homosexual then they will live a life of eternal damnation and suffering in hell. As long as freedom of religion is upheld, then this will coincide with disapproval of homosexuality, as the three largest religions are the three Abrahamic religions, which all denounce homosexuality. And on that note, for those who follow religions that disapprove of homosexuality, it is misguided to call them bigots because they are simply doing as their God commands.

So, If you want tolerance, then start tolerating. Religious “discrimination” isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

This isn't the United States of America. The way freedom of religion works in your country doesn't work in other countries.
They are bigots. Religious people are justified in their homophobia thanks to their religion ideology only insofar as national socialists were justified in their antisemitism because of their ideology. So if you're willing to defend that position I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on why Jews stole the victory of the German Reich from the German people.
Homosexuals do not have an ideology that actively descriminates against religious people, as written in a supposed holy book of the homosexual ideology. It is religious people who have an ideology that actively seeks to descriminate and call all sorts of insults and names homosexuals, as written in their holy book of religious ideology. Therefore, don't equate their tolerating of people who have nothing against them with our supposed "duty" to tolerate people who tell us we're f*****s and that we will burn in hell and that if they'd have their way we'd all be shot. Cause it's so not the same thing. I have no tolerance for intolerance.

[Marxist Germany]

From the Catechism of the Church:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

The Church's condemns acts of discrimination against homosexual individuals. Many people in this thread appear to have an incorrect perception of the Church's teachings on this matter, so I thought it would be appropriate to remind everyone that Jesus taught us not to hate the sinner, but the sin.

[The New California Republic]

I highly doubt it's instinctual (genetic) this behavior and instead postulate it is cultural (learned behaviour).

There is really no evidence of that. If anything the fact that gay people can and do exist with very heteronormative origins with a lack of cultural influences in that regard hints that it is not learned.

[Picairn]

I was not arguing for eugenics, in fact, I was making the point that evolution does not even naturally tend toward eugenics. Natural selection doesn't mean ideal traits for survival are passed on, only that any mutation can be passed on if an organism lives to procreate.

Phrasing evolution as "Survival of the fittest" really fucked humanity up, a lot. It should have been "Survival of the living".

[The Free Joy State]

With respect- I don't see what's genocidal in implying that evolution is cold, unforgiving, and purely driven by a need to survive.

It literally calls for turning people infertile or killing them... literally...

I've come across Page a lot on this site, and I am pretty much certain that that is not what he is saying. What it said to me is that heterosexual reproduction happens because that is how our species evolved to survive. I did not read it as a call to make people infertile or to kill.

[Daarwyrth]

It literally calls for turning people infertile or killing them... literally...

I've come across Page a lot on this site, and I am pretty much certain that that is not what he is saying. What it said to me is that heterosexual reproduction happens because that is how our species evolved to survive. I did not read it as a call to make people infertile or to kill.

As I said before, I have misunderstood the comment in the heat of the moment. Once again, I apologise

[Chuukango]

I've come across Page a lot on this site, and I am pretty much certain that that is not what he is saying. What it said to me is that heterosexual reproduction happens because that is how our species evolved to survive. I did not read it as a call to make people infertile or to kill.

As I said before, I have misunderstood the comment in the heat of the moment. Once again, I apologise

I wouldn't sweat it, shit happens

[The Free Joy State]

I've come across Page a lot on this site, and I am pretty much certain that that is not what he is saying. What it said to me is that heterosexual reproduction happens because that is how our species evolved to survive. I did not read it as a call to make people infertile or to kill.

As I said before, I have misunderstood the comment in the heat of the moment. Once again, I apologise

I've since read up and found that out. I took longer to type my message than you'd think.

[Page]

I was not arguing for eugenics, in fact, I was making the point that evolution does not even naturally tend toward eugenics. Natural selection doesn't mean ideal traits for survival are passed on, only that any mutation can be passed on if an organism lives to procreate.

Phrasing evolution as "Survival of the fittest" really fucked humanity up, a lot. It should have been "Survival of the living".

If only the fittest survived, there would be no life but tardigrades. And even tardigrades despite their resiliency can only live in an infinitesimal shred of the universe for a short time.

