Can Homophobia Be Justified?

[Nakena]

So what you're saying is that if we do the right thing this time, we might have to do the right thing again in the future? Egads.

Yes, and you shouldn't be shocked if people start pushing back on it with greater and greater force. Which has already happened even, hence the uptick in the % of people self reporting themselves as being uncomfortable or against the LGBT movement in surveys over the past couple years.

Do you have sauces for that? I am genuinely curious.

[The New California Republic]

So what you're saying is that if we do the right thing this time, we might have to do the right thing again in the future? Egads.

Yes, and you shouldn't be shocked if people start pushing back on it with greater and greater force. Which has already happened even, hence the uptick in the % of people self reporting themselves as being uncomfortable or against the LGBT movement in surveys over the past couple years.

Yes there has been some hints of that among young women in particular, but there could be a whole host of possible reasons for that, such as a general turn towards the right, conservative elements becoming increasingly vocal, etc.

[Greater Kopmakia]

How is "being treated fairly and equally" a slippery slope? Yeah, of course legalisation of homosexuality isn't going far enough. LGBTQ people should be treated exactly the same as everyone else and enjoy all the rights that other people have. It's not a slippery slope, it's simple human decency.

LGBT people having rights is literally like 1984

Wh-
what?

[Bienenhalde]

There is a delicate balance of maintaining freedom of religion and respect for people´s sexual orientations.

Either you have respect for people's sexual orientations or you don't. If you do not have respect for someone's sexual orientation you're homophobic. Religious freedom is not a viable wall to hide bigotry and hatred behind. If a religion is disrespectful towards people's sexual orientations, it deserves to be called homophobic.

Shouldn't respecting people themselves be enough? One does not necessarily need to like or approve of all of a person's attributes and behaviors to respect them.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yes, and you shouldn't be shocked if people start pushing back on it with greater and greater force. Which has already happened even, hence the uptick in the % of people self reporting themselves as being uncomfortable or against the LGBT movement in surveys over the past couple years.

Do you have sauces for that? I am genuinely curious.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 503758001/

GLAAD's 2020 survey didn't focus solely on millennials and instead focused on all non-LGBT Americans and found that anywhere from 26-39% of them are somewhat or very uncomfortable with LGBT people depending on the situation still. Which is an increase from their 2016-2017 surveys where the numbers were 26-34% depending on situation.

[Kannap]

Either you have respect for people's sexual orientations or you don't. If you do not have respect for someone's sexual orientation you're homophobic. Religious freedom is not a viable wall to hide bigotry and hatred behind. If a religion is disrespectful towards people's sexual orientations, it deserves to be called homophobic.

Shouldn't respecting people themselves be enough? One does not necessarily need to like or approve of all of a person's attributes and behaviors to respect them.

Can someone respect their black coworker but hate his skin color?

[Silvedania]

Shouldn't respecting people themselves be enough? One does not necessarily need to like or approve of all of a person's attributes and behaviors to respect them.

Can someone respect their black coworker but hate his skin color?

No, but kinda? I don't think so.

[Daarwyrth]

Either you have respect for people's sexual orientations or you don't. If you do not have respect for someone's sexual orientation you're homophobic. Religious freedom is not a viable wall to hide bigotry and hatred behind. If a religion is disrespectful towards people's sexual orientations, it deserves to be called homophobic.

Shouldn't respecting people themselves be enough? One does not necessarily need to like or approve of all of a person's attributes and behaviors to respect them.

You cannot say "I respect gays" but also say "being gay is a sin". Those are mutually exclusive, and if you claim to respect gay people in those circumstances you're putting a pretty pink bow on a lie. Any phrase like "I respect gays, but", "I have nothing against homosexuality, but" is plainly put a big fat lie. If someone truly respects gays, then they simply respect gays and don't call them sinful. Religion is not a free pass to hate on people, not in a modern, advanced society. The same goes vice versa, of course.

