The debate "There is nothing wrong with being homophobic" was started by
April 24, 2015, 9:53 am.
By the way, Marvelgirl2002 is disagreeing with this statement.
97 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 133 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Marvelgirl2002 posted 4 arguments, Liona posted 2 arguments, Damn3d posted 3 arguments, irishstraw posted 1 argument, Peacegiver posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 11 arguments, neveralone posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 10 arguments, Seraphim posted 2 arguments, toughgamerjerry posted 1 argument, SwaggerPoptart posted 3 arguments, historybuff posted 9 arguments, neveralone posted 4 arguments, Marvelgirl2002 posted 1 argument, ReeseO posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Natalie_097, Getmurked, jb, Liona, jonatron5, Hollister_boy, hae_bae, Asa, rionagh99, S2Sethi, karthik, username_gracie, Damn3d, andrew_bmx14, WhyNot, irishstraw, Pamelamccubbins, Kirito, CountryBoy1776, soullesschicken, WordSpeller, action007man, DannyknowsItAll, dont_steal_this_username, AstroSpace, WaspToxin, Sally, Mousie, omgflyingbannas, AlenaMaisel, jberry, Peacegiver, Nemiroff, JLabang123, Bodaciouslady16, Schnuupi, wdz, JakobBoghora, thereal, sabrina, chefdom4real, zito, ThePhilosopher, fodfreddy8, lito and 52 visitors agree.
Marvelgirl2002, PsychDave, Sosocratese, invincible_01, transfanboy, I_Voyager, jesusorgy, elson, Shahmir, Seraphim, scooter6381, Mrcolaman, toughgamerjerry, DarkAngelAnarchist, v_d, sighnomore99, shinywhale, lung1988, skyfrancois_97, brandongb31, evamara, Dbass24, redquote24601, Robert16, Wookie, Sli, jjrocks1738, M, SwaggerPoptart, xXimmapersonXDXx, joplinnocera, DemonLlama, truce_jttm, mherzer, SueAnnMohr, DonnyM, EddyCamacho, moneybagboyz, Yanksxx21, Tobibroek, jack_tim_45, CrazePhil, ProfDoke, makson, samisreal, ototoxic, kaio, ReeseO, alexlooker, cr7, debatelvr, mirah_luv, DrakeVonSchweetz, SirIntegra, fishermo20 and 78 visitors disagree.
There is something wrong with it. How would you feel if you were thought to be disgusting, and that people are always making fun of you, because you where heterosexual
that would be homophobia
Realising that I have not yet stated this, I would like to announce that I am in no way homophobic, merely starting this 'argument' to get new ideas and different logic when arguing with homophobes. My attitude is why hurt someone for no reason? Why make someone feel like shit for what makes them happy? If it makes you happy and not at the expense of others - then go for it!
I've actually never met someone scared of gays.
I guarantee most people just disagree and arent homophobic.
I agree that the hate is wrong. Jesus said to love everyone (a big task believe me:-) and to not judge) we are as individuals imperfect but if every Christian went exactly like God says then this wouldn't happen. at least the hate part.
true they are there to provide wisdom and guidance.
not all people that are against gays are Christian, but that is a big source of the anti gay hate in this nation.
and I never said you shouldn't believe the teachings. I'm saying don't use them as a harassment tool.
I would say something along the lines of harassment because of sexual orientation.
do u think all people who are agaisnt gays suddenly Christian since u Sayed that they were going to Hell? because that only depends on one thing. also yes it is a sin but like I said going to Hell or not only depends on one thing.
homophobe is not the right word. homoist or gayist doesn't sound right and sexist doesn't seem to fully fit either.
a phobia is a fear, and you can't help fear. but if your phobia turns into not fear but hate or harassment... like endlessly harassing a gay person and repeating that they are damned constantly is not exactly showing fear, then you are in the wrong.
well we did get off topic. but back to the original question. I can't put my opinion on a homophobe because I actually haven't met one but I would say that if u disagree that being gay is right does not mean u r 1.
well if you do agree that if he said something bad about gays he should be fired, then you are just citing a workers rights violation and something completely irrelevant to this thread.
