What is being homophobic?

[Abomination]

You asked me from a conceptual perspective, which given my earlier statement I assumed you were talking about from an evolutionary or natural-world perspective. The only thing I am justifying is someone being able to hold a personal revulsion or distaste towards something without being called "wrong" for it.

You are wrong for it. Just because you don't like to be called wrong doesn't mean you're right. It doesn't mean you aren't wrong. You are in the wrong. It is what it is. You are making excuses for being wrong, I don't accept them, and in trying to get others to accept your wrongness you're making all kinds of logical fallacies.

I don't quite understand this. You're saying I'm wrong? I guess if you repeat it enough without elaborating on WHY you'll eventually make it to be so. Culture does not dictate if something is ethically right or wrong. Especially if there is no practical response from someone's feelings. There is a reason why thought-crime is universally considered absurd.

Two homosexual men raising a child? No problem, more than happy to see it. Two homosexual men engaged in sexually charged displays of affection? It makes me feel uncomfortable, I have revulsion towards it. Two homosexual men giving each other a peck on the lips or the cheek? No problem, I find it endearing.

LOL..........why didn't you make that clear before? Hahaha. This entire conversation began with someone talking about basic affection between two men. Not two guys with their tongues down their throat. So why you continued jumping to that, I don't know. But there you go, you said you have NO problem and find it endearing to see two men showing loving affection within moderation.

That is the same with any group. Within moderation, many find it endearing and cute to see two people in love with one another. But that doesn't mean you want to see them snogging each other. And that's understandable. With that being said, given the fact you have admitted to believing homosexuality is unnatural and more or less wrong, then whatever disgust you do feel towards same-sex interaction probably revolves around that. It's not as if thinking homosexuality is unnatural and wrong will NOT affect the way you think of the subject as a whole. It will. It does.

Actually, I don't feel revulsion towards two females or a heterosexual couple performing the same act. I would view them as gauche though, but I wouldn't have the same sense of revulsion - unless one or both of the party were also ugly.

As for affecting homosexuals - it doesn't. It flat out doesn't. None of my feelings are acted upon. Just THINKING something doesn't mean it will come about in any practical form. I can think someone deserves a right kick in the ass, it doesn't mean I'm going to act upon it. It does mean I will try and avoid that person. A feeling of revulsion watching two homosexual men have a kiss just means I will avert my gaze. If that is somehow repressing homosexuals everywhere I guess there's no hope for anyone in humanity anywhere.

inally this had nothing to do with passing on the "homosexual gene" if it even exists. This was about how homosexuality, by its own application, removes its barer from the gene pool. Perhaps that's the reason why some straights feel revulsion towards men on men action? "That will not further our genetic code"? I don't know the EXACT reason for the cause of the revulsion but it's there and there's nothing wrong with it.

Yes, there is something wrong with it. Having a negative view of homosexuality based on the fact you find it unnatural, which in itself is not true, is not a positive thing. It's a negative. It's a view that has a direct impact on the social standing of gay people. It is a view used to keep gay people on the fringes of society. Woman on woman action is homosexuality, too. It's not as if man on man is all homosexuality is.

It's not really about babies. Most people don't have sex for children. It's a view based on ignorance and misinformation. It's an excuse people run to, to defend why they hold homophobic bias. It is not justifiable in any way. It's wrong. There are not two sides to this situation. Homophobia is wrong.

This isn't about if homophobia is wrong or not, this is about having personal disgust when watching two homosexual men having a kiss. A disgust that is not shared when watching two homosexual women perform the EXACT SAME action or a heterosexual couple perform the EXACT SAME action. Calling it homophobia is not correct, as female homosexuals do not create that same revulsion. It is an issue of witnessing two MALES and only MALES perform the act on each other.

As much as two men can feel sexual attraction towards each other it is the same for a man to feel the exact opposite when it comes to other men. This is not a wrong feeling or sensation to have. You need to explain why it is wrong to prove it so, not just say it is because homosexuality is accepted.

 

[101flyboy]

You're assuming everyone has equal mental strength. Some folk go with the flow, you know? (heh, rhyme) So it's not totally crazy to think that some simply CAN'T change unless the whole of society changes which, let's face it, isn't a thing that's gonna happen. Ever.

Some people may fail at change. That's very understandable. You're right, we're not all equally strong mentally. Emotionally. But that doesn't mean an attempt cannot be made. And, lets get real..............we're not talking about fear of dogs or something. Being frightened by thunderstorms. We're talking about homosexuality. Not even homosexuality, but basic affection between two people of the same-sex. This isn't some life altering undertaking. It isn't something that would completely rock their entire world view upside down.

