NationStates

Drew Durrnil wrote:Yes, i.e. traumatic experiences with LGBTQ.

That is like fearing all blacks because a black man once stole your purse. Or fearing all cops because one once sat on your uncles neck until he suffocated. Fearing all Catholics because you were raped by a priest as a child.

Understandable. Human. But not justified.

Tsarus 2142 wrote:

Prydania wrote:You can't respect someone if you hold the belief that they are somehow "lesser."

Homophobia is never justified. Next question.

"Homophobia" does not imply viewing a gay individual as lesser. Maybe, hypothetically, I am homophobic of LGBT. I (hypothetically) do not like LGBT as a concept or perhaps an idea, but it does not mean that i immediately do not like an LGBT person.

Edit: What Loeje said above

In current lexicon homophobia implies disgust of gay people too, alongside fear and hatred. And disgust, as I've always loved to say, shares a table with hatred and fear - one doesn't go without the other two.

Picairn wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:I think that history has demonstrated that anything can be rationalized, hence justified.

Like slavery and genocide?

Sadly, yeah. Even if the rationalisation (and the subsequent justification) is bullshit.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Drew Durrnil wrote:Yes, i.e. traumatic experiences with LGBTQ.

That is like fearing all blacks because a black man once stole your purse. Or fearing all cops because one once sat on your uncles neck until he suffocated. Fearing all Catholics because you were raped by a priest as a child.

Understandable. Human. But not justified.

You get to choose to be a cop or a priest, and the police are fundamentally racist and the catholic church is filled with sex criminals.

I get what you're saying and the point you're trying to make is good but those two are false equivalency.

It all boils down to the degree of homophobia. If it is simply disagreeing with LGBT stuff, then, while not good, it is still justifiable as long as you DON'T view those who identify as LGBT as lesser or disrespect them for the sole reason of them being LGBT. However, if you hate LGBT, then you will, most likely, never be able to see LGBT the same way you see straight people. Even if you are very accepting of people who identify as LGBT, as long as you hate it it is unacceptable.
Take these words how you would like to take them, just don't use them as an excuse for bigotry, and don't attack me over my opinion. I am not against LGBT at all and am just trying to stretch my brain a little to see this issue from a different viewpoint.

Alcala-Cordel wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:That is like fearing all blacks because a black man once stole your purse. Or fearing all cops because one once sat on your uncles neck until he suffocated. Fearing all Catholics because you were raped by a priest as a child.

Understandable. Human. But not justified.

You get to choose to be a cop or a priest, and the police are fundamentally racist and the catholic church is filled with sex criminals.

I get what you're saying and the point you're trying to make is good but those two are false equivalency.

On the contrary - you are proving my point by providing DIFFERENT reasons to fear those groups.
Negative experiences with a single member are not a reason to fear a group. The group supporting and facilitating the behaviour of said member is.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Alcala-Cordel wrote:You get to choose to be a cop or a priest, and the police are fundamentally racist and the catholic church is filled with sex criminals.

I get what you're saying and the point you're trying to make is good but those two are false equivalency.

On the contrary - you are proving my point by providing DIFFERENT reasons to fear those groups.
Negative experiences with a single member are not a reason to fear a group. The group supporting and facilitating the behaviour of said member is.

That's true.

If I have a dislike towards someone, it would always be because of something that they have done personally against me, or just their attitude as a person.

It would never be because they are a different ethnic group, race, religion, or LGBTQ+. So, no.

Discrimination against any oppressed group is never acceptable for any reason ever.

Not in my book. Jesus loves everyone just the way they are.

Saniston wrote:Discrimination against any oppressed group is never acceptable for any reason ever.

Nitpick: that does depend a bit on your definition of discrimination. Not finding people belonging to a certain ethnic group physically attractive can be said to be discrimination, but it is acceptable.

"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 is dishonest, and stifles any attempt at honest discussion. Words have power by their meaning, and this word was deliberately chosen and pushed for how it paints those who are heretical to its position.

With that out of the way, can a distaste towards people of certain sexual proclivities be justified?

Anything can be justified.

Considering that the argument has gone from "who cares what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom" in the late 90's and early 2000's to "what age can a child begin to take puberty blockers and transition", "bake the cake bigot", "MAP is a valid sexual identity", and "let's DOXX and get this guy fired for heresy" in the 2020's, there is a very rational basis for disagreeing with this slippery slope, despite the cries of all the sycophants in this thread.