[Pax Constitution]

Shouldn't respecting people themselves be enough? One does not necessarily need to like or approve of all of a person's attributes and behaviors to respect them.

Can someone respect their black coworker but hate his skin color?

Or better yet: Can someone respect their black coworker but 'not necessarily need to like or approve' of their skin color?

The answer is a resounding no.

I know what Bienenhalde meant, though! Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're under the impression that sexuality, unlike race, is a chosen attribute--which is not the case. Sexuality can be just as ambiguous and "anarchical" as race/ethnicity. In other words: you can't choose to be gay (in most instances) just like you can't choose to be black.

Anyhow, I don't think homophobia can be "justified" in the sense that it can be tolerated. Homophobia can be understood and homophobia can be clarified, but at the end of the day discrimination on the basis of sexuality cannot be supported by any scientific standings. There is no logical reasoning to believing a man shouldn't be able to marry a man, or a woman shouldn't be able to marry a woman.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Can someone respect their black coworker but hate his skin color?

Or better yet: Can someone respect their black coworker but 'not necessarily need to like or approve' of their skin color?

The answer is a resounding no.

I know what Bienenhalde meant, though! Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're under the impression that sexuality, unlike race, is a chosen attribute--which is not the case. Sexuality can be just as ambiguous and "anarchical" as race/ethnicity. In other words: you can't choose to be gay (in most instances) just like you can't choose to be black.

Anyhow, I don't think homophobia can be "justified" in the sense that it can be tolerated. Homophobia can be understood and homophobia can be clarified, but at the end of the day discrimination on the basis of sexuality cannot be supported by any scientific standings. There is no logical reasoning to believing a man shouldn't be able to marry a man, or a woman shouldn't be able to marry a woman.

Refreshing to see this. And I agree 100%.

[Kowani]

Do you have sauces for that? I am genuinely curious.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 503758001/

GLAAD's 2020 survey didn't focus solely on millennials and instead focused on all non-LGBT Americans and found that anywhere from 26-39% of them are somewhat or very uncomfortable with LGBT people depending on the situation still. Which is an increase from their 2016-2017 surveys where the numbers were 26-34% depending on situation.

god i wish i could check the crosstabs on shit like this

[Bienenhalde]

Shouldn't respecting people themselves be enough? One does not necessarily need to like or approve of all of a person's attributes and behaviors to respect them.

Can someone respect their black coworker but hate his skin color?

I mean, someone might find black skin physically unnattractive, but in that case it would be better to keep one's mouth shut and not comment to avoid any unecessary offense or disrespect.

[Gongsi]

Shouldn't respecting people themselves be enough? One does not necessarily need to like or approve of all of a person's attributes and behaviors to respect them.

You cannot say "I respect gays" but also say "being gay is a sin". Those are mutually exclusive, and if you claim to respect gay people in those circumstances you're putting a pretty pink bow on a lie. Any phrase like "I respect gays, but", "I have nothing against homosexuality, but" is plainly put a big fat lie. If someone truly respects gays, then they simply respect gays and don't call them sinful. The same goes vice versa, of course.

I, personally, am on the fence about homosexuality as a sin. I definitely do not believe it is a sin that God would judge harshly. Still, I would not say that it is to someone's face unless I was in company I knew would not take offense. I still show homosexual individuals the respect and kindness I would show someone who is not homosexual. I believe sin is a personal matter and it isn't any of my business. The sins of a person does not change my opinion of them in any regards, and I will do my best to try and ensure people are not uncomfortable, hurt, or otherwise offended by my words and deeds.

That is my "I respect gays, but..." There is no lie, no disqualification, no hypocrisy. I strive to love everyone equally, no matter what. No exceptions.

[Bienenhalde]

Shouldn't respecting people themselves be enough? One does not necessarily need to like or approve of all of a person's attributes and behaviors to respect them.

