Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Homophobia is Non-Existent

Akoluthos
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 12:54:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
First of all, before I am attacked for my choice in title, I want to make it clear that my thesis must be understood within a specific context, all I ask is that I am heard out before any rational actions are taken against me.
With that out of the way, I wish to share with you a topic that that I have heavily defended over the years, that being the fact that I believe "homophobia" is non-existent.
I believe that it would suit to start my augment with a definition, that of the word "phobia".

Phobia- An extreme or irrational fear for a specific thing or group

Now, I am not sure about you, but I do not have an "extreme or irrational fear" of homosexual individuals. This leads me the "meat" of my argument, that fact that disagreement does not mean intimidation.

Over the years, I have been the subject of this societal buzzword, any and every time I express my disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle, others are quick to throw the term "Homophobic" around.
As I previously mentioned, disagreement with a thing or group does not mean in any context that I have a "Fear" or "Phobia" of said thing or group.
People too often misuse this term in order to fuel their own politically correct agenda, without actually breaking down the term itself.

In 1960 a psychologist by the name of George Weinberg coined the term homophobia with the combination of the words homosexual, and phobia, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear".
I believe that this is widely taken out of context, or rather displaced from its real meaning. A real homophobe would legitimately and literally have a fear of homosexuals, meaning that they would be diagnosed with a phobia. Someone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle is not "homophobic" rather, they simply disagree.

In order to illustrate just how silly this term is, I will provide some examples to shed some light on just how out of context this all really is.

Example Statement 1:"I personally disagree with the doctrine and policy of the Liberal Party"

Do I have an irrational fear of Liberals?: No

Does this make me "Liberalphobic"?: No, it is simply a disagreement in conjunction with the freedom of speech

Example Statement 2: "I personally disagree with the faith and beliefs of Sikhism"

Do I have an irrational fear of Sikhs?: No

Does this make me "Sikhaphobic"?: No, I am expressing that I personally disagree with a specific religious sect

Any finally, after that illustration let us move on to my third and final example"

Example Statement 3: "I personally disagree with the lifestyle choices of homosexuals"

Do I have an irrational fear of Homosexuals?: No

Does this make me "Homophobic"?: No, I simply disagree with homosexuality, which does not indicate that I have an irrational fear of homosexuals, nor do I feel intimidated by them

Frankly, this is all very silly, society needs to wake up and stop relying on false terms to label and attack those who disagree with them. It is all very simple, Homophobia does not exist within the context that society is granting it, there is two sides to every argument, just because I personally disagree with the majority of society on Homosexuality, does not mean that I should be subject to a false labeling system that calls me a "monster".
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 2:30:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/24/2015 12:54:22 AM, Akoluthos wrote:
First of all, before I am attacked for my choice in title, I want to make it clear that my thesis must be understood within a specific context, all I ask is that I am heard out before any rational actions are taken against me.
With that out of the way, I wish to share with you a topic that that I have heavily defended over the years, that being the fact that I believe "homophobia" is non-existent.
I believe that it would suit to start my augment with a definition, that of the word "phobia".

Phobia- An extreme or irrational fear for a specific thing or group

Now, I am not sure about you, but I do not have an "extreme or irrational fear" of homosexual individuals. This leads me the "meat" of my argument, that fact that disagreement does not mean intimidation.

Over the years, I have been the subject of this societal buzzword, any and every time I express my disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle, others are quick to throw the term "Homophobic" around.
As I previously mentioned, disagreement with a thing or group does not mean in any context that I have a "Fear" or "Phobia" of said thing or group.
People too often misuse this term in order to fuel their own politically correct agenda, without actually breaking down the term itself.

In 1960 a psychologist by the name of George Weinberg coined the term homophobia with the combination of the words homosexual, and phobia, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear".
I believe that this is widely taken out of context, or rather displaced from its real meaning. A real homophobe would legitimately and literally have a fear of homosexuals, meaning that they would be diagnosed with a phobia. Someone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle is not "homophobic" rather, they simply disagree.

In order to illustrate just how silly this term is, I will provide some examples to shed some light on just how out of context this all really is.

Example Statement 1:"I personally disagree with the doctrine and policy of the Liberal Party"

Do I have an irrational fear of Liberals?: No

Does this make me "Liberalphobic"?: No, it is simply a disagreement in conjunction with the freedom of speech


Example Statement 2: "I personally disagree with the faith and beliefs of Sikhism"

Do I have an irrational fear of Sikhs?: No

Does this make me "Sikhaphobic"?: No, I am expressing that I personally disagree with a specific religious sect

Any finally, after that illustration let us move on to my third and final example"

Example Statement 3: "I personally disagree with the lifestyle choices of homosexuals"

Do I have an irrational fear of Homosexuals?: No

Does this make me "Homophobic"?: No, I simply disagree with homosexuality, which does not indicate that I have an irrational fear of homosexuals, nor do I feel intimidated by them


Frankly, this is all very silly, society needs to wake up and stop relying on false terms to label and attack those who disagree with them. It is all very simple, Homophobia does not exist within the context that society is granting it, there is two sides to every argument, just because I personally disagree with the majority of society on Homosexuality, does not mean that I should be subject to a false labeling system that calls me a "monster".

Makes one wonder why straights whom claim to have no phobia don't attend drag shows, hit up a "gay" bar every now and then, etc. Funny, that.

His heterosexuality a "lifestyle"? I have never really known it to be such, but I see homosexuality has a lifestyle, one that can be disagreed with. Funny, that as well.

What exactly is there to disagree with? Do homosexuals have a doctrine? By which I mean do heterosexuals or homosexuals have a doctrine? That would be something to disagree with, but strangely, I can't find something like that. Funny, too.

So, the fine point:

What and why is being disagreed with when it comes to homosexuality? And why does the "disagreement" lead to anything more than a simple "not my cup of tea"?

There is an obvious answer of course: fear.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 7:26:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/24/2015 12:54:22 AM, Akoluthos wrote:
First of all, before I am attacked for my choice in title, I want to make it clear that my thesis must be understood within a specific context, all I ask is that I am heard out before any rational actions are taken against me.
With that out of the way, I wish to share with you a topic that that I have heavily defended over the years, that being the fact that I believe "homophobia" is non-existent.
I believe that it would suit to start my augment with a definition, that of the word "phobia".

Phobia- An extreme or irrational fear for a specific thing or group

Now, I am not sure about you, but I do not have an "extreme or irrational fear" of homosexual individuals. This leads me the "meat" of my argument, that fact that disagreement does not mean intimidation.

