What is being homophobic?

[chikusho]

But the sight of two GUYS kissing makes my brain have a fucking seizure.

I don't appreciate seeing ugly people kissing either, that doesn't make me cacophobic.

I repeat. All it does is serve as a barrier to the individual passing on their genetic code.

Your junk doesn't magically stop working just because you prefer to stick it in a dude rather than a girl.
You can father/give birth to a child just the same no matter what you're turned on by.
Committing a "non-homosexual act" doesn't change the homosexuality part of the people participating.
By your logic "not wanting to have a child" is more unnatural than rubbing your genitals on someone of the same sex.

 

[Orekoya]

Life itself does not have goals; life has no endgame. Therefore in the grand scheme of things having someone's sexuality stop/prevent/hinder any individual from passing on their genetic code isn't essentially "wrong".

Not in the immediate generation it isn't wrong. But generations down the line could suffer from not inheriting a particular trait that could have been passed on by an individual that was homosexual.

I'm sorry, but that just sounds like nonsensical speculation from a game of 'what if' to try and find a reason why it's "wrong". If such a particular trait did exist and was beneficial enough for reproducing, then I'm sure it'll find a way to attach itself to more individuals than just those whose sexuality stops/prevents/hinders them from passing on their genetic code.

FRinally: that's not how evolution works. It doesn't just kill off things; evolution doesn't punish anything for being weak. Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary changes can happen to any number of the species' population; they don't even have to happen identically or universally to all members of the species.

Evolution is only realised at reproduction. If an individual was too weak to reproduce (as in died before it got the chance) then it did not contribute to evolution. If the individual does not reproduce it can not pass the traits it developed or its parents developed on to another. If no traits are passed on then no evolution took place. Its evolutionary path met a dead end.

Evolution is not realized at reproduction; it is an accumulative process - up to the current generation, which homosexual are also a part of, and onwards to future generations.

 

[Abomination]

Secondly, did you perhaps not notice the last sentence where I called all of that a flawed argument? Because I really meant that. My response was flawed in response to the statement's flawed logic. Life itself does not have goals; life has no endgame. Therefore in the grand scheme of things having someone's sexuality stop/prevent/hinder any individual from passing on their genetic code isn't essentially "wrong".

Not in the immediate generation it isn't wrong. But generations down the line could suffer from not inheriting a particular trait that could have been passed on by an individual that was homosexual.

I'm sorry, but that just sounds like nonsensical speculation from a game of 'what if' to try and find a reason why it's "wrong". If such a particular trait did exist and was beneficial enough for reproducing, then I'm sure it'll find a way to attach itself to more individuals than just those whose sexuality stops/prevents/hinders them from passing on their genetic code.

It doesn't have to be probable, it just has to be possible. If a beneficial trait or mutation is formed then it is not passed on then the species can not make use of it.

FRinally: that's not how evolution works. It doesn't just kill off things; evolution doesn't punish anything for being weak. Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary changes can happen to any number of the species' population; they don't even have to happen identically or universally to all members of the species.

Evolution is only realised at reproduction. If an individual was too weak to reproduce (as in died before it got the chance) then it did not contribute to evolution. If the individual does not reproduce it can not pass the traits it developed or its parents developed on to another. If no traits are passed on then no evolution took place. Its evolutionary path met a dead end.

Evolution is not realized at reproduction; it is an accumulative process - up to the current generation, which homosexual are also a part of, and onwards to future generations.

If something doesn't reproduce it can not contribute to the accumalation. If something does not reproduce it does not contribute to future generations. Certainly it can have an indirect effect through being part of the environment to something that did reproduce but it directly does not contribute.

 

[mattttherman3]

I'd say when some ass hole goes up to a gay couple and calls them sinners or something and spouts religious bull shit at them.

 

[Orekoya]

Secondly, did you perhaps not notice the last sentence where I called all of that a flawed argument? Because I really meant that. My response was flawed in response to the statement's flawed logic. Life itself does not have goals; life has no endgame. Therefore in the grand scheme of things having someone's sexuality stop/prevent/hinder any individual from passing on their genetic code isn't essentially "wrong".

Not in the immediate generation it isn't wrong. But generations down the line could suffer from not inheriting a particular trait that could have been passed on by an individual that was homosexual.

