By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 05 June 2017
Locknuts said:
JWeinCom said:

Yeah.  The problem is there's no like "first church of atheism", so there are a lot of different ways the terms are used.  Some people do use it like you do, others use weak atheism vs strong atheism, and some people indeed do use agnostic to avoid calling themselves atheists.  I personally find this to be the clearest use of terminology.  

How do you suggest then that you change those discomforts?  I can think of ways to change laws and make logical arguments, but I really can't think of a way to change those kinds of things.

If it helps, I see creationism as a possibility, but the iron age books seem ridiculous to me. 

 

I also try to operate based on reason and evidence. The greater the claim: the greater the body of evidence required to substantiate it. The claim of 'this is god' would require so much evidence I don't think I could ever believe it.

 

The only conclusion for me is that noone can ever know the nature of god. That is what it means to be agnostic to me: the belief and acceptance that noone will ever know god.

That doesn't exactly help.  The language is kind of fuzzy.  When you're saying things like the nature of god, that leads me to think you are a theist.

Simpler way to do it is this.

1.  Do you believe that there is a god?
2.  Do you know that god exists?

Yes/Yes=  Gnostic Theist   Yes/No= Agnostic Theist  No/Yes= Gnostic Atheist  No/No= Agnostic Atheist.

Kaneman! said:
Goodnightmoon said:

That's a very simplistic look at things, if it's genetic it doesn't need to be negative, you don't know in what ways this could affect the species as a whole in benefitial ways, if there was bad for the species then nature would have erased this behaviour and it hasn't, for milions of years it has been part of many species with no negative repercusions. 

I wouldn't say it's simplistic. Evolution and natural selection are outlined pretty clearly since Charles Darwin, look up reproductive success. I don't want to get caught up in such a discussion, but what if the genetic instinct of reproduction was higher than the instinct of homosexuality? That way the genes would survive.

Secondly, humans are a relatively young species, our evolution is not at an end. It might change in the future, but we'll never know. But that clashes with your claim that nature would have erased that behaviour. If it's not negative to a development of a species, then why isn't it more common? What if it's nature's way to prevent overpopulation?

Then next, if it's a behaviour like you said, then what's the proof that it's not based in human development during life? That would explain it more logically.

How can you say no negative repercussion, when it directly leads to no offspring?

Like I said, you can throw up tons of questions that way, but we won't get to the end of it through our discussion, so let's not endlessly go in circles.

Actually it does not directly need to no offspring.  Gay people can have kids.  Biological kids.  It happens.



Around the Network
Qwark on 05 June 2017
Goodnightmoon said:
Qwark said:

The basics of evolution is adapting not making something perfect or better. Being gay has no biological upside nor a downside. We have plenty of random genetic disorders, since it's not a perfect system. Nature isn't building a best possible or functioning ecosystem. It's trying to build one which is capable of survival. It's truly quite simple the same counts for albinos. We have plenty of species having an albino variance. Snakes, Mammals, Spiders which also exist for a long time. Even though these have a clear disadvantage in the wild since you can spot them more easily. Yet nature never found out how to erase albinos not even human albino's which are pretty much allergic to sunlight. Which is also a genetic disorder btw severe allergies. 

First of all, There is a huge difference between something as common as the homosexuality and something as rare as being an albino (1 out of 20000 persons), when the anomaly is that rare is harder to be modified by nature and the fact that its so rare is already a hint that evolution doesn't really want it, but homosexuality is very common and we talk about milions of year and several massive extinctions where any disadvantage as common as the homosexuality would have dissapeared but the evolution keeps it at a good number.

The question is that the more studies are made about the subject, the more clear is that there is no apparent disadvantage, you are making a bad comparison here, an albino has a clear disadavantage, they have all kind of skin and visual problems, they get ill easily, homosexuality doesn't make you weaker against nature in any way and you keep your reproductive potential, in fact most animals with homosexual behaviours keep reproducing, including our species, even in ancient greece where homosexuality was the norm they still reproduce, through history homosexuals had families just like everyone, now they are less likely to do so but things like fecundation in vitro exists, and even when they don't reproduce they can still increase the reproductive potential of the species in other ways, there are tons of orphans around the world, homosexual couples that don't reproduce can take care of them increasing their chances in life, some theories says than when a potential is lowered (like the reproductive potential) other potentials may be increased, like social habilities, empathy, intelligence, etc A huge number of great artists and scientifics were gay, who knows if their sexual condition had something to do? Some theories say homosexual men tend to be better making bonds with other men as they tend to be more diplomatic and empathic that the average straight men, who knows if this was the reason of some important alliances in the past? There are many possibilities to explain why evolution does nothing to get rid of it, and still a lot to investigate.