Over the years, I have been the subject of this societal buzzword, any and every time I express my disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle, others are quick to throw the term "Homophobic" around.
As I previously mentioned, disagreement with a thing or group does not mean in any context that I have a "Fear" or "Phobia" of said thing or group.
People too often misuse this term in order to fuel their own politically correct agenda, without actually breaking down the term itself.

In 1960 a psychologist by the name of George Weinberg coined the term homophobia with the combination of the words homosexual, and phobia, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear".
I believe that this is widely taken out of context, or rather displaced from its real meaning. A real homophobe would legitimately and literally have a fear of homosexuals, meaning that they would be diagnosed with a phobia. Someone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle is not "homophobic" rather, they simply disagree.

In order to illustrate just how silly this term is, I will provide some examples to shed some light on just how out of context this all really is.

Example Statement 1:"I personally disagree with the doctrine and policy of the Liberal Party"

Do I have an irrational fear of Liberals?: No

Does this make me "Liberalphobic"?: No, it is simply a disagreement in conjunction with the freedom of speech


Example Statement 2: "I personally disagree with the faith and beliefs of Sikhism"

Do I have an irrational fear of Sikhs?: No

Does this make me "Sikhaphobic"?: No, I am expressing that I personally disagree with a specific religious sect

Any finally, after that illustration let us move on to my third and final example"

Example Statement 3: "I personally disagree with the lifestyle choices of homosexuals"

Do I have an irrational fear of Homosexuals?: No

Does this make me "Homophobic"?: No, I simply disagree with homosexuality, which does not indicate that I have an irrational fear of homosexuals, nor do I feel intimidated by them


Frankly, this is all very silly, society needs to wake up and stop relying on false terms to label and attack those who disagree with them. It is all very simple, Homophobia does not exist within the context that society is granting it, there is two sides to every argument, just because I personally disagree with the majority of society on Homosexuality, does not mean that I should be subject to a false labeling system that calls me a "monster".

Your analogy is false since homosexuality isn't a religion or a political opinion. Your religion or your political opinion aren't evolved from biological factors. Also, "homosexual lifestyle", do all gays have the same lifestyle or what? The thing that binds them together is their attraction against their own gender. You are basically saying that you don't like them because of their attraction against their own gender.

However, no one says you have to like homosexuals. You basically just have to respect them. There are lots of people who are pro gay rights who would vomit if they saw two gay men kissing. That's just personal preferences.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 9:10:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/24/2015 12:54:22 AM, Akoluthos wrote:
First of all, before I am attacked for my choice in title, I want to make it clear that my thesis must be understood within a specific context, all I ask is that I am heard out before any rational actions are taken against me.
With that out of the way, I wish to share with you a topic that that I have heavily defended over the years, that being the fact that I believe "homophobia" is non-existent.
I believe that it would suit to start my augment with a definition, that of the word "phobia".

Phobia- An extreme or irrational fear for a specific thing or group

Now, I am not sure about you, but I do not have an "extreme or irrational fear" of homosexual individuals. This leads me the "meat" of my argument, that fact that disagreement does not mean intimidation.

Over the years, I have been the subject of this societal buzzword, any and every time I express my disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle, others are quick to throw the term "Homophobic" around.
As I previously mentioned, disagreement with a thing or group does not mean in any context that I have a "Fear" or "Phobia" of said thing or group.
People too often misuse this term in order to fuel their own politically correct agenda, without actually breaking down the term itself.

In 1960 a psychologist by the name of George Weinberg coined the term homophobia with the combination of the words homosexual, and phobia, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear".
I believe that this is widely taken out of context, or rather displaced from its real meaning. A real homophobe would legitimately and literally have a fear of homosexuals, meaning that they would be diagnosed with a phobia. Someone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle is not "homophobic" rather, they simply disagree.

In order to illustrate just how silly this term is, I will provide some examples to shed some light on just how out of context this all really is.

Example Statement 1:"I personally disagree with the doctrine and policy of the Liberal Party"

Do I have an irrational fear of Liberals?: No

Does this make me "Liberalphobic"?: No, it is simply a disagreement in conjunction with the freedom of speech


Example Statement 2: "I personally disagree with the faith and beliefs of Sikhism"

Do I have an irrational fear of Sikhs?: No

Does this make me "Sikhaphobic"?: No, I am expressing that I personally disagree with a specific religious sect

Any finally, after that illustration let us move on to my third and final example"

Example Statement 3: "I personally disagree with the lifestyle choices of homosexuals"

Do I have an irrational fear of Homosexuals?: No

Does this make me "Homophobic"?: No, I simply disagree with homosexuality, which does not indicate that I have an irrational fear of homosexuals, nor do I feel intimidated by them


Frankly, this is all very silly, society needs to wake up and stop relying on false terms to label and attack those who disagree with them. It is all very simple, Homophobia does not exist within the context that society is granting it, there is two sides to every argument, just because I personally disagree with the majority of society on Homosexuality, does not mean that I should be subject to a false labeling system that calls me a "monster".

Well, it is a fear. Many fear what SSM does to "traditional marriage". Some fear "the lifestyle". Yea, it is about fear.
Akoluthos
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 1:43:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

Makes one wonder why straights whom claim to have no phobia don't attend drag shows, hit up a "gay" bar every now and then, etc. Funny, that.

His heterosexuality a "lifestyle"? I have never really known it to be such, but I see homosexuality has a lifestyle, one that can be disagreed with. Funny, that as well.

What exactly is there to disagree with? Do homosexuals have a doctrine? By which I mean do heterosexuals or homosexuals have a doctrine? That would be something to disagree with, but strangely, I can't find something like that. Funny, too.

So, the fine point:

What and why is being disagreed with when it comes to homosexuality? And why does the "disagreement" lead to anything more than a simple "not my cup of tea"?

There is an obvious answer of course: fear.

Well, first of all let me start of like I did with my original argument, a simple definition...

Lifestyle- The Way in which a person or group lives

You state that homosexuality is not a lifestyle, but it is just that, in the same manner that heterosexuality is a lifestyle. It is the way that people choose to live their lives, thus making it a lifestyle.

Homosexuals choose to live a homosexual lifestyle, it is as simple as that.

You also state that you wonder why straights who claim to have no phobia don't hit up gay bars or attend drag shows. Well, this is because straights don't choose to live a specific lifestyle , thus disproving your earlier arguments that state that homosexuality is not a lifestyle.

Now, you claim that homosexuality has no doctrine? Well once again, here is a simple definition...