Personally, I think acceptance can range from "getting involved" to "ignoring."

I agree completely. As long as you're there when you're counted on being there then everything is fine, true acceptance doesn't need to come in big ways, it's the little things that count just as much, and oftentimes more. We're not all cut out to be advocates, or on the front lines fighting social wars. No-one should be condemned for that. As long as you're not actively harming people or completely apathetic. Even then, you don't have to be completely accepting, although it would be nice, as long as you're respectful of the differences other people have.

People have different comfort levels, mental strength, etc. If a homophobe (the violent sort) can learn to just ignore homosexuality, I count that as a win for humanity.

Yes! That is a win for humanity. The way I see it, is if you ignore homosexuality, if you're neutral regarding homosexuality, that means you have at the most low-level bias. That's why I have been making the statements I've made in regards to homophobia in itself being a problem. If you don't have much in the way of internalized homophobia or any at all, then you'll be able to ignore homosexuality, and simply not care about it. The way to make people ignore homosexuality is by they either eliminating or repressing their homophobia. One could say they can ignore the fact they're homophobic, but that's a way of repressing their homophobia.

 

[Something Amyss]

We try and justify it a million little different ways, but it really does come down to prejudice.

Very very good point. That's why it's disingenuous to not believe that the "I don't like same-sex PDA" is really about discomfort with something you aren't used to, or just not liking PDA. That may be part of it. But it's also about finding it wrong to be gay/homosexuality in general. It's society picking on people that they view as vulnerable (minority status) and behaving incorrectly (straight is the natural way, gay is not). Sort of like wagging your finger and saying "No, no, no" when a dog wets the carpet. Heterosexism at work, gotta keep those faggots in line. We can't have them contaminating our society with their wrongness.[/quote]

Which is how "doing something everyone else does" becomes "special privilege" and "rubbing our faces in it."

Yes it is because...

Yeah, nothing you talk about upcoming actually validates that. Just thought I'd get that out of the way.

We do see it towards the disabled, the unsound of mind, the deformed and the idea of incest. Evolution REQUIRES the individual to pass on their genes to the next generation.

I forgot about all those laws trying to prevent the handicapped and insane from breeding. Riiiiight. There may be social stigmas attached, but they're not in the same orbit.

Homosexuality (as in ONLY engaging in sexual relations with members of the SAME gender) prevents that from happening.

By your definition, there are almost no homosexuals anyway, so what's the problem?

Of course, then we get into how silly your definition is, but....

It's a basic computation the mind makes. The individual, by choice or by nature, does not engage in sexual acts or seek to reproduce with ANY member of the opposite gender. This individual has REMOVED themselves from evolution. Their biology ends with them. An evolutionary dead-end.

Thank God, then, that all those homosexuals aren't really homosexuals and choose to pass on their biology, then.

Perhaps that's the reason why some straights feel revulsion towards men on men action?

According to you, they're not true homosexuals, though. Besides, how do you reconcile that with the numerous cultures that have been okay with homosexuality?

I don't know the EXACT reason for the cause of the revulsion but it's there and there's nothing wrong with it.

You don't know the exact reason because you're talking pseudo-science.

I'm going to edit this and add in one final point: nature demonstrates that evolution is not solely out to preserve the individual. Hell, evolution doesn't necessarily preserve the whole. There are a lot of creatures out there with groups that do not breed. Socially, there have been classes of the same in the human species throughout civilisation.

Almost nothing you say is actually true of science or society. These things are far more complicated than you would have people believe.

but I guess you can't escape it anywhere.

Not even on the Escapist. huhuhuhuh

I really don't give two shits if a person holds irrational biases or if they're just a bigot. I hate it when these people defend themselves as if they're in the right.

Or the victim.

 

[ninjaRiv]

You're assuming everyone has equal mental strength. Some folk go with the flow, you know? (heh, rhyme) So it's not totally crazy to think that some simply CAN'T change unless the whole of society changes which, let's face it, isn't a thing that's gonna happen. Ever.

Some people may fail at change. That's very understandable. You're right, we're not all equally strong mentally. Emotionally. But that doesn't mean an attempt cannot be made. And, lets get real..............we're not talking about fear of dogs or something. Being frightened by thunderstorms. We're talking about homosexuality. Not even homosexuality, but basic affection between two people of the same-sex. This isn't some life altering undertaking. It isn't something that would completely rock their entire world view upside down.

Personally, I think acceptance can range from "getting involved" to "ignoring."

I agree completely. As long as you're there when you're counted on being there then everything is fine, true acceptance doesn't need to come in big ways, it's the little things that count just as much, and oftentimes more. We're not all cut out to be advocates, or on the front lines fighting social wars. No-one should be condemned for that. As long as you're not actively harming people or completely apathetic. Even then, you don't have to be completely accepting, although it would be nice, as long as you're respectful of the differences other people have.

