Can Homophobia Be Justified?

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

No.

/thread

[Caraani]

No, the implication is that this debate has been had in both the public and private circuit an approximate quad-shit-million times and the homophobes have failed each and every time to provide any good reason why their views are justified, which is why they now have to resort to attempting to guilt trip the rest of us into tolerating their bigotry because doing otherwise makes them feel bad about themselves (as if their good image is something that they are entitled to), and even then the best excuse they can muster for why the hell we should do so is, "Well... I don't... do anything about those views..." essentially admitting the worthlessness of their views in any pragmatic or substantial sense.

That's true in the Western world, but there's a whole other world out there of political realities.

Are human rights different based on a person's location?

[Punished UMN]

That's true in the Western world, but there's a whole other world out there of political realities.

Are human rights different based on a person's location?

Certainly, because they're social constructs.

[Giovenith]

No, the implication is that this debate has been had in both the public and private circuit an approximate quad-shit-million times and the homophobes have failed each and every time to provide any good reason why their views are justified, which is why they now have to resort to attempting to guilt trip the rest of us into tolerating their bigotry because doing otherwise makes them feel bad about themselves (as if their good image is something that they are entitled to), and even then the best excuse they can muster for why the hell we should do so is, "Well... I don't... do anything about those views..." essentially admitting the worthlessness of their views in any pragmatic or substantial sense.

That's true in the Western world, but there's a whole other world out there of political realities.

Yeah, and those guys are wrong, their arguments are just as bad, and I don't respect their worthless opinions on this issue. Hiding behind your half of the floating space dirt-ball we all had the misfortune of being born on is not and never will be an excuse for unjustifiable views about and shitty behavior toward your fellow human beings, East or West, North or South, molten center of the planet or floating high above it.

[Caraani]

Are human rights different based on a person's location?

Certainly, because they're social constructs.

That means nothing. The same way a British dreadnought didn't suddenly fall apart and sank into the Red Sea as soon as it left the suez canal and crossed into a different part of the world, so do human rights remain the same anywhere. I'm always impressed by the rest of the world that was quick to adopt the technological advancements that came out of Europe and North America, including all the homophobia and racism and ideologies, and everybody seems to accept it to be so, but when someone mentions women's rights or religious tolerance or homophobia people from developing parts of the world tell us that "it's just different in here." Seems to me it wasn't "just different" when you adopted all those laws, form of government, industry and inovations.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

I just want to say, thanks NVI, for locking it down for a while, that’s all.
You can go back to discussing if gay people deserve to live or not, or whatever you’re talking about.

[East Statesboro]

Nope.

[Punished UMN]

Certainly, because they're social constructs.

That means nothing. The same way a British dreadnought didn't suddenly fall apart and sank into the Red Sea as soon as it left the suez canal and crossed into a different part of the world, so do human rights remain the same anywhere. I'm always impressed by the rest of the world that was quick to adopt the technological advancements that came out of Europe and North America, including all the homophobia and racism and ideologies, and everybody seems to accept it to be so, but when someone mentions women's rights or religious tolerance or homophobia people from developing parts of the world tell us that "it's just different in here." Seems to me it wasn't "just different" when you adopted all those laws, form of government, industry and inovations.

Human rights aren't technology, they're legal constructs, they are entirely dependent on people's belief in them to be real.

[2 and 2 is Fish]

And this is why I never go to the forums save for short forays.

[Quartia and Karafuto]

And this is why I never go to the forums save for short forays.

Honestly I'm glad there are threads like this. It's better than someone getting banned for even asking the question.

[Russiyskaya Respublica]

Short answer: No.
Long answer: Yes, but no every justification is good or valid.

[Ifreann]

Homophobia is not justified, ever. It's literally in the name: "-phobia" is an irrational fear of something...

"Homophobia" is a misnomer at best, and deliberate intellectual dishonesty at worst. To imply that any characteristic one finds disagreeable is somehow rooted in irrational fear..

The suffix -phobia does not refer exclusively to irrational fears. Hydrophobic materials, for example, repel water. It is obviously absurd to suggest that certain molecules can experience irrational fear of other molecules. Photophobia refers to the medical symptom of light intolerance, pain or discomfort due to light. And in the case of homophobia, it refers to an intense dislike or hatred of gay people. A think which is obviously irrational and unjustifiable, but which is not necessarily rooted in an irrational fear.