Doctrine- A Belief or set of beliefs

Do Homosexuals not have beliefs? Because of so, i'll drop the argument right now.

The Answer to that of course is no, homosexuals do have beliefs, therefore allowing them to have a doctrine.

The disagreement leads to more that "just not my cup of tea" when homosexuals start to label and attack society for not agreeing with them, it is as simple as that.
Akoluthos
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 1:51:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Your analogy is false since homosexuality isn't a religion or a political opinion. Your religion or your political opinion aren't evolved from biological factors. Also, "homosexual lifestyle", do all gays have the same lifestyle or what? The thing that binds them together is their attraction against their own gender. You are basically saying that you don't like them because of their attraction against their own gender.

However, no one says you have to like homosexuals. You basically just have to respect them. There are lots of people who are pro gay rights who would vomit if they saw two gay men kissing. That's just personal preferences.

No, homosexuals don't all live the exact same lifestyle, however, it is a common belief that makes homosexuality into a lifestyle .

I disagree with the lifestyle choice, never did I once say that I had hatred for homosexuals, after all, I choose to hate the sin, not the sinner.

Agreed, nobody says I have to like homosexuals, however every time I verbally disagree with the lifestyle, I am slammed with the all familiar "homophobic" phrase.

So if i am expected to respect them, how come I do not receive the same level of respect back? I was under the assumption that tolerance worked both ways, apparently I was mistaken.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 11:04:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 1:51:36 AM, Akoluthos wrote:
Your analogy is false since homosexuality isn't a religion or a political opinion. Your religion or your political opinion aren't evolved from biological factors. Also, "homosexual lifestyle", do all gays have the same lifestyle or what? The thing that binds them together is their attraction against their own gender. You are basically saying that you don't like them because of their attraction against their own gender.

However, no one says you have to like homosexuals. You basically just have to respect them. There are lots of people who are pro gay rights who would vomit if they saw two gay men kissing. That's just personal preferences.

No, homosexuals don't all live the exact same lifestyle, however, it is a common belief that makes homosexuality into a lifestyle .

I disagree with the lifestyle choice, never did I once say that I had hatred for homosexuals, after all, I choose to hate the sin, not the sinner.

Agreed, nobody says I have to like homosexuals, however every time I verbally disagree with the lifestyle, I am slammed with the all familiar "homophobic" phrase.

So if i am expected to respect them, how come I do not receive the same level of respect back? I was under the assumption that tolerance worked both ways, apparently I was mistaken.

As I said, the only thing your rhetorics of "homosexual lifestyle" could only be understood is that you would have problems with what two consenting adults do together in their bedroom, since that categorically is the only different thing from heterosexual people in their daily life.

You receive disrepect because you gave it in the first place. It's a tu quoque, yes, but these people would not give you disrespect in the first place if you just would just choose not to interfere in healthy consensual relationships.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 11:14:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 1:43:37 AM, Akoluthos wrote:
You also state that you wonder why straights who claim to have no phobia don't hit up gay bars or attend drag shows. Well, this is because straights don't choose to live a specific lifestyle , thus disproving your earlier arguments that state that homosexuality is not a lifestyle.

Actually they do too. We can use the "choice" logics here too. A heterosexual who reacts upon their heterosexual thoughts have chosen to to live the heterosexual lifestyle.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 12:08:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 1:43:37 AM, Akoluthos wrote:

Makes one wonder why straights whom claim to have no phobia don't attend drag shows, hit up a "gay" bar every now and then, etc. Funny, that.

His heterosexuality a "lifestyle"? I have never really known it to be such, but I see homosexuality has a lifestyle, one that can be disagreed with. Funny, that as well.

What exactly is there to disagree with? Do homosexuals have a doctrine? By which I mean do heterosexuals or homosexuals have a doctrine? That would be something to disagree with, but strangely, I can't find something like that. Funny, too.

So, the fine point:

What and why is being disagreed with when it comes to homosexuality? And why does the "disagreement" lead to anything more than a simple "not my cup of tea"?

There is an obvious answer of course: fear.

Well, first of all let me start of like I did with my original argument, a simple definition...

Lifestyle- The Way in which a person or group lives

You state that homosexuality is not a lifestyle, but it is just that, in the same manner that heterosexuality is a lifestyle. It is the way that people choose to live their lives, thus making it a lifestyle.

So then yes, heterosexuals have one. That is what I was angling for, so, now that you have a way in which you live your life, one can disagree with it.

That sound REAAAALLLY silly now, doesn't it?

Homosexuals choose to live a homosexual lifestyle, it is as simple as that.

Who doesn't?

You also state that you wonder why straights who claim to have no phobia don't hit up gay bars or attend drag shows. Well, this is because straights don't choose to live a specific lifestyle , thus disproving your earlier arguments that state that homosexuality is not a lifestyle.

Great, so gays disagree with the heterosexual life style. Heard of gays protesting it? ;)

Now, you claim that homosexuality has no doctrine? Well once again, here is a simple definition...

Doctrine- A Belief or set of beliefs

Do Homosexuals not have beliefs? Because of so, i'll drop the argument right now.

The Answer to that of course is no, homosexuals do have beliefs, therefore allowing them to have a doctrine.

Specific to homosexuals? Again, you are setting yourself up to sound like heterosexuality is some how immune to the picture you are painting.

The disagreement leads to more that "just not my cup of tea" when homosexuals start to label and attack society for not agreeing with them, it is as simple as that.

Are you attacked for your choice of life style (heterosexuality) and doctrine (heterosexuality)? By gays? Lets honestly take a peek see at what variety of injury or offense you can claim that one doesn't immediately instigate.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2015 12:54:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/25/2015 1:43:37 AM, Akoluthos wrote:
Doctrine- A Belief or set of beliefs

Do Homosexuals not have beliefs? Because of so, i'll drop the argument right now.

The Answer to that of course is no, homosexuals do have beliefs, therefore allowing them to have a doctrine.

These beliefs would be nothing but a homosexual believing he is homosexual. He isn't calling for any kind of political reform (per definition as a homosexual only) more than not wanting to be discriminated in any way becuase he happens to have another yet healthy taste in his private amorous life. Unless he would be some kind of an Uncle Tom in the sexuality aspect.

The disagreement leads to more that "just not my cup of tea" when homosexuals start to label and attack society for not agreeing with them, it is as simple as that.

I wouldn't say that you are implying "not my cup of tea" here. If you would say: "Well, I personally think homosexuality is a sin, but hey, my opinion only and others shouldn't conform to my beliefs or my God, unless they want to. Live and let live.", then I would see no problem.