And that is fair enough, but we can't really debate about it since we don't have enough information.
idk on the exact details u have all the info I do but if he did just do it because that person was gay then yes he should be fired but I know he didn't through personal experience. the guy im talking about can separate what he personally believe and what his job is.
people harassing them is not government. that's freedom of speech. I'm sure you have no problem with people protesting outside abortion clinics.
it's not hard to find reliable sources, you just have to research your sources. for example: Google "news examiner" and look out for the word "blog" anywhere in the story.
and back to your other example, it is still not clear whether the guy who got fired for homophobia said something or not. if not then the person lied, may not even be gay, and could have used any other lie, like the contractor tried to steal, made a move on his wife, or made a move on him.... that goes along the line of worker protections to protect against false accusations... but if the accusation is accurate, why shouldn't the contractor lose his job?
Freedom of speech runs both ways. They have the right to their opinions and beliefs, as long as they are not discriminating. Others have every right to tell them what they think of said opinions and beliefs.
As to that specific case, if they only do Christian ceremonies they shouldn't be forced to do same-sex marriages. If they do marriages in various faiths as well as civil weddings, they do not get to use THEIR faith to refuse to perform someone else's marriage.
sorry leaped before I looked. not usually. https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-att-us&hl=id-ID&q=christian+pastor+refuse+gay+marriage&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGm-mQ3vLPAhUEwiYKHTmlAiEQvwUIFygA&biw=320&bih=492&dpr=1.5
so idk on which story is true but from my experience I have seen this happen. not where they close the business but get harassed because they believe diff.
that is a blog...
that story never happened. no one was sentenced to jail over not marrying gays.
is this how you do research for your papers?
have you verified this incident anywhere else?
u were raised in a church?
that depends entirely on what church he is from. In the church I was raised in a minister doesn't get to refuse to marry gay couples. not because society says so, because his congregation and his church does. but I wouldn't expect a Catholic priest yo marry a gay couple against his will.
but again you are throwing out very vague examples with no details.
idk but all around me things like this have happened. in the essence that one person doesn't agree with the gay person so he called the other a homophobe and everyone who agrees with it being all right to be gay jump on that person.
of u want an example their was that time that preacher refused to marry a gay couple. now religiously he couldn't do it and business wise he can refuse service. this does not make him a homophobe.
assuming you are describing it accurately then it is completely irrelevant. since no discussion of his sexual orientation took place it is just a guy making stuff up to get him fired. I somehow doubt that is exactly what happened though. it doesn't really make sense.
I actually didn't but to humor u I will go into detail.
the guy I know who will know be known as Jerry is a plumber. this person who's gender I don't know but for shorten writing will call Bob paid him to build a bathroom pipe system. Jerry told him that he wasn't going to be able to do it how Bob wanted because of how the guys land was so Bob called Jerry's boss and said that Jerry was being a homophobe and Jerry actually lost his job over it.
your not stating exactly what happened, your describing the general situation without getting into any specifics. based on what your saying it is impossible to judge if his firing was justified or not.
what exactly happened?
what action of his was interpreted as homophobic?
please stop avoiding the question, you know what I'm asking regardless of the technicalities.
he didn't that's the point. the person just assumed that he did bexause he gave a diff. opinion than what that person wanted
how exactly did he express his dislike for gays? and how many times?
his professional opinion on what to do about it.
the guy was saying it because he didn't agree with gays
called the guys boss and said he was being a homophobe and got him fired
your sentence makes no sense. it breaks down around the section with the ( )
he told him what? (before the ( )
he assumed the guy did what? what did the guy do? (after the ) )
I know a guy who got fired because he told the he/she (he didn't go into detail of gender) his professional opinion that went against his (for the debate will just say he) and he just assumed that the guy I know was being a homophobe and later called his boss who fired him.
that depends on the nature of the argument. if the person began to harass and continuously bring up another's sexuality, they should be fired. someone's personal life should not be a factor in office conversation if they don't want it to be....
people use this word too much. just because I don't agree with gay people for lack of a better word does not mean I'm a homophobic. I have a friend that's gay and she knows I don't agree with it but I also don't judge her from that one aspect I evaluate her as a whole and she doesn't call me homophobic but I've seen people lose their jobs because they argued with a person and therefore were called homophobic and got fired. this isn't right.
there is something wrong with being irrationally scared of something. (like being scared of ribbons). but it doesn't make you a bad person. just a bit of a wuss.
homophobic means scared. there's nothing wrong with that. but when that fear turns to hate, you turn into a bigot and a piece of shit.
It's really nothing wrong with it but it's wrong when you bully people that live a different lifestyle than you, you can be against something the nice way.