[Giovenith]

That means nothing. The same way a British dreadnought didn't suddenly fall apart and sank into the Red Sea as soon as it left the suez canal and crossed into a different part of the world, so do human rights remain the same anywhere. I'm always impressed by the rest of the world that was quick to adopt the technological advancements that came out of Europe and North America, including all the homophobia and racism and ideologies, and everybody seems to accept it to be so, but when someone mentions women's rights or religious tolerance or homophobia people from developing parts of the world tell us that "it's just different in here." Seems to me it wasn't "just different" when you adopted all those laws, form of government, industry and inovations.

Human rights aren't technology, they're legal constructs, they are entirely dependent on people's belief in them to be real.

True. And that doesn't matter in the slightest.

Nothing is objective in any larger sense, if you really wanted to, you could accurately say that nuking the species into extinction for its own sake isn't really objectively wrong, it's just our social construct that the perpetuation of human life matters. But as we have instead, for better or worse, elected to give a shit about life and people, that means we have to make decisions about how we're going to treat each other, and those decisions must have good reasoning behind them which stands up to scrutiny — which homophobes have repeatedly failed to provide, as countless threads on this very forum alone can demonstrate.

Peddling backwards as far as you can into abstract philosophy in order to hide behind the ultimate subjectivity of the universe for non-petty issues like human rights is just a lame admission that you don't have a real argument that works here in the real world. It's the intellectual equivalent of throwing up your arms and going, "Oh my god, who cares?! It doesn't even matter anyway! Just shut up! I can do whatever I want, you're not the boss of me!" It's flipping the table and calling the game pointless when you've lost.

[Ethel mermania]

That's true in the Western world, but there's a whole other world out there of political realities.

Are human rights different based on a person's location?

Thats the question, isn't it? Does western thought apply anywhere else than the west?

[Istoreya]

Yes, it can be justified. By idiots.
Which means that the 'justification' is worthless and no-one should attempt to replicate their idiocy.

[Caraani]

That means nothing. The same way a British dreadnought didn't suddenly fall apart and sank into the Red Sea as soon as it left the suez canal and crossed into a different part of the world, so do human rights remain the same anywhere. I'm always impressed by the rest of the world that was quick to adopt the technological advancements that came out of Europe and North America, including all the homophobia and racism and ideologies, and everybody seems to accept it to be so, but when someone mentions women's rights or religious tolerance or homophobia people from developing parts of the world tell us that "it's just different in here." Seems to me it wasn't "just different" when you adopted all those laws, form of government, industry and inovations.

Human rights aren't technology, they're legal constructs, they are entirely dependent on people's belief in them to be real.

The fact that they're legal constructs doesn't make them any less valid. The rest of the world doesn't exist in a vacuum. Countries cannot pretend to be modern and developed when they adopt the technologies necessary to be developed but maintain ideologies from the Bronze Age. Our advancement isn't in a vacuum either. As we urbanised and made technological advancements we understood that things like infanticide, rape, slavery are wrong. Slavery was wrong any time, all the time, it's just that some parts of the world stopped justifying it before others. At that point slavery didn't stop being wrong only in those parts of the world, it continued to be wrong everywhere. Likewise, if the Western World now understands that homosexuals should be left to live like the tax-paying citizens that they are, that doesn't mean that only in the West is it ok to be gay, but in other parts of the world it is still ok to stone gays. It's wrong here, and it's wrong there. They just have to catch up.

[Caraani]

Are human rights different based on a person's location?

Thats the question, isn't it? Does western thought apply anywhere else than the west?

Human rights aren't "western thought" - and the sooner some parts of the world understand this the faster we can move on from a Eurocentric world.

[Punished UMN]

Human rights aren't technology, they're legal constructs, they are entirely dependent on people's belief in them to be real.

True. And that doesn't matter in the slightest.

Nothing is objective in any larger sense, if you really wanted to, you could accurately say that nuking the species into extinction for its own sake isn't really objectively wrong, it's just our social construct that the perpetuation of human life matters. But as we have instead, for better or worse, elected to give a shit about life and people, that means we have to make decisions about how we're going to treat each other, and those decisions must have good reasoning behind them which stands up to scrutiny — which homophobes have repeatedly failed to provide, as countless threads on this very forum alone can demonstrate.