I also sense that you soon will say something like "I can criticize smokers' lifestyles, but not homosexuals', why?". Here, the difference is that smokers do not receive hate speech or violence, whereas homosexuals have a long history of that, plus that smoking isn't a coded thing in their biology unable to modify.

Another problem with talking about "the homosexual lifestyle" is that many conservatives use that term for pointing out that homosexuals would automatically exercise some kind of handicapping or harming traits. For example here:

http://www.debate.org...

Arguments such as "a higher percentage of homosexuals than heterosexuals are heroin addicts". True perhaps, but that is an non-sequitur and a false correlation. It is basically on the same level as claiming that black people would automatically belong to some kind of rape culture, which is a non-sequitur too since even though more blacks than whites would be rapists, correlation does not equal causation.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 6:01:25 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 11/24/2015 12:54:22 AM, Akoluthos wrote:
First of all, before I am attacked for my choice in title, I want to make it clear that my thesis must be understood within a specific context, all I ask is that I am heard out before any rational actions are taken against me.
With that out of the way, I wish to share with you a topic that that I have heavily defended over the years, that being the fact that I believe "homophobia" is non-existent.

I believe it does exist.

I believe that it would suit to start my augment with a definition, that of the word "phobia".

Phobia- An extreme or irrational fear for a specific thing or group

Actually a phobia is more than just an "irrational fear" it is also characterized as an aversion. An aversion is irrational hatred, a strong dislike or disinclination to something. Homophobia is a phobia because it is rooted in fear and hatred of something that is different to most (heterosexual) people. However, even gay people can be homophobic or harbor internalized homophobia. Most times when you hear opposing views on the subject, they are rooted in fear mongering propaganda and lies. For instance "gays prey on children" and "gays want to turn everyone else gay". This fits the very definition of a phobia.

Now, I am not sure about you, but I do not have an "extreme or irrational fear" of homosexual individuals. This leads me the "meat" of my argument, that fact that disagreement does not mean intimidation.

How can you "disagree" with something that isn't an idea or ideology. The very thing that makes someone homosexual is the fact that they are sexually attracted to the same sex. That is not something you can disagree with because it's not even something that people choose.

Over the years, I have been the subject of this societal buzzword, any and every time I express my disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle, others are quick to throw the term "Homophobic" around.

Because you are homophobic.

There is no such thing as a "homosexual lifestyle". A lifestyle is defined as "the way in which a person or group lives." Homosexuals do not all live a certain way, just like heterosexuals do not all live a certain way. You assuming they do is actually part of what makes you homophobic, because you do not see homosexuals as individuals, you seem them as a collective defined by one aspect of their existence. That is why you call homosexuality a "lifestyle", well that and you want to imply that being gay is a choice somehow even though it is not.

As I previously mentioned, disagreement with a thing or group does not mean in any context that I have a "Fear" or "Phobia" of said thing or group.

Again, homosexuality is not an idea to be disagreed with.

People too often misuse this term in order to fuel their own politically correct agenda, without actually breaking down the term itself.

No, you're just homophobic. There is nothing "politically correct" about pointing out your prejudiced views about homosexuals. Using the PC card to silence those who disagree with your prejudiced views doesn't really help your case.

In 1960 a psychologist by the name of George Weinberg coined the term homophobia with the combination of the words homosexual, and phobia, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear".

And since then that definition has been expanded, but the original still applies. Homophobia is rooted in mass hysteria, even more so during the 1960s when homosexuals were linked with child molesters and the mentally disturbed out to recruit children into the very "lifestyle" you propagate.

I believe that this is widely taken out of context, or rather displaced from its real meaning. A real homophobe would legitimately and literally have a fear of homosexuals, meaning that they would be diagnosed with a phobia. Someone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle is not "homophobic" rather, they simply disagree.

See above.

In order to illustrate just how silly this term is, I will provide some examples to shed some light on just how out of context this all really is.

Example Statement 1:"I personally disagree with the doctrine and policy of the Liberal Party"

Do I have an irrational fear of Liberals?: No

Does this make me "Liberalphobic"?: No, it is simply a disagreement in conjunction with the freedom of speech

Liberalism is a political ideology. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Faulty comparison.

Example Statement 2: "I personally disagree with the faith and beliefs of Sikhism"

Do I have an irrational fear of Sikhs?: No

Does this make me "Sikhaphobic"?: No, I am expressing that I personally disagree with a specific religious sect

Sikhism is a religious ideology. Homosexuality is not. Again, faulty comparison.

Any finally, after that illustration let us move on to my third and final example"

Example Statement 3: "I personally disagree with the lifestyle choices of homosexuals"

Such as? Not all homosexuals make the same lifestyle choices, as already established.

Do I have an irrational fear of Homosexuals?: No

That is still up to debate actually. Just because you claim you do not, does not mean that is not the case.

Does this make me "Homophobic"?: No, I simply disagree with homosexuality, which does not indicate that I have an irrational fear of homosexuals, nor do I feel intimidated by them

You cannot disagree with something that isn't an idea. What is it about homosexuality that you specifically do not agree with? The only thing all homosexuals have in common is their biological inclination to be attracted to the same sex. Claiming to disagree with this is like saying "I disagree with your blackness, but I am not racist" and that really makes no sense.

Frankly, this is all very silly, society needs to wake up and stop relying on false terms to label and attack those who disagree with them. It is all very simple, Homophobia does not exist within the context that society is granting it, there is two sides to every argument, just because I personally disagree with the majority of society on Homosexuality, does not mean that I should be subject to a false labeling system that calls me a "monster".

Homophobia exists and you have yet to prove it does not. Your entire argument here is based on semantics, not actual logic. Simply put, when you actually tell us what it is you actually "disagree with" and what makes homosexuality a "lifestyle" then we can move forward with this conversation in a way that is productive.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 6:36:23 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
You cannot disagree with homosexuality. You cannot disagree with biology and facts.

Disagreement with certain lifestyles shouldn't label you a bigot or a close-minded individual. I personally do not like the concept of homosexuality, not their lifestyles, but that doesn't mean I am fearful of them. Being anti-liberal doesn't mean you have a phobia against them.

Homophobia is a nonexistent phenomena. Unless you are truly fearful of gays, then you are not homophobic.

I do find that there are different variations when it comes to disdain for homosexuality. It's not that many individuals dislike gays, just on the premise of their sexuality, but because of the way that they act. I truly hate males who act overly effeminate and present themselves in a flamboyant manner. I have no care for individuals who are just of a different sexuality, but still act like their biological self within these societal descriptions.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 7:57:46 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 6:36:23 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
You cannot disagree with homosexuality. You cannot disagree with biology and facts.

