Can Homophobia Be Justified?

[Picairn]

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

Anything can be justified.

Like slavery and genocide?

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.

A homophobic calling us sycophants.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

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"

I might not understand what he meant, but it wasn’t homophobic, was it?

[Sundiata]

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"

I might not understand what he meant, but it wasn’t homophobic, was it?

Not the idea that some values are not constitutional.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

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

Anything can be justified.

Like slavery and genocide?

It hurts to say this, it really does, but yes, those two things can technically be justified.
The justification will most likely be absolute terrible, I know, but it’s still a justification.

[Hjallvinter]

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

'lmfao" is not an argument

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... assignment
https://abcnews.go.com/US/christian-bak ... d=57215854
https://objectnow.org/guidance-for-being-doxxed/

These discussions are being had, regardless of your awareness of them or not. Wish I had that picture of Vaush's tweet remarking that age of consent is capitalist oppression in regards to MAPs... but that's another story.

And here people thought the slippery slope was a logical fallacy. :^)

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?

I would consider it a rational justification. If one is to believe, much like I do, that laws should simultaneously be an extension of a society's moral fiber guided by reasoning, then I would say that extending this justification into the realm of the legal has basis.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

I might not understand what he meant, but it wasn’t homophobic, was it?

Not the idea that some values are not constitutional.

Yeah, right?
You might not agree with it, but those beliefs definitely don’t make you homophobic.

[Sundiata]

Not the idea that some values are not constitutional.

Yeah, right?
You might not agree with it, but those beliefs definitely don’t make you homophobic.

Absolutely.

[Necroghastia]

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"

I might not understand what he meant, but it wasn’t homophobic, was it?

considering he all but outright said "legalising gayness has lead to pedophile rights movements"
ya it was very home of phobic.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

I might not understand what he meant, but it wasn’t homophobic, was it?

considering he all but outright said "legalising gayness has lead to pedophile rights movements"
ya it was very home of phobic.

I mean, when you think about it, it has.
But different things has let to legalising gayness, so I wouldn’t say it’s the legalisation of gayness’ fault.
Many historical moments from hundred of years ago still affect our world today, without us knowing it.
Of course, I believe that the legalisation of gayness and gay marriage were great, but they undoubtedly also led to some bad things, all things do, that’s one thing I’ve learned from answering issues in NS.

[Kowani]

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"

I might not understand what he meant, but it wasn’t homophobic, was it?

by itself, no
because we are not, however, idiots, we can understand the intended meaning-which was to suggest that legalizing homosexuality led to pedophile advocacy, and therefore there is a "justified" reason to be homophobic
the historical inaccuracies in that chain aside, it's called contextual reading
people rarely say all of what they mean

[Necroghastia]

lmfao what are you even talking about

'lmfao" is not an argument

k

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... assignment

k so? what's the big dealio
transition is healthcare my dude it's not rocket science

https://abcnews.go.com/US/christian-baker-won-supreme-court-case-cake-making/story?id=57215854

cake dude is an asshole, he's allowed to be an asshole, and people are allowed to call him an asshole
what's ur point

https://objectnow.org/guidance-for-being-doxxed/

what's ur point

These discussions are being had, regardless of your awareness of them or not.

i mean im aware of the discussions
just not whatever point you think you're making

Wish I had that picture of Vaush's tweet remarking that age of consent is capitalist oppression in regards to MAPs... but that's another story.

ya you backed off real fast from ur whole legalising gays has led to pedo rights argument
wonder why

And here people thought the slippery slope was a logical fallacy. :^)

bcuz it is lol

I would consider it a rational justification. If one is to believe, much like I do, that laws should simultaneously be an extension of a society's moral fiber guided by reasoning, then I would say that extending this justification into the realm of the legal has basis.