Its not the place of the courts though. They just implement the Constitution to specific cases. I think marriage should be removed from government because it is its own distinct idea, or at the very most give gays equal privileges outside of marriage.
I do argue that the courts have a choice since that isnt within their jurisdiction to do so. That alone is a deal breaker since its easier to lose liberty than it is to fight for it.
I think that in this day and age marriage is no longer a religious issue. they became a civil issue a long time ago. as such they can determine a marriage to be whatever they want it to be. gay people deserve to have all the rights and benefits of straight people. there was no evidence that the legislature would solve this issue any time soon and American citizens were being denied their rights. I don't think the courts had any choice.
I completely agree with the courts, but i feel even in this case where legislatures should have been involved, it wasnt a good decision. As you know i adamant over the definition of marriage, but i would far better prefer a government sponsored union rather than marriage so that all couples receive governmental benefits.
I don't like courts creating law. I think that legislators should do that. however I don't think that the supreme Court has alot of choice. the political system in the US was paralysed and could not act in the best interests of the country. the majority of Americans support gay marriage. there are no substantive arguments against it. most other 1st works countries legalized it years ago. there was no evidence that the legislature could accomplish it. the courts had to step in to protect the rights if American citizens. I don't like that they did it. I just wish it hadn't been necessary for them to do it.
OK and with that point, I agree. In my opinion, everything is screwed if the government gets to it. And thats one of the problems of the government taking in marriage and providing benefits. I do believe, however, that nobody is entitled to benefits. The requirements of marriage should be rewarded only if the two have have a real marriage. But the problem was the simple solution was the ignored solution. Instead of allowing homosexual couples the same governmental provisions and observation, the push to change marriage was introduced. I dont mind homosexuals getting these benefits, but i do mind an arbitrary change in definition.
If you wanna know my wacko conservative views and why I oppose this from a policial view, keep reading. If not, this is a wacko conservative tangent.
The entirety of this substantial due process in the SCOTUS is one mad, dangerous power grab. And this power grab isnt one unique phenomenon, it has been in the working for years. Marriage's benefits create control over the popterribley That is why these aids were created--to propel marriage and create trends in society.
When marriage comes into scrutiny is doma, and doma was set up in such a way as to foster legal battle. It was a terribly written bill, or in ways well done. This launched us to our current court battles and the introduction of homosexual marriage as a federal right.
Here is the danger: the government is now the sole determinant of rights, and established definitions can be altered in one court decision as seen by these pertaining to the debate.
the problem with your argument is that marriage is not just a religious issue. if it were I would probably agree with you. buy there are other serious implications. for tax benefits, for rights to children they adopt, for rights to pensions or the rights to health benefits. the problem is that marriage is no longer a religious issue, it is a matter of civil law. withholding their right to marriage is also withholding many other rights that go with it. and that cannot be allowed. especially when there is no arguments against it other than tradition.
As I said, that natural occurrence pf procreation created a norm of heterosexual unions. To fit this union between a man and woman that occurred, marriage was created.
Therefore, marriage is and can only be a union between a man and a woman because a rock is a rock. A tree is a tree. Wind is wind. Metal is metal.
Marriage is what it is--an institution for a man and wife. Beyond that, I dont care. Homosexuals can have any relationship they want, but its not marriage because they are of the same gender.
If anything homosexuals pursuing marriage are in the belief that they can be and receive anything they want. They dont care what marriage is, and that is the issue. This argument isn't about discriminating against gays. It is that heterosexuals enter into marriage because thats what it's for. Its more a definition than a choice though you choose to get married. I dont understand why it is acceptable for one group to force an institution to change and become something different. Marriage wasnt changing the lives of homosexuals because they could still do whatever they wanted.
As long as marriage is strictly between a man and wife, I am satisfied. The difficulty of the argument is that you choose to ignore definition--the very foundation of this argument, and in its place, implement emotions and desire.
I will once again afirm that marriage doesnt discriminate. Homosexuals are in no way affected by marriage. It matters not how heterosexuals pursue their relationship in the eyes of others.
except that the requirement of a president being born in the US at least makes some sense. you want your supreme leader to understand the country he is leading.
the requirement that marriage be only between a man a woman does not. if it is about children then barren people should never marry. if it is about religion or tradition then atheists and people of other religions should never be allowed to marry.
all of your arguments against gays marrying are ignored for other people because it suits you to ignore them.