People have different comfort levels, mental strength, etc. If a homophobe (the violent sort) can learn to just ignore homosexuality, I count that as a win for humanity.

Yes! That is a win for humanity. The way I see it, is if you ignore homosexuality, if you're neutral regarding homosexuality, that means you have at the most low-level bias. That's why I have been making the statements I've made in regards to homophobia in itself being a problem. If you don't have much in the way of internalized homophobia or any at all, then you'll be able to ignore homosexuality, and simply not care about it. The way to make people ignore homosexuality is by they either eliminating or repressing their homophobia. One could say they can ignore the fact they're homophobic, but that's a way of repressing their homophobia.

So... What you're saying is... We've come to an agreement and that it seems like any difference of opinion was born of a misunderstanding of each other right?

 

[101flyboy]

I'm just putting myself in a totally straight guy's shoes here, based on where I grew up (the British version of old Texas) and who I grew up with. There's a lot of grey area here.

I get it. They're completely indoctrinated and know nothing else. I completely get it. And in that sense, they are not wrong. It's not that THEY are wrong, it's the feelings themselves. That's the separation that has to be made to not make people feel as if they're being targeted for who/what they represent, who they are, their internal thought processes. We've all grown up in a homophobic society, and many of us in much more severe homophobic circumstances than others. It's *going* to have an affect on a lot of us, understandably. But that doesn't mean we ignore that problem, solely because people have grown up to believe a certain way. Someone still has to make it clear that, hey, this isn't cool. That's it. It doesn't have to be a long winded journey or mind-altering experience, but putting someone in check a little bit. Making them think a bit. That's one of the best ways to foster change and understanding, but simply making someone think about what they feel, something they've never had to do because they have never been questioned.

 

[101flyboy]

So... What you're saying is... We've come to an agreement and that it seems like any difference of opinion was born of a misunderstanding of each other right?

We agree to a certain extent I think I'm always going to be a little more "forward" about this than your mentality is towards the whole homophobia thing, and biases in general. I agree with you to the extent that as long as a person isn't hurting anyone, emotionally and physically, and they can at the very least function in social settings where gay people are around without completely freaking out, then it's all good. That shows a person is making an effort to fit in, or sees that their biases are wrong and are repressing them.

It's all about respect in the end.

 

[ninjaRiv]

I'm just putting myself in a totally straight guy's shoes here, based on where I grew up (the British version of old Texas) and who I grew up with. There's a lot of grey area here.

I get it. They're completely indoctrinated and know nothing else. I completely get it. And in that sense, they are not wrong. It's not that THEY are wrong, it's the feelings themselves. That's the separation that has to be made to not make people feel as if they're being targeted for who/what they represent, who they are, their internal thought processes. We've all grown up in a homophobic society, and many of us in much more severe homophobic circumstances than others. It's *going* to have an affect on a lot of us, understandably. But that doesn't mean we ignore that problem, solely because people have grown up to believe a certain way. Someone still has to make it clear that, hey, this isn't cool. That's it. It doesn't have to be a long winded journey or mind-altering experience, but putting someone in check a little bit. Making them think a bit. That's one of the best ways to foster change and understanding, but simply making someone think about what they feel, something they've never had to do because they have never been questioned.

Well, this goes into the whole "mental strength" bit we touched on. I know a lot of people who couldn't possibly change because, to put it bluntly, they're unintelligent. I'm not saying I'm smarter than they are (well...) but some of us have an advantage. Whether it be because of their sexuality (which is the case with me) or because they have an easier time coming to terms with differences in people.

But my main point is that I know and respect a whole bunch of these people who think homosexuality is bad. I wouldn't ask them to change, even if it benefited myself. Because I'm cynical and I totally believe people suck at changing and a lot of people can't and wont do it.

Also, the Captcha for this is "Bottom." Makes you think.

 

[101flyboy]

Those feelings would qualify as Bi-sexual. Hetro sexual is, by defenition, a person actracted to the other (hetro) sex.

That was my point. That if being heterosexual means an exclusive attraction towards those of the opposite sex, then most people wouldn't qualify since most people can point out an attractive person of the same-sex even if they're straight. Jokes like "I would go gay for" wouldn't exist. Man crushes wouldn't exist.

And on the second point, I strongly think thinking is something you can never be blamed for. It's the active decision not to act on those thoughts that frees you of all blame. I literally think something can never be "wrong" with you based on thoughts and impulses you can control indefinetly

It's not the fact a person thinks a certain way, absolutely not, that cannot be considered right or wrong to anyone outside of that individual because ultimately, it's their way of thinking, and not ours.