You cannot say "I respect gays" but also say "being gay is a sin". Those are mutually exclusive, and if you claim to respect gay people in those circumstances you're putting a pretty pink bow on a lie. Any phrase like "I respect gays, but", "I have nothing against homosexuality, but" is plainly put a big fat lie. If someone truly respects gays, then they simply respect gays and don't call them sinful. Religion is not a free pass to hate on people, not in a modern, advanced society.

If a person is being reasonable and polite to you and not causing you any problems, why should you care if they happen to believe that gay sex is sinful? I mean, sure I am upset when homophobes cause actual harm to LGBT people, but if religious conservatives can actually be decent and not cause trouble for LGBT people, why should I be upset with them? I don't see the need to police other peoples' thoughts.

[Daarwyrth]

You cannot say "I respect gays" but also say "being gay is a sin". Those are mutually exclusive, and if you claim to respect gay people in those circumstances you're putting a pretty pink bow on a lie. Any phrase like "I respect gays, but", "I have nothing against homosexuality, but" is plainly put a big fat lie. If someone truly respects gays, then they simply respect gays and don't call them sinful. Religion is not a free pass to hate on people, not in a modern, advanced society.

If a person is being reasonable and polite to you and not causing you any problems, why should you care if they happen to believe that gay sex is sinful? I mean, sure I am upset when homophobes cause actual harm to LGBT people, but if religious conservatives can actually be decent and not cause trouble for LGBT people, why should I be upset with them? I don't see the need to police other peoples' thoughts.

If religious conservatives simply kept quiet and allowed gay people to have all the rights they have, there wouldn't have been a problem. If they want to think that gay sex is a sin, so be it. But if they simply keep those thoughts to themselves or those in their religious community, fine. However, that is not the case in reality. In reality, religious conservatives are actively working on having gays be refused the same rights as others have, such as marriage, the right to adopt/have children etc. They actively seek to impose their religious dogmas on everyone else in society, without any regard for the fact whether other people even agree with their religious ideals. Look at Poland, where religious ultra-conservatives have heavily infringed upon the rights of women, for the sake of their religious dogmas. That is where the problem lies in and why it is problematic that gays are called sinful. Because that phrase is used to actively find ways to oppress gay people in society. It therefore no longer becomes quiet thought, but a tool of oppression. That is why simple respect means shit if that person is also supporting endeavours that take away or infringe upon someone's human rights, in this case that of an LGBTQ individual.

[Ethel mermania]

That is taking away people's rights. And the traditional definition is wrong, for that matter.

gay "marraige" is not a right. It is a sin. It is unnatural and very sinful.

A right is what is designed a right by whatever is the current authority.

[Gongsi]

If a person is being reasonable and polite to you and not causing you any problems, why should you care if they happen to believe that gay sex is sinful? I mean, sure I am upset when homophobes cause actual harm to LGBT people, but if religious conservatives can actually be decent and not cause trouble for LGBT people, why should I be upset with them? I don't see the need to police other peoples' thoughts.

If religious conservatives simply kept quiet and allowed gay people to have all the rights they have, there wouldn't have been a problem. If they want to think that gay sex is a sin, so be it. But if they simply keep those thoughts to themselves or those in their religious community, fine. However, that is not the case in reality. In reality, religious conservatives are actively working on having gays be refused the same rights as others have, such as marriage, the right to adopt/have children etc. They actively seek to impose their religious dogmas on everyone else in society, without any regard for the fact whether other people even agree with their religious ideals. Look at Poland, where religious ultra-conservatives have heavily infringed upon the rights of women, for the sake of their religious dogmas. That is where the problem lies in and why it is problematic that gays are called sinful. Because that phrase is used to actively find ways to oppress gay people in society. It therefore no longer becomes quiet thought, but a tool of oppression. That is why simple respect means shit if that person is also supporting endeavours that take away or infringe upon someone's human rights, in this case that of an LGBTQ individual.