Thats the distinction between our thoughts. Both of us see racial equality as something critical. However, this institution of marriage is not discriminating. Its an entity that men and women enter into. The purpose is not to discriminate, but to be an exclusive institution solely for its constituents.
Ill try to better illustrate my point.
US presidents must be natural born. Its not discrimination against other cultures, but that is what a president is. Its the requirement befitting that position because these requirements are the epitome of the position. They create it.
just because an old ritual was only allowed for two people of different genders is not a valid argument. tradition by itself is not a valid reason to restrict people's rights.
and you are right. most relationships are
heterosexual. and at one point the vast majority of people in America were white. that didn't make discriminating against blacks a good thing. just because the majority do one thing does not give you the right to discriminate against a minority who do something different.
It is ironic I find that your argument is based upon assumption. Does that therefore validate it beyond mine
You begin to turn a cause into a reality as I pointed out. Men and women have children. That is an influence. Therefore an institution was created to cultivate this relationship between men and women; containing only the guideline that it was between a man and woman. It was a cause it it, not the sole purpose. You cannot deny that most relationships on that intimate of a level are heterosexual.
my argument is the logical extension of your argument. if the point of a marriage is to produce children, and gay people can't get married because they can't produce children. then it is completely logical that other people who can't have children shouldn't be able to marry either.
if you think that people who can't produce children are unfit to get married then all couples unable to produce children shouldn't be able to get married. otherwise you are just using it as a scape goat argument because you have no legitimate argument to make.
That is a skewed form of what i said. I told you what marriages are for. You inferred they must procreate. Its between a man and a woman for that reason; that the institution of marriage itself finds roots in these facts. It created an institution that is purely for heterosexual unions. Thats fact and not obsolete.
You ignore the point that women can prove equivalency in combat. Its tradition in the sense that within developed institutions, there are set guidelines.
and for your point about procreation. the only way your point makes any sense is if procreation is mandatory for marriages. married couples don't have to have children. some people are incapable of having children. by your logic if you can't create a child then you should be banned from getting married. that point is completely rediculous.
I can't seem to find the reference for America but in British and therefore Canadian law women did not achieve legal person hood until the 1920s. corporations could be a legal person but a woman could not. that is a traditional view.
no woman was accepted into the US military until ww 1. the traditional view of Western culture for a thousand years was that woman could not be in the military. it was an arbitrary and stupid rule.
something being traditional is not a valid argument for a law restricting someone's right to do things. traditions change. get over it.
Marriage is an institution not an emotion
They are not capable of reproduction. But they are just as capable, and in some cases more, of love. They are capable of raising children, of establishing families. It is irrelevant to say heterosexual marriages are in any way more meaningful than homosexual marriages, as is obviously seen with people like Kim Kardashian and her 72 day marriage. Maybe it's time to stop scrutinizing the marriage for the gender. In no way will it effect your life if these people choose to follow a path they believe in, and it is not your right to discriminate against their lives. I will respect you opinion as long as your opinion as long as your opinion doesn't disrespect anybody's existence.
One more thing, tradition viewed women as a fairer, weaker sex. That was the main reason women couldnt serve and be soldiers.
This contrasts with marriage, one must be a man and woman because thats what it is. By definition it was a union between a man and woman. No matter how hard you try, a gender equivalency cannot be made.
The discrepancy lies here: can a woman prove she is as capable as a man? The answer can be yes. Can two of the same gender prove to be as capable as heterosexual couples. The answer is no because of biological reasons that cannot be overcome.
Paragraph one. Women have been in the military for ages. They werent in combat roles, but they were in the military. Ill address your other point next.
Paragraph two. Since when have women not been people. The institution of marriage was created for the sole purpose of a union between a man and a woman. That was its only purpose. The purpose of the military is to wage war. I agree if a woman meets requirements, she should be able to fight. But nonetheless, it is purely political issue.
In addition, the suffrage of women was a political battle. Yes the requirement was one had to be a male to vote, but that was a plainly political struggle. Therefore it required governmental action in the form of an an amendment.
Paragraph three. Its plainly emotional and has no purpose within the discussion.
If anything I have said is unclear, I will gladly explain.
It was not a perfect comparison since one is political and the other a piece of culture, tradition, and overall an unrelated inception. However, it does clear up the sentiment of individuals defending marriage.