"guided by reasoning"
where's the reasoning tho lol

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

I might not understand what he meant, but it wasn’t homophobic, was it?

by itself, no
because we are not, however, idiots, we can understand the intended meaning-which was to suggest that legalizing homosexuality led to pedophile advocacy, and therefore there is a "justified" reason to be homophobic
the historical inaccuracies in that chain aside, it's called contextual reading
people rarely say all of what they mean

English is not my first language, so excuse me if I’m missing a giant point here, but as I said in the comment above you, decisions made hundred of years ago still affect us today.
And I could see how the legalisation of homosexuality could lead to pedo-protests.
I know it’s a long stretch, and I don’t like to say it, but it’s kinda just how the world is.
I mean, people actually still speculate if the Roman Empire lead to WWI, and it probably helped.
So I would say that he was right, but it’s not a good justification to be homophobic.

[Hjallvinter]

"guided by reasoning"
where's the reasoning tho lol

Insight as riveting as I would expect from one who lists their pronouns

[Necroghastia]

"guided by reasoning"
where's the reasoning tho lol

Insight as riveting as I would expect from one who lists their pronouns

oh ya i forgot that only dumb idiots let other people know how to refer to them

[Grenartia]

No, never. Why is this even a question, it should be obvious. [/thread]

[Kowani]

by itself, no
because we are not, however, idiots, we can understand the intended meaning-which was to suggest that legalizing homosexuality led to pedophile advocacy, and therefore there is a "justified" reason to be homophobic
the historical inaccuracies in that chain aside, it's called contextual reading
people rarely say all of what they mean

English is not my first language, so excuse me if I’m missing a giant point here, but as I said in the comment above you, decisions made hundred of years ago still affect us today.
And I could see how the legalisation of homosexuality could lead to pedo-protests.

no
we can trace these things

I know it’s a long stretch, and I don’t like to say it, but it’s kinda just how the world is.

it is not

I mean, people actually still speculate if the Roman Empire lead to WWI, and it probably helped.

it did
that's not actually something you can debate
rome is the cause of pretty much everything in european history that followed it, just by setting the base

So I would say that he was right, but it’s not a good justification to be homophobic.

[/quote]
he is not, but it is not anyway

[Picairn]

I would consider it a rational justification. If one is to believe, much like I do, that laws should simultaneously be an extension of a society's moral fiber guided by reasoning, then I would say that extending this justification into the realm of the legal has basis.

If we enforce morals by law then we might as well scrap the Constitution, because outdated, bigoted "morals" trample on civil rights and freedom to live apparently.

[Kowani]

"guided by reasoning"
where's the reasoning tho lol

Insight as riveting as I would expect from one who lists their pronouns

literal twitter-tier argumentation

I would consider it a rational justification. If one is to believe, much like I do, that laws should simultaneously be an extension of a society's moral fiber guided by reasoning, then I would say that extending this justification into the realm of the legal has basis.

If we enforce morals by law then we might as well scrap the Constitution, because outdated, bigoted "morals" trample on civil rights and freedom to live apparently.

i mean
those are also moral decisions

[Hjallvinter]

literal twitter-tier argumentation

Sometimes I can't resist a cheap flame. It gives me a chuckle. Back to the argument at hand...

no
we can trace these things

You're absolutely right, we can. I offered supporting articles for my argument to trace it. whereas you have offered...

it is not

he is not, but it is not anyway

Simply assertions without supporting evidence.

it did
that's not actually something you can debate
rome is the cause of pretty much everything in european history that followed it, just by setting the base

And then in the same breath, declared that LGBT exists in a vacuum independent of the evidence I cited, while insisting that everything else in the world is cause and effect.

You, sir, are intellectually dishonest.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

English is not my first language, so excuse me if I’m missing a giant point here, but as I said in the comment above you, decisions made hundred of years ago still affect us today.
And I could see how the legalisation of homosexuality could lead to pedo-protests.

no
we can trace these things

I know it’s a long stretch, and I don’t like to say it, but it’s kinda just how the world is.

it is not

I mean, people actually still speculate if the Roman Empire lead to WWI, and it probably helped.

it did
that's not actually something you can debate
rome is the cause of pretty much everything in european history that followed it, just by setting the base

So I would say that he was right, but it’s not a good justification to be homophobic.