However, the thought ITSELF can be considered wrong if it's a negative, harmful, irrational, etc. thought process. The person themselves aren't sick, aren't wrong, aren't bad. But not all thoughts are healthy nor should we consider all thoughts to be healthy.

 

[101flyboy]

Well, this goes into the whole "mental strength" bit we touched on. I know a lot of people who couldn't possibly change because, to put it bluntly, they're unintelligent. I'm not saying I'm smarter than they are (well...) but some of us have an advantage. Whether it be because of their sexuality (which is the case with me) or because they have an easier time coming to terms with differences in people.

This is very true. Ultimately a person has to want to make the change themselves. At least in most cases. Change won't be made for them. They either figure it out or they don't. And some figure it out quicker and more smoothly than others. It's all a process, and it can be very difficult.

The question is: Is it worth it? Personally, I think it is if that person is simply 100% repelled with homosexuality to the point the OP is, or to the point you're committing hate crimes. That's when an aversion of homosexuality is affecting their lives in a negative way. They should want to change to better their own life quality.

But my main point is that I know and respect a whole bunch of these people who think homosexuality is bad. I wouldn't ask them to change, even if it benefited myself. Because I'm cynical and I totally believe people suck at changing and a lot of people can't and wont do it.

I'm more skeptical than cynical but you're right. I'm the type where I need to see someone prove themselves before I trust them completely. In that sense I have insecurities because you don't want someone in your inner-circle you're not able to let loose around without they being uncomfortable.

I wouldn't directly tell a person that they need to change. I would call them out if they need to get called out. I think that's the difference between us. You're more live and let live, whereas I'm more we need to nip this right now. I won't go on the warpath but I will put them in check and make them reevaluate whatever they did that caused my reaction and hope they think twice about why they did it and doing it again. It really only takes that much to get the wheels turning for a lot of people. Especially in 2013. No-one wants to be seen as the bigoted one.

Also, the Captcha for this is "Bottom." Makes you think.

Hahaha. Not a coincidence at all

 

[ninjaRiv]

The question is: Is it worth it? Personally, I think it is if that person is simply 100% repelled with homosexuality to the point the OP is, or to the point you're committing hate crimes. That's when an aversion of homosexuality is affecting their lives in a negative way. They should want to change to better their own life quality.

I didn't get the totally repelled vibe from the OP. I got that he was disgusted at seeing the act of two guys kissing but I'm not convinced he's scared of it. But maybe I'm being uncharacteristically optimistic here.

I'm more skeptical than cynical but you're right. I'm the type where I need to see someone prove themselves before I trust them completely. In that sense I have insecurities because you don't want someone in your inner-circle you're not able to let loose around without they being uncomfortable.

I wouldn't directly tell a person that they need to change. I would call them out if they need to get called out. I think that's the difference between us. You're more live and let live, whereas I'm more we need to nip this right now. I won't go on the warpath but I will put them in check and make them reevaluate whatever they did that caused my reaction and think twice about why they did it and doing it again. It really only takes that much to get the wheels turning for a lot of people. Especially in 2013. No-one wants to be seen as the bigoted one.

No one has ever called me the live and let live type before... That's a new thing for me! But I see your point. I find it easier to not see them as friends or not friends, more like "this guy earns my respect through his opinions/comedy/politeness/etc. but he's not a friend. I like having a beer with this guy." I find it's easier to separate people like that in my life. I have three people I'd call "real friends" but a shit load of "Buds."

There are plenty of people who need to get called out but it's hard to decide when to do it. A guy shouting racial slurs in a pub; is he a racist or a drunk who doesn't know what he's saying? I think it might have been here on The Escapist but I read a story about a guy and his friends talking about getting their fags from the car and a Canadian guy called them out. Good on him for doing that but he didn't judge the moment properly. The world is painfully complex and yet ridiculously simple...

Also, the Captcha for this is "Bottom." Makes you think.

Hahaha. Not a coincidence at all

 

[101flyboy]

I don't quite understand this. You're saying I'm wrong? I guess if you repeat it enough without elaborating on WHY you'll eventually make it to be so. Culture does not dictate if something is ethically right or wrong. Especially if there is no practical response from someone's feelings. There is a reason why thought-crime is universally considered absurd.

You're wrong for thinking the way you think isn't wrong. You're the human; you're thoughts are what's in error. Your thought process. Because as we more or less can deduce, you find homosexuality unnatural and thus off-putting, and you find two men kissing more off-putting because of "taste". Homosexuality is not unnatural and sexual orientation isn't a preference.