I'm sorry, but that just sounds like nonsensical speculation from a game of 'what if' to try and find a reason why it's "wrong". If such a particular trait did exist and was beneficial enough for reproducing, then I'm sure it'll find a way to attach itself to more individuals than just those whose sexuality stops/prevents/hinders them from passing on their genetic code.

It doesn't have to be probable, it just has to be possible. If a beneficial trait or mutation is formed then it is not passed on then the species can not make use of it.

Seriously, we are throwing probable or likely out the window in favor of possible in this kind of conversation? Cool. It's possible my genetic material could have, in twenty generations, mixed with some genetics of humanity from halfway across the world and could have led to humanity gaining the power of flight in another hundred generations, but I'm not going to reproduce. I am such a dick for not having children.

 

[Abomination]

Seriously, we are throwing probable or likely out the window in favor of possible in this kind of conversation? Cool. It's possible my genetic material could have, in twenty generations, mixed with some genetics of humanity from halfway across the world and could have led to humanity gaining the power of flight in another hundred generations, but I'm not going to reproduce. Wow, I am such a dick for not having children.

The unborn bird people of Annuvael curse your unencouraged loins, good sir.

 

[Orekoya]

Seriously, we are throwing probable or likely out the window in favor of possible in this kind of conversation? Cool. It's possible my genetic material could have, in twenty generations, mixed with some genetics of humanity from halfway across the world and could have led to humanity gaining the power of flight in another hundred generations, but I'm not going to reproduce. Wow, I am such a dick for not having children.

The unborn bird people of Annuvael curse your unencouraged loins, good sir.

My loins simply know that Annuvaellians were going to be snobbish jerks that do bird drops on the lesser humans' cars of tomorrow for their college pranks.

 

[101flyboy]

I've never met a woman who did, or was willing to admit that she would like to see two have sex, or do various other sexy things to each other. And I've met some strait women who said if they had to choose they'd rather watch two girls do it instead.

But Homophobia is about prejudice. It's not an actual fear of gay people or homosexuality in general.
What you have might be a sort of gut based fear reaction to seeing two guys in sexy situations, because the way you defined your reaction is pretty much the same way I react to seeing a spider and I suffer from Arachnophobia.

Just as long as you don't think gay people are lesser beings because they're gay, you're not homophobic. Even though you may actually be a little afraid of them... maybe... a little.

I've read studies that show around 40-50% of women give or take find male-male sensuality and sexuality a turn-on. Women don't admit it publicly for obvious reasons. Many women are more against it than they are towards female-female sensuality and sexuality for obvious reasons. We live in a misogynistic culture and men taking a "female role" and being with another man is a bigger affront to cultural norms than two women kissing, hence reactions are going to be different, all over the map.

Being afraid of gay people or gay sexuality is homophobia in a nutshell. I know you may have been being facetious, your last sentence, but that is homophobia. Panicking when you see two guys going in for a kiss is fear. It's more than just prejudice. Homophobia in itself is when a person has an irrational negative attitude or reaction against homosexuality.

 

[101flyboy]

Your junk doesn't magically stop working just because you prefer to stick it in a dude rather than a girl.
You can father/give birth to a child just the same no matter what you're turned on by.
Committing a "non-homosexual act" doesn't change the homosexuality part of the people participating.
By your logic "not wanting to have a child" is more unnatural than rubbing your genitals on someone of the same sex.

There is no logic with that individual. If you go through the posts he has been making, it's clear that logic is not in the script.

 

[Abomination]

Your junk doesn't magically stop working just because you prefer to stick it in a dude rather than a girl.
You can father/give birth to a child just the same no matter what you're turned on by.
Committing a "non-homosexual act" doesn't change the homosexuality part of the people participating.
By your logic "not wanting to have a child" is more unnatural than rubbing your genitals on someone of the same sex.

There is no logic with that individual. If you go through the posts he has been making, it's clear that logic is not in the script.

You'll both notice I said 'barrier' not 'makes it impossible'. It adds a complication that can easily be overcome, I mentioned medical procedures along side engaging in heterosexual fornication.

But sure, flyboy, let's call someone having an opinion that differs from yours "illogical".

 

[chikusho]

If something does not reproduce it does not contribute to future generations. Certainly it can have an indirect effect through being part of the environment to something that did reproduce but it directly does not contribute.