Disagreement with certain lifestyles shouldn't label you a bigot or a close-minded individual. I personally do not like the concept of homosexuality, not their lifestyles, but that doesn't mean I am fearful of them. Being anti-liberal doesn't mean you have a phobia against them.

Again, what is their lifestyle? What does it consist of? How do all homosexuals supposedly live their lives as a whole? This is the main question that has yet to be answered because there is no one specific way of life that all homosexuals subscribe to. And comparing being anti-gay to being anti-liberal is still a faulty comparison. Liberalism is an ideology, homosexuality is not.

Homophobia is a nonexistent phenomena. Unless you are truly fearful of gays, then you are not homophobic.

Homophobia exists and take many different forms, from actual fear to hatred. There are literally people who physically avoid being in the prescence of gays and lesbians because they irrationally fear interacting with them for various reasons. You have people who spread and believe fear mongering propaganda for the very purpose of justifying their ill feelings towards homosexuals.

I do find that there are different variations when it comes to disdain for homosexuality. It's not that many individuals dislike gays, just on the premise of their sexuality, but because of the way that they act. I truly hate males who act overly effeminate and present themselves in a flamboyant manner. I have no care for individuals who are just of a different sexuality, but still act like their biological self within these societal descriptions.

This is called prejudice and misogyny, which is an integral part of what makes someone homophobic. Not all gay people "act" a certain way. Being effeminant and/or flamboyant is also not exclusive behavior to gay men. And there is nothing inherently wrong with men (gay or otherwise) expressing themselves the way they want. Your views on gender roles and expression are also incredibly flawed and bigoted because you expect people to only adhere to what you find acceptable for how men and women should behave.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:03:47 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 7:57:46 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 12/5/2015 6:36:23 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
You cannot disagree with homosexuality. You cannot disagree with biology and facts.

Disagreement with certain lifestyles shouldn't label you a bigot or a close-minded individual. I personally do not like the concept of homosexuality, not their lifestyles, but that doesn't mean I am fearful of them. Being anti-liberal doesn't mean you have a phobia against them.

Again, what is their lifestyle? What does it consist of? How do all homosexuals supposedly live their lives as a whole? This is the main question that has yet to be answered because there is no one specific way of life that all homosexuals subscribe to. And comparing being anti-gay to being anti-liberal is still a faulty comparison. Liberalism is an ideology, homosexuality is not.

Homophobia is a nonexistent phenomena. Unless you are truly fearful of gays, then you are not homophobic.

Homophobia exists and take many different forms, from actual fear to hatred. There are literally people who physically avoid being in the prescence of gays and lesbians because they irrationally fear interacting with them for various reasons. You have people who spread and believe fear mongering propaganda for the very purpose of justifying their ill feelings towards homosexuals.

I do find that there are different variations when it comes to disdain for homosexuality. It's not that many individuals dislike gays, just on the premise of their sexuality, but because of the way that they act. I truly hate males who act overly effeminate and present themselves in a flamboyant manner. I have no care for individuals who are just of a different sexuality, but still act like their biological self within these societal descriptions.

This is called prejudice and misogyny, which is an integral part of what makes someone homophobic. Not all gay people "act" a certain way. Being effeminant and/or flamboyant is also not exclusive behavior to gay men. And there is nothing inherently wrong with men (gay or otherwise) expressing themselves the way they want. Your views on gender roles and expression are also incredibly flawed and bigoted because you expect people to only adhere to what you find acceptable for how men and women should behave.

Don't overgeneralize my statements. I never said "all". Many gays do not act in a flamboyant manner, but the ones that do are the individuals I am distasteful of. I have a very clear basis on what constitutes proper ways of acting for each sex. That is not misogyny, it just states that I do not like nor respect overly effeminate men.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:37:21 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 6:36:23 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
You cannot disagree with homosexuality. You cannot disagree with biology and facts.

Disagreement with certain lifestyles shouldn't label you a bigot or a close-minded individual. I personally do not like the concept of homosexuality, not their lifestyles, but that doesn't mean I am fearful of them. Being anti-liberal doesn't mean you have a phobia against them.

The word homophobia is flawed, yes, it should be something like anti-homo instead.

Homophobia is a nonexistent phenomena. Unless you are truly fearful of gays, then you are not homophobic.

Many people are afraid of be close to them though. But that is a psychological matter, you can be pro-gay rights and gay marriage and still be afraid of being near them.

I do find that there are different variations when it comes to disdain for homosexuality. It's not that many individuals dislike gays, just on the premise of their sexuality, but because of the way that they act. I truly hate males who act overly effeminate and present themselves in a flamboyant manner. I have no care for individuals who are just of a different sexuality, but still act like their biological self within these societal descriptions.

You could be how distasteful you want of them, even if you don't mean that all gay male are effeminate. As long as you don't are mean to them, it is okay. After all, it's nothing contradictory at all to be pro gay rights and still vomit when you see two men kissing. That is just taste.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:39:33 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 8:37:21 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/5/2015 6:36:23 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
You cannot disagree with homosexuality. You cannot disagree with biology and facts.

Disagreement with certain lifestyles shouldn't label you a bigot or a close-minded individual. I personally do not like the concept of homosexuality, not their lifestyles, but that doesn't mean I am fearful of them. Being anti-liberal doesn't mean you have a phobia against them.

The word homophobia is flawed, yes, it should be something like anti-homo instead.

Homophobia is a nonexistent phenomena. Unless you are truly fearful of gays, then you are not homophobic.

Many people are afraid of be close to them though. But that is a psychological matter, you can be pro-gay rights and gay marriage and still be afraid of being near them.

I do find that there are different variations when it comes to disdain for homosexuality. It's not that many individuals dislike gays, just on the premise of their sexuality, but because of the way that they act. I truly hate males who act overly effeminate and present themselves in a flamboyant manner. I have no care for individuals who are just of a different sexuality, but still act like their biological self within these societal descriptions.

You could be how distasteful you want of them, even if you don't mean that all gay male are effeminate. As long as you don't are mean to them, it is okay. After all, it's nothing contradictory at all to be pro gay rights and still vomit when you see two men kissing. That is just taste.

I am not pro-gay rights specifically. I am pro freedom. If their freedom is violated by a law that disables them from marrying, then I am against that law. Just like I am for freedom of religion - even though I find many of them to be mortifying and irrational, I am still in favor of their ability to be present.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:52:58 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 8:39:33 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:37:21 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/5/2015 6:36:23 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
You cannot disagree with homosexuality. You cannot disagree with biology and facts.