Actually, I don't feel revulsion towards two females or a heterosexual couple performing the same act. I would view them as gauche though, but I wouldn't have the same sense of revulsion - unless one or both of the party were also ugly.

OK, and that's homophobia. Is that not hard to understand? You are selecting one group out for negative bias for doing the same exact thing (deep kissing, heavy PDA) than another group(s) is doing without any negative bias. That is homophobia, because your bias is based on an irrational aversion and discrimination against two men kissing. If you would simply consider it "not interesting" or "unappealing", that's one thing. You find it disgusting. You find homosexuality unnatural. Put 2+2 together. You say your belief homosexuality is unnatural has NO influence on your views? Don't be so dense.

As for affecting homosexuals - it doesn't. It flat out doesn't. None of my feelings are acted upon. Just THINKING something doesn't mean it will come about in any practical form. I can think someone deserves a right kick in the ass, it doesn't mean I'm going to act upon it. It does mean I will try and avoid that person.

And that is in turn affecting not homosexuals but affecting YOU. And it's sad. Because you're going to miss out on potential amazing friendships, great fun with amazing people, parties and social gatherings, solely because you find homosexuality unnatural. That's on you.

BTW, actively avoiding people is acting on your feelings. Actively looking away when two men kiss is acting on your feelings. You do act on your feelings. You don't do it aggressively, but you do act on them.

A feeling of revulsion watching two homosexual men have a kiss just means I will avert my gaze. If that is somehow repressing homosexuals everywhere I guess there's no hope for anyone in humanity anywhere.

Making it a point to look away when two men show affection is actually, yes, something that causes A LOT of gay couples to never show affection in public. They don't want to have to deal with someone subtly messaging "you guys are disgusting". Your love is disgusting. You are unnatural and you are wrong. They don't want to deal with it, so therefore they don't express their affection for one another, because people like YOU have these IRRATIONAL biases that you REFUSE to repress. Same-sex couples are forced into changing their behavior to suit people like YOU and mentalities like YOU have and I'm fucking tired of it. Passive homophobia isn't as bad as aggressive homophobia, but it is BAD. And so is the community at large hence we give less of a damn what you think and we're doing whatever we want anyway, your discomfort be damned.

This isn't about if homophobia is wrong or not, this is about having personal disgust when watching two homosexual men having a kiss. A disgust that is not shared when watching two homosexual women perform the EXACT SAME action or a heterosexual couple perform the EXACT SAME action. Calling it homophobia is not correct, as female homosexuals do not create that same revulsion.

Homophobia=Irrational fear of, aversion towards, and or discrimination against homosexuality/homosexuals.

You're irrationally averse and discriminatory against male homosexuality. Male homosexuality...............is homosexuality. Hence the term homophobia applies.

It is an issue of witnessing two MALES and only MALES perform the act on each other.

Misogyny is a huge chunk of the problem, too.

As much as two men can feel sexual attraction towards each other it is the same for a man to feel the exact opposite when it comes to other men. This is not a wrong feeling or sensation to have. You need to explain why it is wrong to prove it so, not just say it is because homosexuality is accepted.

I've explained it about 20 times. You just continue making excuses. It is wrong because that train of thought has a negative impact on personal self, on the gay community and on society at large.

That's it in a nutshell. It's unhealthy and it's damaging to society to have people on panic mode when two men kiss. That is NOT healthy. And it's just weird you continue to defend that way of thinking when you could just as easily do as a few have here and say, you know what, I have this discomfort, and I repress it and am getting over it, because it's MY problem.

The thing is, you think homosexuality is the problem. So there is little point in debating this entire issue of same-sex kissing with you. Because your issues with homosexuality are far deeper than a kiss.

 

[ninjaRiv]

Actually, a quick point I'd like to make here: I'm bisexual and I, along with someone else I know, have received ridicule from people in the gay community. This shit happens in every place you look. Not just to me, obviously. Straight people get shit and lesbians and gay guys don't always get along.

 

[Abomination]

We do see it towards the disabled, the unsound of mind, the deformed and the idea of incest. Evolution REQUIRES the individual to pass on their genes to the next generation.

I forgot about all those laws trying to prevent the handicapped and insane from breeding. Riiiiight. There may be social stigmas attached, but they're not in the same orbit.

Social stigmas was the topic. They are shown towards individuals in those camps by society as a whole. There are no laws denying those groups from having children but at the same time there is a social stigma attached due to the probability of passing down crippling genetic characteristics or being incapable of raising the children themselves. There are no LAWS saying a homosexual can't have their own biological children, but to do that they would have to either A. perform a non-homosexual act or B. use medical technology to bypass the act.