I'll use your example then. traditionally only men could be in the military. but there are many women who met all the other requirements to serve except that they were the wrong gender. this was stupid.
gay people meet all the requirements for marriage exception the gender requirement. this is exactly the same kind of stupid. you are restricting people from doing something solely on the grounds of tradition. if that were an acceptable argument then women wouldn't legally be people. that too was a gender requirement that was a traditional view. it had to change too.
and 50 years from now people will look back and think how could anyone believe that gay people don't have the right to marry. the same way we would look back and say how could anyone think that women aren't a legal person.
Im not denying the existence of homosexuality. Im stating that marriage as an institution has been between a man and woman.
I feel that this comparison may equate. People don't oppose women in the military because they are women, but rather since they believe that a woman cant perform as well as a man. However this alone is not necessarily true. The problem lies within the fact of changing a requirement to suit someone's needs. In a way to change a soldier into something different. This hurts the integrity of the institution because it has been broken away from its original form in order to lessen requirements.
Now this leads to an inevitable question: how in the world does this relate to marriage. Well, the answer is that those members of traditional marriage are experiencing the same easing of requirements. The institution which was developed to be between man and woman has been redefined for the intentions of including numerous others. This has weakened marriage in the eyes of many.
The traitor John Roberts wrote on this issue well: marriage between a man and a woman does not discriminate against gays. Two openly gay individuals, one gay and the other lesbian, could marry each other without a second glance. What becomes an issue is when two individuals of the same gender wish to marry since they do (or now did) not fit the gender requirements.
you might have a point except that the requirements are entirely arbitrary. there is no good reason gay people shouldn't get married. so if the requirements are old, pointless rules why wouldn't you change them?
If you wish to speak historically, many people were gay, it just wasn't as open or acceptable. My thing with the cupcake was worded a little weirdly, so I apologize for the confusion. Otherwise, I do not understand what you are asking.
I would like to address that point; its not a matter of jealousy, but definition. If historically marriage has been between a man and a woman, and institutionally treated as so, is it then our right to redefine it for ones own purpose. Is it right to do something that I cannot do since I dont meet the requirements?
Claiming that someone's marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a cupcake because you are on a diet. I respect your opinion to be jealous of the cupcake, but c'mon guys, being on a diet is your own choice :) And for those who think being gay is a choice, so what? Some people choose to be arseholes and THEY can still get married.
It wasn't really directed at anyone, I just didn't think to put it in a separate comment.
Who are you directing the last paragraph to?
I applaud the fact that you will treat everyone equally. Really that is all anyone can really ask.
There problem with your argument is that being homophobic is an opinion, being gay is a part of who are. Phobias are, by definition, irrational or excessive fears. That means that if someone says they are homophobic they are admitting that the feeling is either irrational or is beyond what can logically be justified. Being gay is who you are attracted to. I find my wife attractive. That is not something I decided, nor could I decide not to if I wanted to. I know that I would not be able to consciously decide to find other men attractive, so it would be unreasonable.
I think we need to make a new word. Homophobia is the fear of gay people the same way xenophobia is the fear of other races. Neither is a choice. What we need is a word for those who hate gay people rather than being afraid the way racism describes people who are intolerant of other races.
I think that Homophobes have just as much right to be homophobic, like gays have a right to be gay. When people say that ?you are not born with the hatred to be homophobic you pick it up' I get annoyed because I am homophobic, yet I have never had any conversation with anybody, read anything, or heard some one dissing gays.
I find it extremely rude that gays are supported for being gay and having their opinion, but Homophobes are frowned upon for having theirs.
I do not beleive that a homosexual person is a bad person but it is the homosexuality that I don't like. I will not be cruel to somebody because they are gay, I will treat others how they treat me.
I think the problem we are running into is that homophobic people typically do not treat their phobia the same way as people with other fears. Few people with arachnophobia want to kill all spiders (or at least don't seriously advocate doing so), people with acrophobia (fear of heights) don't try to ban living in tall buildings, and people with bibliophobia (fear of books) don't petition to burn all libraries. In all of these cases, we recognize that the problem is in the one with the phobia, not what they are afraid of. It is an illness that can damage their life, and so we try to treat it. Homophobia should be looked at the same way. If you are hiding hate behind the label, it is not OK. If you are honestly afraid of gay people, that should be treated the same as any other irrational fear and seek to treat it.