Hjallvinter wrote:.
With that out of the way, can a distaste towards people of certain sexual proclivities be justified?

Well, in the case of practicing Catholics it's not a distaste towards the people. That is not morally justifiable.

Sundiata wrote:

Hjallvinter wrote:.
With that out of the way, can a distaste towards people of certain sexual proclivities be justified?

Well, in the case of practicing Catholics it's not a distaste towards the people. That is not morally justifiable.

Catholics imposing their moral standards on others isn't morally justifiable, but imposing your moral standards on Catholics is morally justifiable. Sure thing.

Either a society has a right to impose its moral structure upon itself, or it doesn't. Which is it?

I do not think homophobia can be justified. Even with experiences that are not good, I do not think it is appropriate to shield yourself behind that.

Hjallvinter wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Well, in the case of practicing Catholics it's not a distaste towards the people. That is not morally justifiable.

Catholics imposing their moral standards on others isn't morally justifiable, but imposing your expected behavioral standards on Catholics is morally justifiable. Sure thing.

I am Catholic. But that doesn't mean that I have the right to impose my values on gay people. That's all.

Sundiata wrote:

Hjallvinter wrote:
Catholics imposing their moral standards on others isn't morally justifiable, but imposing your expected behavioral standards on Catholics is morally justifiable. Sure thing.

I am Catholic. But that doesn't mean that I have the right to impose my values on gay people. That's all.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're of the opinion then that a group does not have a right to impose a moral value upon another.

So then, if a particular group views a given practice as unwholesome, immoral, sinful, distasteful, insert adjective here, then what right does the other group have to say that this behavior must be accepted? By following that line of thought, the answer is they have no right to do so, and then there is no basis upon which one could justify acceptance of homosexual practices being imposed on a community that does not want it. Following from that, there is a justification, then, for keeping it out of one's community, if that community has that inclination.

I've been called homophobic many times before even though I'm not, so I guess it can.

oh hey is this where choir auditions are being held
*ahem*
nope-slash-thread

Hjallvinter wrote:So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're of the opinion then that a group does not have a right to impose a moral value upon another.

Oh no, no.

So then, if a particular group views a given practice as unwholesome, immoral, sinful, distasteful, insert adjective here, then what right does the other group have to say that this behavior must be accepted?

It depends on what the law is, who makes it, and how it's made. I do not have the constitutional grounds or authority to enforce the morality of my church upon homosexuals.

By following that line of thought, the answer is they have no right to do so, and then there is no basis upon which one could justify acceptance of homosexual practices being imposed on a community that does not want it.

That's true.

Following from that, there is a justification, then, for keeping it out of one's community.

How? A legal justification?

Hjallvinter wrote:Considering that the argument has gone from "who cares what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom" in the late 90's and early 2000's to "what age can a child begin to take puberty blockers and transition", "bake the cake bigot", "MAP is a valid sexual identity", and "let's DOXX and get this guy fired for heresy" in the 2020's, there is a very rational basis for disagreeing with this slippery slope, despite the cries of all the sycophants in this thread.

lmfao what are you even talking about

Disgraces wrote:I've been called homophobic many times before even though I'm not, so I guess it can.

#guyspostingtheirLs

This depends on what you mean by homophobia.
I think you can very easily justify not agreeing with homosexuality, as long as you let homosexuals alone.
I wouldn’t necessarily call not agreeing with it homophobic neither, but you might do.
Thing such as religion can be an easy justification for what I brought up.
But real serious homophobia, where you harass homosexuals, can not be justified.

Necroghastia wrote:

Hjallvinter wrote:Considering that the argument has gone from "who cares what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom" in the late 90's and early 2000's to "what age can a child begin to take puberty blockers and transition", "bake the cake bigot", "MAP is a valid sexual identity", and "let's DOXX and get this guy fired for heresy" in the 2020's, there is a very rational basis for disagreeing with this slippery slope, despite the cries of all the sycophants in this thread.

lmfao what are you even talking about

translation: "I'm a homophobe but i don't want to admit it so i will pivot to these other talking points i use to justify my hatred of gay people that only work if you squint really hard and don't think about it at all"

Nilokeras wrote:

Disgraces wrote:I've been called homophobic many times before even though I'm not, so I guess it can.

#guyspostingtheirLs

Not really.

Kowani wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:lmfao what are you even talking about

translation: "I'm a homophobe but i don't want to admit it so i will pivot to these other talking points i use to justify my hatred of gay people that only work if you squint really hard and don't think about it at all"

Certain values are just not constitutional.