Homosexuality (as in ONLY engaging in sexual relations with members of the SAME gender) prevents that from happening.

By your definition, there are almost no homosexuals anyway, so what's the problem?

Of course, then we get into how silly your definition is, but....

It's a basic computation the mind makes. The individual, by choice or by nature, does not engage in sexual acts or seek to reproduce with ANY member of the opposite gender. This individual has REMOVED themselves from evolution. Their biology ends with them. An evolutionary dead-end.

Thank God, then, that all those homosexuals aren't really homosexuals and choose to pass on their biology, then.

You have to explain how a homosexual passes on their biology without stepping outside the confines of being a homosexual. Remember, we are talking about a homosexuality is a NATURAL dead-end when it comes to passing on one's genetic code. Technological medical intervention is an UNNATURAL way of sidestepping that block.

On that note, how is my definition of homosexuality wrong? Only participating in sexual relations and/or having sexual attraction towards members of the same gender. That's what homosexuality IS. If it is not that it is bisexuality, heterosexuality or, I guess, A-sexuality.

Perhaps that's the reason why some straights feel revulsion towards men on men action?

According to you, they're not true homosexuals, though. Besides, how do you reconcile that with the numerous cultures that have been okay with homosexuality?

"Okay" with homosexuality? Many cultures have been "okay" with it but there was almost always a stigma associated with the act, considered to be "less manly". You need to establish how my definition for homosexuality is incorrect.

I don't know the EXACT reason for the cause of the revulsion but it's there and there's nothing wrong with it.

You don't know the exact reason because you're talking pseudo-science.

I'm going to edit this and add in one final point: nature demonstrates that evolution is not solely out to preserve the individual. Hell, evolution doesn't necessarily preserve the whole. There are a lot of creatures out there with groups that do not breed. Socially, there have been classes of the same in the human species throughout civilisation.

Almost nothing you say is actually true of science or society. These things are far more complicated than you would have people believe.

The groups that don't breed in other societies are still evolutionary dead ends. That particular member does not pass their traits on to the next generation. That is how it is a dead end. How could it be anything other than that? Certainly they might CONTRIBUTE to another member's genetic lineage by assisting them with raising the offspring or protecting the territory or whatever... but the fact remains they do not contribute their own traits to the mix.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Break down the words and you get Homo and Phobia. They are both self explanatory words so yes, I'd say you are homophobic. It's irrational, and you clearly know it's not wrong so I wouldn't feel bad about it if I were you.

I get a little uncomfortable when I see two guys embracing in real life, and I wish I didn't. But there's nothing I can do about it.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Okay firstly let me clear up where I'm coming from, I'm your typical heterosexual male aged in his 20's. And I have a dilemma - you see, I absolutely love the sight of two women kissing or getting it on. It's rather arousing, if not simply plain damn sexy as hell.
But the sight of two GUYS kissing makes my brain have a fucking seizure. I can't help it.

You sound more prudish than homophobic. After all, looking away when you see a Public Display of Affection is a fairly normal response no matter what gender the individuals engaged in the PDA are.

As for liking lesbians - that's a porn kink. Plenty of male homophobes enjoy looking at lesbian porn - that doesn't make them more progressive, because masturbating to two naked women doesn't make an individual any more likely to support those naked women's right to marry one another.

Back to the original point, you come off as prudish because you only like seeing PDAs that turn you on. If the PDA doesn't arouse you, then you find it uncomfortable.

To put it another way, if you saw your parents making out - like, hot and heavy, with maybe some second base going on - that would probably make your "brain have a fucking seizure" too, right? You aren't straight-phobic, or old-people-phobic - you just don't like PDAs unless they specifically turn you on. Hence: prude.

Also:

/人◕‿‿◕人\

 

[La Barata]

Well, in the words of Morgan Freeman....

But seriously, you're not homophobic, you're just not gay.

 

[Abomination]

sexual orientation isn't a preference.

Yes it damn well is. Liking X but not liking Y is called a preference.

Actually, I don't feel revulsion towards two females or a heterosexual couple performing the same act. I would view them as gauche though, but I wouldn't have the same sense of revulsion - unless one or both of the party were also ugly.

OK, and that's homophobia. Is that not hard to understand? You are selecting one group out for negative bias for doing the same exact thing (deep kissing, heavy PDA) than another group(s) is doing without any negative bias. That is homophobia, because your bias is based on an irrational aversion and discrimination against two men kissing. If you would simply consider it "not interesting" or "unappealing", that's one thing. You find it disgusting. You find homosexuality unnatural. Put 2+2 together. You say your belief homosexuality is unnatural has NO influence on your views? Don't be so dense.