Peddling backwards as far as you can into abstract philosophy in order to hide behind the ultimate subjectivity of the universe for non-petty issues like human rights is just a lame admission that you don't have a real argument that works here in the real world. It's the intellectual equivalent of throwing up your arms and going, "Oh my god, who cares?! It doesn't even matter anyway! Just shut up! I can do whatever I want, you're not the boss of me!" It's flipping the table and calling the game pointless when you've lost.

I'm for LGBT rights, I'm just saying that the narrative that LGBT rights have triumphed when they're on the retreat on most of the globe is incorrect and potentially harmful for a global movement.

[Punished UMN]

Human rights aren't technology, they're legal constructs, they are entirely dependent on people's belief in them to be real.

The fact that they're legal constructs doesn't make them any less valid. The rest of the world doesn't exist in a vacuum. Countries cannot pretend to be modern and developed when they adopt the technologies necessary to be developed but maintain ideologies from the Bronze Age. Our advancement isn't in a vacuum either. As we urbanised and made technological advancements we understood that things like infanticide, rape, slavery are wrong. Slavery was wrong any time, all the time, it's just that some parts of the world stopped justifying it before others. At that point slavery didn't stop being wrong only in those parts of the world, it continued to be wrong everywhere. Likewise, if the Western World now understands that homosexuals should be left to live like the tax-paying citizens that they are, that doesn't mean that only in the West is it ok to be gay, but in other parts of the world it is still ok to stone gays. It's wrong here, and it's wrong there. They just have to catch up.

So by what mechanism do we "discover" these objectively existing rights? Morality is not and never will be a science.

[Kowani]

Are human rights different based on a person's location?

Thats the question, isn't it? Does western thought apply anywhere else than the west?

when applied with guns and money

[Ethel mermania]

Thats the question, isn't it? Does western thought apply anywhere else than the west?

Human rights aren't "western thought" - and the sooner some parts of the world understand this the faster we can move on from a Eurocentric world.

As soon as the rest of the world adopts European standards of thought we can move on from a eurocentric world?

[Novokria]

No you can not hate the Homosexuals because they are your fellow Humans God does not teach hatred against your fellow Humans he teaches Salvation for all.


We most work for God not against him.

[Ethel mermania]

Thats the question, isn't it? Does western thought apply anywhere else than the west?

when applied with guns and money

You have read my signature.

[Istoreya]

No you can not hate the Homosexuals because they are your fellow Humans God does not teach hatred against your fellow Humans he teaches Salvation for all.


We most work for God not against him.

Your signature says you are against gay marriage...

[Punished UMN]

True. And that doesn't matter in the slightest.

Nothing is objective in any larger sense, if you really wanted to, you could accurately say that nuking the species into extinction for its own sake isn't really objectively wrong, it's just our social construct that the perpetuation of human life matters. But as we have instead, for better or worse, elected to give a shit about life and people, that means we have to make decisions about how we're going to treat each other, and those decisions must have good reasoning behind them which stands up to scrutiny — which homophobes have repeatedly failed to provide, as countless threads on this very forum alone can demonstrate.

Peddling backwards as far as you can into abstract philosophy in order to hide behind the ultimate subjectivity of the universe for non-petty issues like human rights is just a lame admission that you don't have a real argument that works here in the real world. It's the intellectual equivalent of throwing up your arms and going, "Oh my god, who cares?! It doesn't even matter anyway! Just shut up! I can do whatever I want, you're not the boss of me!" It's flipping the table and calling the game pointless when you've lost.

I'm for LGBT rights, I'm just saying that the narrative that LGBT rights have triumphed when they're on the retreat on most of the globe is incorrect and potentially harmful for a global movement.

Essentially the point I'm trying to make is that the strategy which the global LGBT movement has used to actually advocate for rights on the ground has failed in several regions of the world, and gains and even simply changes in social attitudes have either stagnated or been reversed by homophobic propaganda campaigns (in the FSU) and by use of physical violence on the part of the state (in the MENA and SSA regions). Simply providing arguments isn't working, because these arguments are steeped in paradigms which aren't compelling in these countries, and the effort to transplant Western rhetoric and the direct political alliance with Western states (e.g. the American state department) has actively harmed efforts by local, grassroots organizers to change social attitudes in these countries.