It is completely fine to be homophobic. You have the right to be afraid or suspicious of any person. However, acting upon that fear to alienate a homosexual from society is wrong.
It is not only in marriage the gay people are discriminated against. In some states, it is legal for stores to post no guys allowed signs, since it is not a group protected from discrimination. In some parts of the world, being gay can come with a death sentence. Adoption is also more difficult for gay people in some cases, with people saying that they are not fit to be parents. Marriage is the most obvious area, but it is hardly the only situation in which gay people are discriminated against.
As to your point about the religious views of the electorate making passing the law impossible, it would not take a vote to make gay marriage legal. A constitutional challenge based on the grounds that denying gay people the right to marriage violates their constitutional rights would do. The Declaration of Independence holds the pursuit of happiness as an unalienable right, and by denying gay people the right to marry the one they love, you are denying them the happiness that comes with marriage. The religious beliefs do not weigh into things when those beliefs are infringing on another's rights.
I can't fault anyone who feels uncomfortable but strives to be tolerant, but even in your statements you have defended why they should not, and likely will not, be given the right to marry. You have by no means been hateful, and you have presented well reasoned arguments, but the core of it is still the belief that discrimination against gay people is unavoidable, and that it is acceptable given its origin. I do not believe that anyone has the right to discriminate against another human being. Xenophobic people do not have the right to discriminate against everyone of different races, even though their presence makes them uncomfortable, so why should homophobic people be able to with impunity?
When you say that gays do not have 'equal rights', I assume that you could only be talking about marriage, as that is the only right they are deprived of. On that note, I would argue that religion does matter - although church and state are seperate, the laws are based on a traditional, somewhat religious principles that many still uphold. As we are a country of laws, in order to grant them that right a vote would have to be passed - and trying to pass that in the conservative south, where religiosity is still very much relevant, would almost certainly not work. In today's increasingly secular society, it is questionable as to the role religion plays in people's lives. Nonetheless, I feel as if religion can be a major factor in how people relate to gay marriage.
Anyhow, back to homophobia itself . Perhaps most of the fear is irrational, but also some of it is discomfort, which, as I said, is understandable. You can be uncomfortable and tolerant at the same time. If one's opinion is something along the lines of "I don't hate them, they can have their marriage, but I'm not comfortable being around them alot" that should be respected. But if the opinion is "I hate gay people" that could be admittedly ignorant.
Finally, in regards to the comment about my closing statement last post, I was referring to religious beliefs in regards to marriage, and that some people would not support it. And thus, to respect people who hold that belief. Not at all suggesting that irrational hate of another should be accepted. Thank you.
I think the problem I have is conceptualizing someone who is homophobic who is not also against gay people having equal rights. I have never met someone who was afraid if gay people who was still tolerant of them.
Religious recognition of marriage is irrelevant. In addition to the religious significance of marriage, there are legal changes as well. There are insurance, inheritance, custody and tax implications. By denying that gay people can get married, if one partner dies, the other, since their marriage is not recognized in some places, has to pay tax on property transferring to them, where a married heterosexual couples would not. I don't expect the Catholic Church to be forced to perform gay marriages, but to deny them the legal status is discriminatory.
Finally, while yes, there will always be things that are intolerable, what someone else chosen to do is in no way intolerable to anyone not directly impacted. Gay people are not taking anything from homophobic people, they are not attacking them in the streets, they are not denying them rights that are accorded everyone else. Gay people living their lives is not hurting anyone so, while some people may find there existence intolerable, that doesn't strike me as the gay people's fault or their problem. To say that finding someone's existence is intolerable is a legitimate counter argument to their demanding equal treatment is misguided at best.
I do understand that fear often can lead to hate. But knowing homophobes, I am not stuck by the sense that all homophobes "hate" gays. More specifically, it seems to be a general discomfort about the subject - which I feel is understandable: Our natural human instincts tell us that is not the way nature should be.
But of course, if it does turn to hate, that is a problem, and there is no need to tolerate that.
Don't know if you were hinting at gays being 'stripped' of their rights to marriage, but again remember that many faith backgrounds do not support this, and to simply dismiss that would be forgetting a large factor in the debate.
And finally, there will always be things which are tolerable and intolerable to us, and I was merely suggesting that one should not pretend to be tolerant when he in fact can be intolerable towards a legitimate counter argument.