It isn't aversion because I am not forced to vacate the premises, it isn't discrimination because I do not judge or act upon my tastes. My gut tells me the action is the opposite of attractive to me. I am repulsed by it. It is simply a taste.

As for affecting homosexuals - it doesn't. It flat out doesn't. None of my feelings are acted upon. Just THINKING something doesn't mean it will come about in any practical form. I can think someone deserves a right kick in the ass, it doesn't mean I'm going to act upon it. It does mean I will try and avoid that person.

And that is in turn affecting not homosexuals but affecting YOU. And it's sad. Because you're going to miss out on potential amazing friendships, great fun with amazing people, parties and social gatherings, solely because you find homosexuality unnatural. That's on you.

BTW, actively avoiding people is acting on your feelings. Actively looking away when two men kiss is acting on your feelings. You do act on your feelings. You don't do it aggressively, but you do act on them.

Your solution is to stare at people while they kiss? Your solution is for me to do something I flat out do not enjoy because I might upset someone? I should stare at people as they perform sexual PDA? What planet do you live on?

This disgust at homosexual sexual PDA does not stop me from associating, having friends or interacting with homosexuals. I will never tell them to stop, tell them they shouldn't do it or make my disgust apparent. You are right, it is on me... but there is nothing morally wrong with it.

A feeling of revulsion watching two homosexual men have a kiss just means I will avert my gaze. If that is somehow repressing homosexuals everywhere I guess there's no hope for anyone in humanity anywhere.

Making it a point to look away when two men show affection is actually, yes, something that causes A LOT of gay couples to never show affection in public. They don't want to have to deal with someone subtly messaging "you guys are disgusting". Your love is disgusting. You are unnatural and you are wrong. They don't want to deal with it, so therefore they don't express their affection for one another, because people like YOU have these IRRATIONAL biases that you REFUSE to repress. Same-sex couples are forced into changing their behavior to suit people like YOU and mentalities like YOU have and I'm fucking tired of it. Passive homophobia isn't as bad as aggressive homophobia, but it is BAD. And so is the community at large hence we give less of a damn what you think and we're doing whatever we want anyway, your discomfort be damned.

You are really reading too far into that and taking it far too personal. I could not look at them for any number of reasons, maybe I just don't like PDA - they couldn't POSSIBLY know why, unless they partook in observing me while I observed others engage in PDA... but that's just like going out of their way to upset themselves.

This isn't about if homophobia is wrong or not, this is about having personal disgust when watching two homosexual men having a kiss. A disgust that is not shared when watching two homosexual women perform the EXACT SAME action or a heterosexual couple perform the EXACT SAME action. Calling it homophobia is not correct, as female homosexuals do not create that same revulsion.

Homophobia=Irrational fear of, aversion towards, and or discrimination against homosexuality/homosexuals.

You're irrationally averse and discriminatory against male homosexuality. Male homosexuality...............is homosexuality. Hence the term homophobia applies.

No. Flat out no. I am not scared of male homosexuals. I do not discriminate against them. I do not remove myself from their presence or request/wish they do the same for me. I just do not enjoy watching them engage in PDA.

As much as two men can feel sexual attraction towards each other it is the same for a man to feel the exact opposite when it comes to other men. This is not a wrong feeling or sensation to have. You need to explain why it is wrong to prove it so, not just say it is because homosexuality is accepted.

I've explained it about 20 times.

No, you've essentially stamped your feet and screamed "It's wrong because society". You haven't actually explained HOW it is wrong and HOW it harms anyone else. NOT looking at someone when they do something is not discrimination. If someone wants a fucking audience when they kiss their partner they can fuck right off for being so damn arrogant. Homosexual or otherwise.

That's it in a nutshell. It's unhealthy and it's damaging to society to have people on panic mode when two men kiss. That is NOT healthy.

Who said anything about panic mode? I just don't like it. I'm allowed to not like things. It doesn't harm anyone.

And it's just weird you continue to defend that way of thinking when you could just as easily do as a few have here and say, you know what, I have this discomfort, and I repress it and am getting over it, because it's MY problem.

It's weird you have such an obsession with how someone else thinks. That's it, how someone THINKS. Not how they act or treat someone else, just how they think. I certainly admit it is MY problem - not yours. So you need to stop trying to make it your problem and just accept that people find things disgusting that you find enjoyable or neutral.

The thing is, you think homosexuality is the problem. So there is little point in debating this entire issue of same-sex kissing with you. Because your issues with homosexuality are far deeper than a kiss.

No, I have no issue with homosexuality. I just don't like watching two men engage in sexual affection. Read into it as much as you like, try to psycho-analyze it, but that's the long and short of it. It's different from you. It's not wrong. It harms no one.