But now you're conflating someone expressing their opinion with someone actively trying to oppress gay people. Just because one might say "homosexuality is a sin" doesn't mean one can't actively support LGBTQ rights.

[Daarwyrth]

If religious conservatives simply kept quiet and allowed gay people to have all the rights they have, there wouldn't have been a problem. If they want to think that gay sex is a sin, so be it. But if they simply keep those thoughts to themselves or those in their religious community, fine. However, that is not the case in reality. In reality, religious conservatives are actively working on having gays be refused the same rights as others have, such as marriage, the right to adopt/have children etc. They actively seek to impose their religious dogmas on everyone else in society, without any regard for the fact whether other people even agree with their religious ideals. Look at Poland, where religious ultra-conservatives have heavily infringed upon the rights of women, for the sake of their religious dogmas. That is where the problem lies in and why it is problematic that gays are called sinful. Because that phrase is used to actively find ways to oppress gay people in society. It therefore no longer becomes quiet thought, but a tool of oppression. That is why simple respect means shit if that person is also supporting endeavours that take away or infringe upon someone's human rights, in this case that of an LGBTQ individual.

But now you're conflating someone expressing their opinion with someone actively trying to oppress gay people. Just because one might say "homosexuality is a sin" doesn't mean one can't actively support LGBTQ rights.

As I said, if it is a quiet thought uttered to yourself or like-minded individuals, I am not affected by it. But when someone says "homosexuality is a sin" and uses it as a justification for passing anti-LGBTQ legislation (like the LGBTQ-free zones in Poland) for example, then it becomes harmful. And if as a religious individual you vote for someone with such an agenda, for example because they espouse a religious political agenda, then you are indirectly but actively harming gay people. It's why I consider the entire concept of sin to be highly problematic and very much outdated in a modern and advanced society. Too often the quiet thought "this is a sin" becomes a motivation to act against the people who are considered to be sinful.

It's why I am in favour of a drastic and deep separation of church and state, because in my opinion religious dogma has no place in politics. Yes, the right to freedom of religion needs to be present and protected, but religion cannot be used a political ideology in my opinion, because it becomes too harmful, too quickly, as can be seen from history and even in the present.

Besides, expressing an opinion like "homosexuality is a sin" can lead certain individuals to act upon those words. They may truly believe that LGBTQ people are abominations that need to be eradicated, and therefore murder a LGBTQ'er, or oppress them. In my opinion, it is better to remove the trigger, namely the concept of sin, in order to prevent such a chain of events. History has shown that religious dogmas and teachings have been used far too often as justifications for murder, slaughter, genocide and other atrocities.

[Gongsi]

But now you're conflating someone expressing their opinion with someone actively trying to oppress gay people. Just because one might say "homosexuality is a sin" doesn't mean one can't actively support LGBTQ rights.

As I said, if it is a quiet thought uttered to yourself or like-minded individuals, I am not affected by it. But when someone says "homosexuality is a sin" and uses it as a justification for passing anti-LGBTQ legislation (like the LGBTQ-free zones in Poland) for example, then it becomes harmful. And if as a religious individual you vote for someone with such an agenda, for example because the espouse a religious political agenda, then you are indirectly but actively harming gay people. It's why I consider the entire concept of sin to be highly problematic and very much outdated in a modern and advanced society. Too often the quiet thought "this is a sin" becomes a motivation to act against the people who are considered to be sinful.

It's why I am for a drastic and deep separation of church and state, because in my opinion religious dogma has no place in politics. Yes, the right to freedom of religion needs to be there and protected, but religion cannot be used a political ideology in my opinion, because it becomes too harmful, too quickly, as can be seen from history and even in the present.

Yeah, but there's a lot of "and if" in you statements. What if I say this and don't use it to oppress people? What if a majority of Christians did this? The problem isn't so much with the concept of sin, but rather the need people feel to punish others for it. It's all rooted in traditionalism, culturalism, and revisionism, as you won't find a scrap in the New Testament condoning such things. These are your real culprits, not the concept of sin.