Disagreement with certain lifestyles shouldn't label you a bigot or a close-minded individual. I personally do not like the concept of homosexuality, not their lifestyles, but that doesn't mean I am fearful of them. Being anti-liberal doesn't mean you have a phobia against them.

The word homophobia is flawed, yes, it should be something like anti-homo instead.

Homophobia is a nonexistent phenomena. Unless you are truly fearful of gays, then you are not homophobic.

Many people are afraid of be close to them though. But that is a psychological matter, you can be pro-gay rights and gay marriage and still be afraid of being near them.

I do find that there are different variations when it comes to disdain for homosexuality. It's not that many individuals dislike gays, just on the premise of their sexuality, but because of the way that they act. I truly hate males who act overly effeminate and present themselves in a flamboyant manner. I have no care for individuals who are just of a different sexuality, but still act like their biological self within these societal descriptions.

You could be how distasteful you want of them, even if you don't mean that all gay male are effeminate. As long as you don't are mean to them, it is okay. After all, it's nothing contradictory at all to be pro gay rights and still vomit when you see two men kissing. That is just taste.

I am not pro-gay rights specifically. I am pro freedom. If their freedom is violated by a law that disables them from marrying, then I am against that law. Just like I am for freedom of religion - even though I find many of them to be mortifying and irrational, I am still in favor of their ability to be present.

Well great then. Nevertheless, people shouldn't receive hatred for what they do. Even though you would see hatred against you as funny duels, others wouldn't necessarily.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 8:58:06 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 8:52:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:39:33 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:37:21 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/5/2015 6:36:23 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
You cannot disagree with homosexuality. You cannot disagree with biology and facts.

Disagreement with certain lifestyles shouldn't label you a bigot or a close-minded individual. I personally do not like the concept of homosexuality, not their lifestyles, but that doesn't mean I am fearful of them. Being anti-liberal doesn't mean you have a phobia against them.

The word homophobia is flawed, yes, it should be something like anti-homo instead.

Homophobia is a nonexistent phenomena. Unless you are truly fearful of gays, then you are not homophobic.

Many people are afraid of be close to them though. But that is a psychological matter, you can be pro-gay rights and gay marriage and still be afraid of being near them.

I do find that there are different variations when it comes to disdain for homosexuality. It's not that many individuals dislike gays, just on the premise of their sexuality, but because of the way that they act. I truly hate males who act overly effeminate and present themselves in a flamboyant manner. I have no care for individuals who are just of a different sexuality, but still act like their biological self within these societal descriptions.

You could be how distasteful you want of them, even if you don't mean that all gay male are effeminate. As long as you don't are mean to them, it is okay. After all, it's nothing contradictory at all to be pro gay rights and still vomit when you see two men kissing. That is just taste.

I am not pro-gay rights specifically. I am pro freedom. If their freedom is violated by a law that disables them from marrying, then I am against that law. Just like I am for freedom of religion - even though I find many of them to be mortifying and irrational, I am still in favor of their ability to be present.

Well great then. Nevertheless, people shouldn't receive hatred for what they do. Even though you would see hatred against you as funny duels, others wouldn't necessarily.

This is why I find liberalism to be a mental disorder. You see, when you disagree with me, I either find you to be stupid or respect your ideals.

When you disagree with a liberal, or at least when I disagreed with you, you started saying "should" a multitude of times. You have this world view in which people need to conform to your ideas, or else you brand them to be an evil racist bigot.

No one "should" do anything you believe. People should follow their own self-interest, and that is it. If they feel the need to judge others, then they can go right ahead, as that is their right.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 9:05:41 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 8:58:06 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:52:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:39:33 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:37:21 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/5/2015 6:36:23 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
You cannot disagree with homosexuality. You cannot disagree with biology and facts.

Disagreement with certain lifestyles shouldn't label you a bigot or a close-minded individual. I personally do not like the concept of homosexuality, not their lifestyles, but that doesn't mean I am fearful of them. Being anti-liberal doesn't mean you have a phobia against them.

The word homophobia is flawed, yes, it should be something like anti-homo instead.

Homophobia is a nonexistent phenomena. Unless you are truly fearful of gays, then you are not homophobic.

Many people are afraid of be close to them though. But that is a psychological matter, you can be pro-gay rights and gay marriage and still be afraid of being near them.

I do find that there are different variations when it comes to disdain for homosexuality. It's not that many individuals dislike gays, just on the premise of their sexuality, but because of the way that they act. I truly hate males who act overly effeminate and present themselves in a flamboyant manner. I have no care for individuals who are just of a different sexuality, but still act like their biological self within these societal descriptions.

You could be how distasteful you want of them, even if you don't mean that all gay male are effeminate. As long as you don't are mean to them, it is okay. After all, it's nothing contradictory at all to be pro gay rights and still vomit when you see two men kissing. That is just taste.

I am not pro-gay rights specifically. I am pro freedom. If their freedom is violated by a law that disables them from marrying, then I am against that law. Just like I am for freedom of religion - even though I find many of them to be mortifying and irrational, I am still in favor of their ability to be present.

Well great then. Nevertheless, people shouldn't receive hatred for what they do. Even though you would see hatred against you as funny duels, others wouldn't necessarily.

This is why I find liberalism to be a mental disorder. You see, when you disagree with me, I either find you to be stupid or respect your ideals.

When you disagree with a liberal, or at least when I disagreed with you, you started saying "should" a multitude of times. You have this world view in which people need to conform to your ideas, or else you brand them to be an evil racist bigot.

Right back at you! I have never tried to strip you of your opinions, but your harsh rhetorics here seems to prove that you couldn't tolerate other opinions than your own.

No one "should" do anything you believe. People should follow their own self-interest, and that is it. If they feel the need to judge others, then they can go right ahead, as that is their right.

So if I would be interested in burning down your house, should I do that? No, of course not.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 9:13:35 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 8:58:06 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:52:58 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:39:33 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 8:37:21 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 12/5/2015 6:36:23 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
You cannot disagree with homosexuality. You cannot disagree with biology and facts.

Disagreement with certain lifestyles shouldn't label you a bigot or a close-minded individual. I personally do not like the concept of homosexuality, not their lifestyles, but that doesn't mean I am fearful of them. Being anti-liberal doesn't mean you have a phobia against them.

The word homophobia is flawed, yes, it should be something like anti-homo instead.

Homophobia is a nonexistent phenomena. Unless you are truly fearful of gays, then you are not homophobic.