he is not, but it is not anyway

I tried to be nice and rational, that didn’t work, let me say it like this.
If we never gave gays rights, pedophiles would most likely not even think about having pedophilia legalised, because the main reason that pedophiles say that pedophilia should be legalised, is because they consider themselves to be apart of the LGBTQ+ community.
Now, I’m happy that homosexuality is legal, even with the small consequences that comes with it, I wouldn’t change it for a thing in the world, but we still gotta accept the facts, which is, nothing comes without a price, in this case, the ‘item’ is luckily worth much more than the cost.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

literal twitter-tier argumentation

Sometimes I can't resist a cheap flame. It gives me a chuckle. Back to the argument at hand...

no
we can trace these things

You're absolutely right, we can. I offered supporting articles for my argument to trace it. whereas you have offered...

it is not

he is not, but it is not anyway

Simply assertions without supporting evidence.

it did
that's not actually something you can debate
rome is the cause of pretty much everything in european history that followed it, just by setting the base

And then in the same breath, declared that LGBT exists in a vacuum independent of the evidence I cited, while insisting that everything else in the world is cause and effect.

You, sir, are intellectually dishonest.

I gotta agree with you, they kinda shot themselves in the foot with this one.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

Homophobia can never, ever be justified. Passive homophobia (i.e. sincerely believing homosexuality is a sin but otherwise leaving LGBT people to their own devices and even befriending them) can be tolerated, but never condoned and certainly not encouraged or justified.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is only an intermediate step toward true equality. This is currently the case in places like Singapore where a colonial-era sodomy law remains in the books and LGBT activism is routinely suppressed, but otherwise nobody really cares what gay people do as long as they remain discreet about it. This is also true in China both now and throughout history where homophobia is nowhere near as violent or as hateful as it is in the Muslim world currently and Christian Europe historically (except during the Mao era when Russian-style Orthodox Christian bigotry was imported wholesale from the USSR by the CCP). The kind of virulent, genocidal homophobia we see nowadays is mainly of Abrahamic origin.

[Kowani]

literal twitter-tier argumentation

Sometimes I can't resist a cheap flame. It gives me a chuckle. Back to the argument at hand...

no
we can trace these things

You're absolutely right, we can. I offered supporting articles for my argument to trace it. whereas you have offered...

it is not

he is not, but it is not anyway

Simply assertions without supporting evidence.

it did
that's not actually something you can debate
rome is the cause of pretty much everything in european history that followed it, just by setting the base

And then in the same breath, declared that LGBT exists in a vacuum independent of the evidence I cited, while insisting that everything else in the world is cause and effect.

You, sir, are intellectually dishonest.

literally none of your 3 articles addressed pedophilia
they were about puberty blockers, the colorado cake baker, and guidance about how to cope with being doxxed
did you not read your own sources

anyway, pedophilia advocacy organizations predate the legalization of homosexual relationships by decades
one of the earliest ones is from the 70's
it's literally just knowledge of the timeline

no
we can trace these things
it is not

it did
that's not actually something you can debate
rome is the cause of pretty much everything in european history that followed it, just by setting the base

he is not, but it is not anyway

I tried to be nice and rational, that didn’t work, let me say it like this.
If we never gave gays rights, pedophiles would most likely not even think about having pedophilia legalised, because the main reason that pedophiles say that pedophilia should be legalised, is because they consider themselves to be apart of the LGBTQ+ community.

except, they were doing it before gay people got rights

[Odreria]

You don’t have to support it but gays are just livin life like everybody else, you gotta cut em a break at some point

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

I tried to be nice and rational, that didn’t work, let me say it like this.
If we never gave gays rights, pedophiles would most likely not even think about having pedophilia legalised, because the main reason that pedophiles say that pedophilia should be legalised, is because they consider themselves to be apart of the LGBTQ+ community.

except, they were doing it before gay people got rights

your whole point is easily dismantled

I’m aware, it was legal then, but not now.
And I’m not talking about the past.
You haven’t been listening, have you?