Incorrect. The people who've been most influential on society and humanity as a whole has achieved this by being a part of the environment, not by making a new person. Ideas are far more powerful than what you are probably referring to as genetics.
Remember, homosexuality has existed throughout human history. Japanese and roman culture was ripe with homosexuality, going so far as stating that the only true love was that which existed between two men. Yet, these men always had wives in order to reproduce.
How big a picture are you looking at here, and what data are you basing it on? When I read your initial post I just thought you had an aversion to and lack of understanding for an attraction, but the more statements I see from you in this thread you're coming of as prejudiced bigot. While homo_phobia_ isn't a fitting tecnical term, it's steadily getting closer to it's cultural and societal meaning in your case.

You'll both notice I said 'barrier' not 'makes it impossible'. It adds a complication that can easily be overcome, I mentioned medical procedures along side engaging in heterosexual fornication.

So.. why does this need to be mentioned at all?

But sure, flyboy, let's call someone having an opinion that differs from yours "illogical".

But you are passing off what you're now calling "opinion" as an unequivocal truth by arguing biology. That's where the issue really is.
There's a physical "barrier" between every human on the planet and deep sea diving, but I bet you the concept of scuba gear doesn't "make your brain have a fucking seizure".

 

[likalaruku]

What baffles me are how people perceive "gay jokes." Take for example Gabe from Penny Arcade. I have a friend who thought that a lot of his jokes were homophobic while I thought they were pro gay, or rather pro-bisexual in his case.

Her stand on the subject is that seeing two people of the opposite gender was something to be laughed at in society as a way to make it seem harmless, like black stereotypes were in old banned cartoons.

What she says makes sense; I laugh, the way I laugh at videos of people getting hit in the nuts or throwing up after eating gross foods while I myself would not like to be kicked in the crotch or taste fermented fish. The thing that throws off her theory is that I DIG boy-boy & actively hope & look for it.

There's also the fact that instead of laughing, many people react with fear, disgust, or anger. My guess is that, like little babies, we just laugh at things that please us.

 

[Kroxile]

But sure, flyboy, let's call someone having an opinion that differs from yours "illogical".

Thats all he's done all throughout this thread really.

The part where he called me patronizing without actually knowing anything about me or my homosexual friends is hilarious in itself really.

He's a hypocrite.

 

[Abomination]

If something does not reproduce it does not contribute to future generations. Certainly it can have an indirect effect through being part of the environment to something that did reproduce but it directly does not contribute.

Incorrect. The people who've been most influential on society and humanity as a whole has achieved this by being a part of the environment, not by making a new person. Ideas are far more powerful than what you are probably referring to as genetics.

We were talking about biological evolution. Not scientific development or social progress.

Remember, homosexuality has existed throughout human history. Japanese and roman culture was ripe with homosexuality, going so far as stating that the only true love was that which existed between two men. Yet, these men always had wives in order to reproduce.
How big a picture are you looking at here, and what data are you basing it on? When I read your initial post I just thought you had an aversion to and lack of understanding for an attraction, but the more statements I see from you in this thread you're coming of as prejudiced bigot. While homo_phobia_ isn't a fitting tecnical term, it's steadily getting closer to it's cultural and societal meaning in your case.

I understand attraction very well. It seems others view distaste towards seeing something as hatred towards that very thing.

You'll both notice I said 'barrier' not 'makes it impossible'. It adds a complication that can easily be overcome, I mentioned medical procedures along side engaging in heterosexual fornication.

So.. why does this need to be mentioned at all?

Because you brought it up? Because someone asked me what is negative about homosexuality? I gave the ONLY example I could think of is that it presents a barrier to passing on an individual's genetic legacy. Apparently though that means I must hate homosexuality or have homophobia for pointing out the only potential downside to the practice.

But sure, flyboy, let's call someone having an opinion that differs from yours "illogical".

But you are passing off what you're now calling "opinion" as an unequivocal truth by arguing biology. That's where the issue really is.
There's a physical "barrier" between every human on the planet and deep sea diving, but I bet you the concept of scuba gear doesn't "make your brain have a fucking seizure".

An opinion was that a distaste I have is "wrong" but THAT is passed off as fact? That something I feel only in a very specific circumstance and I do not act upon in a harmful fashion towards others was SOMEHOW considered morally/ethically wrong.

And I'M the one passing opinion off as fact?