But my go to for pointing out that living things do not evolve ideal traits is that humans eat and breathe through the same hole. Terrible "design."

[Odreria]

Furthermore, for those who follow religions that disapprove of homosexuality, it is misguided to call them bigots because they are simply doing as their God commands. If you want tolerance, then start tolerating.

Why exactly should homosexuals roll over and lick the religious' boots? This reeks of theocracy.

Why should the religious lick the boots of homosexuals?

[Kowani]

Being kinder to kin (by getting kin more stuff) does not equate to protecting kin with ones life to ensure survival of kin, or enabling kin a higher chance at reproductive success.
I highly doubt it's instinctual (genetic) this behavior and instead postulate it is cultural (learned behaviour).

I literally just provided evidence on this lmao

[Daarwyrth]

Why exactly should homosexuals roll over and lick the religious' boots? This reeks of theocracy.

Why should the religious lick the boots of homosexuals?

If the religious were perhaps more tolerant and loving of others, the others might be less hostile and angry at the religious. Aren't most religions about preaching the unconditional love of God? And to be kind and good to your fellows? How about the religious start practicing what they preach?

[Caraani]

Why exactly should homosexuals roll over and lick the religious' boots? This reeks of theocracy.

Why should the religious lick the boots of homosexuals?

As I said: Homosexuals do not have an ideology that actively descriminates against religious people, as written in a supposed holy book of the homosexual ideology. It is religious people who have an ideology that actively seeks to descriminate and call all sorts of insults and names homosexuals, as written in their holy book of religious ideology. Therefore, don't equate their tolerating of people who have nothing against them with our supposed "duty" to tolerate people who tell us we're f*****s and that we will burn in hell and that if they'd have their way we'd all be shot. Cause it's so not the same thing. I have no tolerance for intolerance.
We're not calling on religious people to "lick our boots". We're calling on them to act like decent human beings and treat us as fellow human beings.

[Odreria]

Why should the religious lick the boots of homosexuals?

If the religious were perhaps more tolerant and loving of others, the others might be less hostile and angry at the religious. Aren't most religions about preaching the unconditional love of God? And to be kind and good to your fellows? How about the religious start practicing what they preach?

It’s rhetorical. I’m saying, if they’re not a dick to you don’t be a dick to them

[Palmyrion]

Being kinder to kin (by getting kin more stuff) does not equate to protecting kin with ones life to ensure survival of kin, or enabling kin a higher chance at reproductive success.
I highly doubt it's instinctual (genetic) this behavior and instead postulate it is cultural (learned behaviour).

So you're saying that kin selection - which is literally instinctual/genetic - doesn't ensure survivability (and thus better reproductive chances) of kin.

Gimme a break.

[Ostroeuropa]

If we take the definition offered in the OP, the "trauma" answer points towards an answer.

Under some views negative feelings require no justification. You feel what you feel and that is that. This could include "Disgust" for instance. Under other views, the trauma example provides a justification in fringe cases.

What is unjustifiable is acting upon those feelings in a way that harms other people rather than taking responsibility for them.

-

There is also a discussion to be had about what is meant by "Homosexual.". In a purely reductionist view you're talking about sexual orientation.

And yet, this is not how "Homophobia" is actually used all the time. It is also used to criticize people who dislike things like the displays at pride parades and incredibly flamboyant behaviors and so on.

If we take that kind of stuff seriously, then homophobia can be justified quite easily though a simple matter of finding some things irritating and not being to your taste, though again, an impetus is on the person to not use their feelings as justification for harming others.

It depends on what exactly we're talking about.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

1st Admendment

[The Alma Mater]

...no it wasn't lmao
NAMBLA was advocating for the legalization of pedophilia in a time when gay rights didn't exist yet
this is fucking incoherent

Interesting, I didn’t know that, and I certainly see where you’re coming from.
But many pedophiles today advocate for them being in the LGBTQ+.
But let’s stop arguing, we both agree that pedophilia is bad, and that homosexuality is good, and what more do we really need to agree on?

Ironically, American society seems to think the opposite. Being gay = bad; being a pedophile is not an objection to become president.