Many people are afraid of be close to them though. But that is a psychological matter, you can be pro-gay rights and gay marriage and still be afraid of being near them.

I do find that there are different variations when it comes to disdain for homosexuality. It's not that many individuals dislike gays, just on the premise of their sexuality, but because of the way that they act. I truly hate males who act overly effeminate and present themselves in a flamboyant manner. I have no care for individuals who are just of a different sexuality, but still act like their biological self within these societal descriptions.

You could be how distasteful you want of them, even if you don't mean that all gay male are effeminate. As long as you don't are mean to them, it is okay. After all, it's nothing contradictory at all to be pro gay rights and still vomit when you see two men kissing. That is just taste.

I am not pro-gay rights specifically. I am pro freedom. If their freedom is violated by a law that disables them from marrying, then I am against that law. Just like I am for freedom of religion - even though I find many of them to be mortifying and irrational, I am still in favor of their ability to be present.

Well great then. Nevertheless, people shouldn't receive hatred for what they do. Even though you would see hatred against you as funny duels, others wouldn't necessarily.

This is why I find liberalism to be a mental disorder. You see, when you disagree with me, I either find you to be stupid or respect your ideals.

When you disagree with a liberal, or at least when I disagreed with you, you started saying "should" a multitude of times. You have this world view in which people need to conform to your ideas, or else you brand them to be an evil racist bigot.

No one "should" do anything you believe. People should follow their own self-interest, and that is it. If they feel the need to judge others, then they can go right ahead, as that is their right.

By the way, speaking of something else, I think you are of the right material to try to prove me wrong here http://www.debate.org... . No one wants to prove me wrong there, so I have to enlist others.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 9:29:23 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 8:03:47 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:57:46 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 12/5/2015 6:36:23 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
You cannot disagree with homosexuality. You cannot disagree with biology and facts.

Disagreement with certain lifestyles shouldn't label you a bigot or a close-minded individual. I personally do not like the concept of homosexuality, not their lifestyles, but that doesn't mean I am fearful of them. Being anti-liberal doesn't mean you have a phobia against them.

Again, what is their lifestyle? What does it consist of? How do all homosexuals supposedly live their lives as a whole? This is the main question that has yet to be answered because there is no one specific way of life that all homosexuals subscribe to. And comparing being anti-gay to being anti-liberal is still a faulty comparison. Liberalism is an ideology, homosexuality is not.

Homophobia is a nonexistent phenomena. Unless you are truly fearful of gays, then you are not homophobic.

Homophobia exists and take many different forms, from actual fear to hatred. There are literally people who physically avoid being in the presence of gays and lesbians because they irrationally fear interacting with them for various reasons. You have people who spread and believe fear mongering propaganda for the very purpose of justifying their ill feelings towards homosexuals.

I do find that there are different variations when it comes to disdain for homosexuality. It's not that many individuals dislike gays, just on the premise of their sexuality, but because of the way that they act. I truly hate males who act overly effeminate and present themselves in a flamboyant manner. I have no care for individuals who are just of a different sexuality, but still act like their biological self within these societal descriptions.

This is called prejudice and misogyny, which is an integral part of what makes someone homophobic. Not all gay people "act" a certain way. Being effeminate and/or flamboyant is also not exclusive behavior to gay men. And there is nothing inherently wrong with men (gay or otherwise) expressing themselves the way they want. Your views on gender roles and expression are also incredibly flawed and bigoted because you expect people to only adhere to what you find acceptable for how men and women should behave.

Don't overgeneralize my statements. I never said "all". Many gays do not act in a flamboyant manner, but the ones that do are the individuals I am distasteful of. I have a very clear basis on what constitutes proper ways of acting for each sex. That is not misogyny, it just states that I do not like nor respect overly effeminate men.

I didn't "overgeneralize" your statements, I responded to exactly what you said. You did not say "many gays" you said gays in a general manner. You said and I quote "It's not that many individuals dislike gays, just on the premise of their sexuality, but because of the way that they act." which is a generalization in itself. And your distaste and lack of respect for effeminate men is rooted in misogyny. Why is it wrong for men to have an effeminate personality or characteristics? Because those characteristics are associated with women, and you view women as less worthy of respect. That is misogyny.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 10:40:08 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 8:58:06 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
This is why I find liberalism to be a mental disorder. You see, when you disagree with me, I either find you to be stupid or respect your ideals.

When you disagree with a liberal, or at least when I disagreed with you, you started saying "should" a multitude of times. You have this world view in which people need to conform to your ideas, or else you brand them to be an evil racist bigot.

No one "should" do anything you believe. People should follow their own self-interest, and that is it. If they feel the need to judge others, then they can go right ahead, as that is their right.

Also, you somewhat here stated that telling people to not break the laws is a sign of a mental disorder...

Your opinions are basically that anyone should do exactly what they want. If anyone feels for shooting you, they should be allowed to, according to your logic.

Furthermore, if you can't tolerate counterarguments, leave this community since debate means bilateral discussion. Maybe writing down your opinions in a notebook is better for you.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 12:49:57 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Your argument is semantics. While "homophobia" isn't a phobia in the mental health sense, it is nevertheless describing an irrational aversion to something, and so the naming is appropriate.

Also, I am yet to hear any convincing, secular, rational argument for why homosexuality or its "lifestyle" is wrong.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 8:03:01 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Just out of my general literary nerdiness, the prefix 'phobia' can also denote an irrational aversion to something. It's not restricted to fear (hydrophobic molecules and heliophobic tropisms in plants being two examples). Oftentimes, clinical phobias don't involve actual fear once they get to the point where avoidance has been adopted as a coping mechanism (a woman who makes only left hand turns stops feeling fear precisely because she has pathologically avoided those situations which would lead to feeling such fear).

Homophobia is a word for a simple sort of behavior: an irrational aversion to or fear of homosexual behavior. I think that it is overused as a silencing method, and that more than a few people who are anti-homosexual are so because they've rationalized religious tenets. But it's pretty easy to spot the homophobes; they're the ones fixated on homosexuality to a disturbing degree while turning a blind eye to anti-gay allies who go every week to gorge themselves at the all-you-can-eat buffet. The 'we hate that this sin has been normalized and accepted' line falls flat when the same standard isn't applied to gluttony and greed, and the fact that religious considerations are a cover for preexisting animosity becomes painfully clear at that point.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 12:12:30 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 11/24/2015 12:54:22 AM, Akoluthos wrote:
Frankly, this is all very silly, society needs to wake up and stop relying on false terms to label and attack those who disagree with them.
Agreed, but in fairness, you are playing on semantics which is just as bad.