Being homophobic is no more or less acceptable than being xenophobic (fear of other races). You have an unreasonable fear if people who have no wish to harm you, which influences you'll thoughts and actions toward that group. It is easy to say that everyone should tolerate your opinions, but if your opinion is intolerant, you are asking for a double standard, not the victim of one. You are demanding that everyone respect your right to express your desire to strip others of their rights.
Homophobia itself is not the problem, the intolerance and hatred that so often cones with it is. Being afraid if Heights doesn't lead people to say that no one should be able to build a building taller that 2 stories. They don't create petitions saying that no one who lives in a high rise should be able to get married,and demanding that their everyone should respect their belief in the rightness of being close to the ground and the evil of living far from it.
Agree with MarvelGirl in that homophobia doesn't mean hatred, at its most basic level it is simply fear of gays or fear of being gay. Now to my argument.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being homophobic. Are people who are scared of heights wrong in being so? Are the claustrophobic as well? If it is a fear, then you simply cannot tell people that they are wrong in thinking so.
But if it is more than fear, say, not in favor of gay rights, not in support of gays period, that should be respected.
I hear the tolerance argument tossed around alot, which makes me laugh to myself a bit. Some want everyone to be 'tolerant' and understanding, yet have absolutely no tolerance for others opinions. How is that tolerance? It isn't. Before you peach it, live it.
Look, saying that you are homophobic is not saying that you want gays to die, read the very first argument put up in this discussion. It is like another way of saying that you do not support them. To some research, it is not bad to be homophobic as it is portrayed and stereotyped.
What is the difference from being scared of someone who is gay and someone who is not? I do not support gays nor am I gay but I don't want them to die. They are humans just like you and I. Also, killing is not going to stop gays, it will increase them. You cannot eradicate a specific type of person from this world. It is impossible. And to me, killing someone because they are gay is straight up murder and the person who commits that crime deserves the life in jail.
I disagree with your notion that killing isn't the only way to erase homosexuality. "Kill" is simply the word that describes the act of eliminating something or someone that already exists or is living.
Homosexuality can not only be eliminated by killing.
Homophobia is the fear of homosexuality and/or homosexuals. My argument as to why I disagree: fight or flight. The reaction to fear of something is either to fight it (which means to eliminate homosexuals or homosexuality, in this case) or to fly away from it (persistent and consistent avoidance of something).
Homophobes could choose to avoid homosexuals but it would never disappear, so logically, the homophobic population would eventually have to proceed to eliminate homosexuality. But how?
The question at hand now is whether the elimination of 1/3 of the population is morally justified or deemed necessary and/or beneficial to anyone.
If my readers are religious, is it said in your books to willingly make extinct a whole "race"?
And just to anger my homophobic readers, how different are you from the Ku Klux Klan if you believe the existence of homophobia is justified?
*OK the last part was just me digressing because it is clear to me that the person who started the debate is biased against homophobes from the way it is worded. I'm simply playing along. Cheers.
Being homosexual is not a lot lifestyle, it is part of who you are. To compare it to addiction, you would need to demonstrate first that the behavior is a choice, second that it becomes compulsive and interferes with life.
In order to justify that people can stop being homosexual or can "control" it, you first have to demonstrate that who one is attracted to is a choice. Can you look at someone you are not attracted to and decide that you will find them attractive, and have it work?
To justify that it is a compulsive behavior that interferes with everyday life, you would have to show that homosexual couples are not socially adapted, are dysfunctional, or in some other way are being negatively impacted by being homosexual. If someone tells you that they are in a long term relationship with someone who is loving, supportive, and that they know will always be there for them, how do you determine if their partner is of the same gender or not, and if not, how does that alter whether the relationship is a good or bad influence on their life?
Homophobia does not mean hatred. Nowadays it is used for those who don not agree with homosexual lifestyle. Many homophobic do not hate gay people but the lifestyle they lead. I do not agree that homophobic people can not control. It is like any addiction; though needs perseverance it can be overcome. (And as the Bible lists being gay as a sin, it means it can be abandoned.)
I may be misinterpreting the topic, but agreeing would seem to be saying that homophobia is fine.
Hating any group based on who they are is pointless and ignorant. Hate based on a what someone has done is understandable, but to hate them for something that they cannot control is useless and destructive. (anyone who feels that being gay is a choice would have to demonstrate that people can choose who they are attracted to)
Please elaborate if you disagree!
If you don't like gays then fine. But turning on them and being horrible to a person simply because they are gay is disgusting.