 

[Abomination]

The groups that don't breed in other societies are still evolutionary dead ends. That particular member does not pass their traits on to the next generation. That is how it is a dead end. How could it be anything other than that? Certainly they might CONTRIBUTE to another member's genetic lineage by assisting them with raising the offspring or protecting the territory or whatever... but the fact remains they do not contribute their own traits to the mix.

Sorry to cut in (though I feel I have to say something just to prevent you from referring to people as "evolution dead ends" one more time) but your lack of knowledge about evolution is kind of embarrassing, and the fact that you're trying to use it to justify homophobia is kind of sickening.

As I explained in a later post - the act of homosexuality prevents children. Ergo, the homosexuals do not pass on their genetic lineage. This prevents that individual's lineage from evolving because it simply does not get to exist. The homosexual's lineage ends with them unless they perform an unnatural medical procedure OR engage in non-homosexual activities.

You need to show me how a homosexual male passes on his seed, how he contributes to the gene pool.

That is if you want to get down to the complete nitty-gritty of the human condition and how nature operates. Survival of the fittest, homosexuality removes itself from the system. Morally there is nothing wrong with it, ethically there is nothing wrong with it, from a NATURAL perspective it goes heavily against the flow.

It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with homosexuality in a societal sense, especially given how quickly the human race has been populating the earth - it's actually a good thing for it. But deep down inside the animal that is man, we know it is not how we are "designed" to operate.

Wow, you're absolutely right. Homosexuality removes itself from the system as part of natural selection and that's why homosexuality no longer exists and why this thread doesn't exist and why we're not talking about this in the first place.

No, the HOMOSEXUAL removes HIMSELF/HERSELF from the system.

And of course, only homosexuals can carry a homosexual gene. That's why all gay parents have gay babies and all straight parents have straight babies. In fact, the only reason that homosexuals have ever reproduced is because of societal pressures, which is why there are still gay giraffes and monkeys. They are worried that the other giraffes and monkeys will laugh at and/or stigmatise them for being gay, and so they enter into sham matings with the opposite sex. Have you ever seen a giraffe with a beard? I have, and it's tragic to behold.

Stop being obtuse.

 

[101flyboy]

I didn't get the totally repelled vibe from the OP. I got that he was disgusted at seeing the act of two guys kissing but I'm not convinced he's scared of it. But maybe I'm being uncharacteristically optimistic here.

He didn't just say kissing, though. He said the thought of two guys even thinking of kissing aka the inference a man showing affection towards another man. He said hand holding. He said it all. He's against affection between two men in any sense that could be construed as romantic, sexual. That's being repelled. He said it makes him want to have a seizure, not just that he's disgusted. That's repelled. That's panicking, really. Panicking, some SEVERE insecurity issues there, that the OP needs to address.

No one has ever called me the live and let live type before... That's a new thing for me!

Happy to be the first

But I see your point. I find it easier to not see them as friends or not friends, more like "this guy earns my respect through his opinions/comedy/politeness/etc. but he's not a friend. I like having a beer with this guy." I find it's easier to separate people like that in my life. I have three people I'd call "real friends" but a shit load of "Buds."

Yes. I'm very similar. I have a lot of acquaintances, a lot of people I'm friendly with. I can be friendly with someone who holds POV's that I fundamentally disagree with. But I'm also not going to call them when I need support towards something I'm dealing with that's stressful. I'm not going to make it a point to call them on a weekly basis. When we see each other, we're cool. When we chill, it's fun. They're just not one of my best friends.

There are plenty of people who need to get called out but it's hard to decide when to do it. A guy shouting racial slurs in a pub; is he a racist or a drunk who doesn't know what he's saying? I think it might have been here on The Escapist but I read a story about a guy and his friends talking about getting their fags from the car and a Canadian guy called them out. Good on him for doing that but he didn't judge the moment properly. The world is painfully complex and yet ridiculously simple...

That's an interesting story regarding, guys innocently using the word fags and the Canadian getting offended. Different cultures have different views and responses when it comes to a whole host of issues. People need to know their surroundings in general, especially if you're traveling outside of your culture, know who you're around, and have the mentality that unless I'm in a safe space, don't say something that could cause problems to yourself. That's instinctual as much as anything else. It can be said it's being PC. I see it as being wise.

I've always thought that a persons' deepest and most guarded secrets come out when they're drunk. I wouldn't excuse a drunk guy using racial slurs in a pub. I'd see to it that he's kicked out of the premises. If he were a friend, I'd call him out the next morning on what he did. Maybe even record it if he doesn't remember. It's not a situation where I'd let him slide after he's sobered up. But that's just me.