It is all very simple, Homophobia does not exist within the context that society is granting it
In the context you granted it, a "phobia" of homosexuals, it most certainly does exist. That opposes your poor choice of topic title.

I get what you are saying though, and society does often use words to mislabel people. This is nothing new though, and I have seen it my whole life. A sorta wise man once taught me too refrain from semantics, and accept that words change in meaning overtime.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2015 12:13:59 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/6/2015 12:49:57 AM, SM2 wrote:
Your argument is semantics.
This is becoming an epidemic on this site. Everyone tries to play the hell out of definitions and word choice rather than making logical or persuasive appeals to the readers, which is what real debating always meant to me.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 6:38:41 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 8:03:47 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/5/2015 7:57:46 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 12/5/2015 6:36:23 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
You cannot disagree with homosexuality. You cannot disagree with biology and facts.

Disagreement with certain lifestyles shouldn't label you a bigot or a close-minded individual. I personally do not like the concept of homosexuality, not their lifestyles, but that doesn't mean I am fearful of them. Being anti-liberal doesn't mean you have a phobia against them.

Again, what is their lifestyle? What does it consist of? How do all homosexuals supposedly live their lives as a whole? This is the main question that has yet to be answered because there is no one specific way of life that all homosexuals subscribe to. And comparing being anti-gay to being anti-liberal is still a faulty comparison. Liberalism is an ideology, homosexuality is not.

Homophobia is a nonexistent phenomena. Unless you are truly fearful of gays, then you are not homophobic.

Homophobia exists and take many different forms, from actual fear to hatred. There are literally people who physically avoid being in the prescence of gays and lesbians because they irrationally fear interacting with them for various reasons. You have people who spread and believe fear mongering propaganda for the very purpose of justifying their ill feelings towards homosexuals.

I do find that there are different variations when it comes to disdain for homosexuality. It's not that many individuals dislike gays, just on the premise of their sexuality, but because of the way that they act. I truly hate males who act overly effeminate and present themselves in a flamboyant manner. I have no care for individuals who are just of a different sexuality, but still act like their biological self within these societal descriptions.

This is called prejudice and misogyny, which is an integral part of what makes someone homophobic. Not all gay people "act" a certain way. Being effeminant and/or flamboyant is also not exclusive behavior to gay men. And there is nothing inherently wrong with men (gay or otherwise) expressing themselves the way they want. Your views on gender roles and expression are also incredibly flawed and bigoted because you expect people to only adhere to what you find acceptable for how men and women should behave.

Don't overgeneralize my statements. I never said "all". Many gays do not act in a flamboyant manner, but the ones that do are the individuals I am distasteful of. I have a very clear basis on what constitutes proper ways of acting for each sex. That is not misogyny, it just states that I do not like nor respect overly effeminate men.

bballcock21, that is a very homophobic statement. To no respect someone because of tone and cadence of their speech or other non-important features really gives credence to how petty you are.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2015 6:51:45 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 11/24/2015 12:54:22 AM, Akoluthos wrote:
First of all, before I am attacked for my choice in title, I want to make it clear that my thesis must be understood within a specific context, all I ask is that I am heard out before any rational actions are taken against me.
With that out of the way, I wish to share with you a topic that that I have heavily defended over the years, that being the fact that I believe "homophobia" is non-existent.
I believe that it would suit to start my augment with a definition, that of the word "phobia".

Phobia- An extreme or irrational fear for a specific thing or group

Now, I am not sure about you, but I do not have an "extreme or irrational fear" of homosexual individuals. This leads me the "meat" of my argument, that fact that disagreement does not mean intimidation.

Over the years, I have been the subject of this societal buzzword, any and every time I express my disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle, others are quick to throw the term "Homophobic" around.
As I previously mentioned, disagreement with a thing or group does not mean in any context that I have a "Fear" or "Phobia" of said thing or group.
People too often misuse this term in order to fuel their own politically correct agenda, without actually breaking down the term itself.

In 1960 a psychologist by the name of George Weinberg coined the term homophobia with the combination of the words homosexual, and phobia, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear".
I believe that this is widely taken out of context, or rather displaced from its real meaning. A real homophobe would legitimately and literally have a fear of homosexuals, meaning that they would be diagnosed with a phobia. Someone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle is not "homophobic" rather, they simply disagree.

In order to illustrate just how silly this term is, I will provide some examples to shed some light on just how out of context this all really is.

Example Statement 1:"I personally disagree with the doctrine and policy of the Liberal Party"

Do I have an irrational fear of Liberals?: No

Does this make me "Liberalphobic"?: No, it is simply a disagreement in conjunction with the freedom of speech


Example Statement 2: "I personally disagree with the faith and beliefs of Sikhism"

Do I have an irrational fear of Sikhs?: No

Does this make me "Sikhaphobic"?: No, I am expressing that I personally disagree with a specific religious sect

Any finally, after that illustration let us move on to my third and final example"

Example Statement 3: "I personally disagree with the lifestyle choices of homosexuals"

Do I have an irrational fear of Homosexuals?: No

Does this make me "Homophobic"?: No, I simply disagree with homosexuality, which does not indicate that I have an irrational fear of homosexuals, nor do I feel intimidated by them


Frankly, this is all very silly, society needs to wake up and stop relying on false terms to label and attack those who disagree with them. It is all very simple, Homophobia does not exist within the context that society is granting it, there is two sides to every argument, just because I personally disagree with the majority of society on Homosexuality, does not mean that I should be subject to a false labeling system that calls me a "monster".

Your examples are bunk, because a disagreement with an ideology is not the same as supporting treating those classes differently just because you are in disagreement with the ideology.

If you had an hatred of Sikhs and were to intentionally try to exclude them from the religious class protections that currently exist so they could be discriminated against, such as not force a Christian Baker to make a Sikh wedding cake, then yes by the contemporary definition you would have a Sikhs-aphobia.

There is a tie between anger and fear and how fear can induce other behaviors such as anger. That is how the contemporary definition of homophobia came about. One would not on the face assume that some young masculine men beating up a gay person to point of hospitalization is fearful. It, however, has roots in fear and often people overcompensate to cover fear or other emotions that are related to self esteem.

In short I think you are not fully appreciative of the hate and general disrespect that gay people have directed against them and you also don't have an appreciate of the links between fear and other emotions.

Lastly, could you imagine if all "sinners" had the same level of hatred and disrespect directed at them? We could not be a functional society.