I never said it had a negative effect, I in general doubt the evolutionary benefit of gays. There are indeed 1500 species which show gay or bisexual behaviour. There have been some cases for adoption and other cases, since fay man tend to have less testosterone and more of the friendship and love hormone they are in generally nicer. Where I am disagreeing with you is that evolution serves to make species better, instead of letting them adapt to new situations. Which why we have allergies and all sorts of genetic ills. Evolition has tradeoffs for instance humans and dogs became more intelligent over time. Yet a human can't even give birth alone these days in the Western world. There are always tradeoffs in evolution and. sometimes just rare mutations or mistakes. Whether being gay or rather bisexual is purposely done by evolution or just something that happens in some organisms is a matter for debate. DNA remains a very random thing at times and not everything has a function.

 

OT

We had a gay king in The Netherlands. Willem 2 he wasn't very nice and only gave the Dutch more freedom because he was blackmailed because he was gay.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

GuyDuke on 05 June 2017
Safiir said:
guiduc said:

You are definitely homophobic, but in a different way than how people paint homophobics. In its purest form maybe - fear or dislike of homosexuality displaying constitutes your phobia. That you correlates homosexuality with beastiality is definitely a problem.

Again - if you find watching two ugly/fat/old people have sex disgusting does that make you uglophob/fatofob/oldofob (yeah I just made those up)? You don't have to like something in order to accept it. And tbh suggesting this kind of thought policing is extremely disturbing. Everyone has the right to think anything as long as they don't act on those thoughts in a harmful manner.

Comparing it to beastiality is a damn big problem. I'm denouncing a very problematic state of mind in which the OP has engaged himself, and what needs to be done in order to change it. This is about changing a given perception of a community, because he directly associates it with imagery that shouldn't DISGUST him, and disgust is the word here. He doesn't have to like it, I'm not saying the contrary. But being disgusted is a far more intense sentiment that should not be condoned. Approval cannot come along disgust, they are in no way compatible. And we are not talking about watching people fuck, we are talking about seeing people together and create imagery in our mind that disgusts us. This is two very different situations.

If we let people feel that repel, and are not trying to change this clearly social-design approach to homosexuality, it will become a problem. 50 years from now, people were disgusted by the only thought of their son being with another man. It still needs to evolved - how we are perceived and such. That includes not feeling disgust while thinking about sex between two men or two women, mainly because anal sex shouldn't be labeled as a gay-sex practice. If we do, that means we haven't evolved as a society. You understand what I'm saying?



Safiir on 05 June 2017
guiduc said:
Safiir said:

Again - if you find watching two ugly/fat/old people have sex disgusting does that make you uglophob/fatofob/oldofob (yeah I just made those up)? You don't have to like something in order to accept it. And tbh suggesting this kind of thought policing is extremely disturbing. Everyone has the right to think anything as long as they don't act on those thoughts in a harmful manner.

Comparing it to beastiality is a damn big problem. I'm denouncing a very problematic state of mind in which the OP has engaged himself, and what needs to be done in order to change it. This is about changing a given perception of a community, because he directly associates it with imagery that shouldn't DISGUST him, and disgust is the word here. He doesn't have to like it, I'm not saying the contrary. But being disgusted is a far more intense sentiment that should not be condoned. Approval cannot come along disgust, they are in no way compatible. And we are not talking about watching people fuck, we are talking about seeing people together and create imagery in our mind that disgusts us. This is two very different situations.

If we let people feel that repel, and are not trying to change this clearly social-design approach to homosexuality, it will become a problem. 50 years from now, people were disgusted by the only thought of their son being with another man. It still needs to evolved - how we are perceived and such. That includes not feeling disgust while thinking about sex between two men or two women, mainly because anal sex shouldn't be labeled as a gay-sex practice. If we do, that means we haven't evolved as a society. You understand what I'm saying?

No, I agree with this post. And personally I don't feel disgusted of thinking about gay sex. But as far as I understood the OP it's not about thinking of it but rather seeing it. And there are few things that I'd want to see less than that. Though thinking about it now if it were two fit, handsome (not feminine) men I would probably find it less disgusting than a straight couple of obese man and woman. So yeah it's all about what you're finding aesthetically pleasing.

Again I get what you're saying but I don't agree that you should not feel disgust, dislike or whatever other emotion you have about anything and everything. This is your right and noone should tell you how to feel. But again acting on it is something entirely different. It may be hard to separate the two but that's what we should strive for. Rational mind, not enforced from outside emotions.



Psintendo on 05 June 2017
Locknuts said:

Hey everyone,

I just though I'd give my opinion on homosexuality here and feel free to let me know if I fit the definition of 'homophobic'.