But I also do agree with you. The government should not dictate what is and is not sin, just as religion should not dictate was is and is not law. The more separation between Church and State we gain, the better.

[Daarwyrth]

As I said, if it is a quiet thought uttered to yourself or like-minded individuals, I am not affected by it. But when someone says "homosexuality is a sin" and uses it as a justification for passing anti-LGBTQ legislation (like the LGBTQ-free zones in Poland) for example, then it becomes harmful. And if as a religious individual you vote for someone with such an agenda, for example because the espouse a religious political agenda, then you are indirectly but actively harming gay people. It's why I consider the entire concept of sin to be highly problematic and very much outdated in a modern and advanced society. Too often the quiet thought "this is a sin" becomes a motivation to act against the people who are considered to be sinful.

It's why I am for a drastic and deep separation of church and state, because in my opinion religious dogma has no place in politics. Yes, the right to freedom of religion needs to be there and protected, but religion cannot be used a political ideology in my opinion, because it becomes too harmful, too quickly, as can be seen from history and even in the present.

Yeah, but there's a lot of "and if" in you statements. What if I say this and don't use it to oppress people? What if a majority of Christians did this? The problem isn't so much with the concept of sin, but rather the need people feel to punish others for it. It's all rooted in traditionalism, culturalism, and revisionism, as you won't find a scrap in the New Testament condoning such things. These are your real culprits, not the concept of sin.

But I also do agree with you. The government should not dictate what is and is not sin, just as religion should not dictate was is and is not law. The more separation between Church and State we gain, the better.

History tends to show that sin as a concept tends to be used as a tool of oppression, because it's the easiest. Scare people to death of a concept like hell and eternal damnation, and you can easily control by saying what leads to that hell and damnation and what not. Today we have different, more advanced and modern tools to thwart crime and moral wrongness, like the penal code or various philosophical ideologies on morality and "good and evil". As such, I consider sin to be an outdated tool of population control, that doesn't have a use in a modern society like ours, especially because people themselves determine what is sinful and not, not some divine entity. Because I don't see a fax that conveys the will of a god or goddess, detailing what they consider as sinful or not

Calling homosexuality sinful does more harm than good that way, albeit I'd say it never did any good to begin with. It harms people, and the perception religious individuals have of LGBTQ individuals for example. It is an outdated justification for something that doesn't deserve any form of justification.

I know you agree with a part of what I said, but I still want to draw this analogy: imagine if you were eating a cookie, and someone who is on a diet storms at you and slaps the cookie out of your hands, telling you how bad and unhealthy the cookie is based upon the dietary book they're reading, would you feel fine with that? That they tell you "my diet says I can't have a cookie, so you can't have one either"? In my opinion, the answer should be 'no'. Everyone has the right to follow a diet if they feel they need one, but they don't have the right to tell others or force others to do the same.

[Crilland]

all of this religous talk a bout GAY BAD STRAIGHT GOOD Really Just Makes Me inch closer to atheism

[Crabaiaia]

Eh, it can be justified to hate the act of homosexuality as an act, I would certainly abstain from having sex with a man in the future but not to hate gays as people

[Genivaria]

Eh, it can be justified to hate the act of homosexuality as an act, I would certainly abstain from having sex with a man in the future but not to hate gays as people

Homosexuality is not an act, it is a sexuality.

[Fartsniffage]

No it can't. Anyone who thinks it can is wrong.

Not sure why this is even a question.....

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Yes, and you shouldn't be shocked if people start pushing back on it with greater and greater force. Which has already happened even, hence the uptick in the % of people self reporting themselves as being uncomfortable or against the LGBT movement in surveys over the past couple years.

Yes there has been some hints of that among young women in particular, but there could be a whole host of possible reasons for that, such as a general turn towards the right, conservative elements becoming increasingly vocal, etc.

I'm pretty sure my generation is less right-wing overall, not moreso.