The biology question spawned from someone asking me what was wrong about homosexuality. If that is the only thing I can possibly think of that could potentially be wrong with homosexuality isn't it clear I don't believe there to be anything socially wrong with it? I could think of ONE example that doesn't affect me directly in the slightest.

Also, I wasn't the one who said my brain had a seizure. I hate to use such hyperbole to describe a feeling. I said I felt disgust at observing two homosexual males engage in sexually charged displays of affection, more-so than I do towards other couples. The same disgust I feel when I see the same being done between ugly people. Apparently that's homophobic - but it's okay to be disgusted with ugly people! They're fair game. It's okay to be disgusted with people who were born a certain way.

Go.
Fucking.
Figure.

 

[Teshi]

This is for you and for others who have directly/indirectly said homosexuality is unnatural: What exactly is *wrong* with homosexuality? Not speaking from a moral sense. Conceptually. What's wrong with it?

It's an evolutionary dead-end.

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.

You appear to have a very simplistic understanding of "nature" and of evolution. There are many traits that contribute to the production and survival of young of one's own species (but not necessarily one's own offspring) and are therefore are beneficial to maintain in a population, and are therefore maintained in populations. In a species that lives in social groups the presence of non-reproducing group members can assist in the survival of the overall population, as they contribute without consuming the additional resources required to produce their own offspring. Moreover, as far as "natural" behavior goes, homosocial and homosexual behaviors are common in numerous species, for various survival purposes.

The "BUT NATURE!" justification for homophobic beliefs and behaviors is just that, mere justification.

 

[Abomination]

You appear to have a very simplistic understanding of "nature" and of evolution. There are many traits that contribute to the production and survival of young of one's own species (but not necessarily one's own offspring) and are therefore are beneficial to maintain in a population, and are therefore maintained in populations. In a species that lives in social groups the presence of non-reproducing group members can assist in the survival of the overall population, as they contribute without consuming the additional resources required to produce their own offspring. Moreover, as far as "natural" behavior goes, homosocial and homosexual behaviors are common in numerous species, for various survival purposes.

The "BUT NATURE!" justification for homophobic beliefs and behaviors is just that, mere justification.

I've explained it enough times throughout this thread.

The ONLY issue I was able to present homosexually potentially having was that it serves as a barrier for its members to passing on their genetic legacy.

Nobody noticed it was the only thing I could present, nobody noticed it was something that was clearly unimportant in this day and age and nobody noticed I said that its only potential negative aspect is potentially a good thing for humanity as a whole.

 

[Milanezi]

In my opinion homophobic is one who actively HATES homosexuals, being capable of inflicting physical or at least moral harm against a homosexual out of prejudice. Simply "disliking" homosexuals, but not acting on the prejudice, for instance, one's against it, but will never harm or humiliate in any way a gay person does not make you homophobic. You not liking the sight of two men kissing does not make you homophobic. A gay hater who acts on his hatred against the gay community is not "pardoned" from being homophobic just because "girl on girl action" is arousing, that's because gay girls have long ago fallen into the macho mythos, men in general like that idea, many men don't like, however, the true deal when it comes to lesbians, that is, when it's not a couple of porn stars licking each other for profit, but only two normal women with normal bodies and normal faces loving each other the same way a man-woman man-man couple would.

I also believe that the term "phobia" (fear) here, applies as in "an uncontrollable fear and absolute repugnance that leads one to EXTERMINATE its source".

 

[Teshi]

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.

Here's the short version: the particular individual with the trait doesn't have to pass on their trait through their own reproduction for the trait to be passed on. The trait can be carried unexpressed by siblings and other members of the family group (whether as a recessive gene or combination of genes, or inactivate due to an absence of a triggering environmental factor). Ergo, if siblings of the non-reproducing individual are more likely to survive and reproduce due to the presence of the non-reproducing individual, they can pass the potential for the trait on to the next generation, thus trait can be selected for in a population.

 

[Teshi]

I've explained it enough times throughout this thread.

The ONLY issue I was able to present homosexually potentially having was that it serves as a barrier for its members to passing on their genetic legacy.

Nobody noticed it was the only thing I could present, nobody noticed it was something that was clearly unimportant in this day and age and nobody noticed I said that its only potential negative aspect is potentially a good thing for humanity as a whole.

Whether or not you are making a moral or practical judgment on the topic, you are simply incorrect about the biology involved, and are producing misinformation.