I'm not religious in any way, in fact I'm agnostic. So I wouldn't dare use some doctrine to try to judge homosexual acts morally. Homosexuality, in most cases, is a consensual relationship that in no way violates the non-aggression principle. In a relationship between two or more people, this is key. Where it is not consensual, it is rape and therefore illegal. 

In fact the more I rationalise it, the more I fail to see a problem with homosexual relationships. So why then do I feel sick when I think of two men performing homosexual acts? I have rationalised it, jusified it morally and accepted it, but seriously the thought of two guys going at it really does make me nauseous. 

Being presented with gay imagary basically gives me the same feeling as being presented with images of beastiality. 

Two women? It's strange but not vomit inducing. But not great either. 

I'm also not into anal sex at all so that's probably got something to do with it (it makes my ass sore - kidding).

I don't think this is something that I've been taught to find disgusting, I think it's built into me (born this way).

None of this is a problem however, because gay people don't have sex in front of me, and I would usually have to go looking for gay imagery if I wanted it.

I would call a lot of gay people I've met friends. Some came out later than others but nothing changed when they did. Incredibly nice people, all of them so far.

So am I homophobic? 

Your reaction sounds a bit extreme. Things that we should learn to be disgusted are things that are wrong. Having sex with animal, child, close relative or someone who is not willing is wrong. Learning that and being disgusted by those things is a good thing.

However having such a strong reaction to something normal can be a problem. To others it should´t matter if you find gay imagery vomit inducing, scary, dull or anything, unless you blaim gay people (or others) for your problem and start to demand that gay couples should´t do any kissing or hugging in the public.

To think that anyone would be born with that kind of reaction is really silly. People learn things, things that they don´t even know they have learned. Something or most likely many different things (media, other people, gaming etc.) have made you to have such reaction.

About the anal thing, have you tried it (both ways)? If not, how do you know that you don´t like it? And no, enjoying or not enjoying to watch anal porn is not the same as actually enjoying or not enjoying the anal sex. Even if the thought of anal is disgusting to someone, that person might still enjoy it if that person tries it (a bit like if you are afraid to taste some food that you think looks/smells really bad).

Its a bit uncommon (to my knowledge) that someone doesn´t enjoy seeing two women kissing etc. if he is hetero sexual. Maybe its something else that you learned, that many others don´t learn. A guy who likes girls and sees two attractive girls kissing etc. usually likes it and might find the idea of those girls together quite hot, even if he is not involved in that imaginary scenario.

Sexual orientation is a scale instead of a simplyfied gay/straight option. It might be that you are for some amount also attracted to men and as you identify as hetero sexual, it creates a dilemma. It is a problem as you have been taught that hetero sexuals don´t like men. It might be that you think it is wrong for you to enjoy watching gay imagery as you still like women more and identify as hetero sexual and because of that it brings such a strong reaction?

Scientific studies have shown that homophobic people tend to, more often than others, be gay or bi. Their hate and extreme reactions comes from the fact that they don´t accept themselves. So maybe there is a little bit of homophobe in you, I don´t have the answer, but you might have it.

Also why seeing a man having sex with a woman is not disgusting for straight men, they are not supposed to like men so why need the man there at all? Why is that any different from not wanting to see a fat/skinny/white/black/something that you are not attracted to, having sex with something that you are attracted?



Around the Network
RaptorChrist on 05 June 2017

I applaud your honesty.

You have an uncanny ability to rationalize your thoughts and behaviors from a perspective without bias.

In my opinion, you are not homophobic. Even if you were homophobic, however, you come off as a mature individual who is capable of understanding that being a homophobic can have a negative impact on your life, and you would therefore be able to manage it in a way that doesn't hurt peoples' feelings, or conflict with your job, etcetera.

Hypothetically, if a person were homophobic, but treated others and behaved in a way that deemed him *not* a homophobic person, is that person still wrong?



TargaryenVers2 on 05 June 2017
Safiir said:
TargaryenVers2 said:

Prop 8 is a prime example of how anti-lgbt laws can get passed through appealing to "not" homophobic people. The strong appeal towards "preserving" traditional marriage and the "think about the children" message resignated with a lot of people that were on the fence or didn't think about the issue, enough for it to pass and take away marriage equality. People on the fence that voted yes thought about their personal discomforts and it influencd their votes.

It's amazing how quickly people forget about how much struggling and cultural battles the lgbt community faced because people "felt grossed out" by them

Did the suffragettes have it easy to win voting rights for women because men didn't find their sexual activities gross? Dude, challenging social dogmas has nothing to do with likes and dislikes.

It has to do with societal respect, and it can be what you find "gross or not" or the way worse option where you don't consider them fully human (women were seen as property, blacks actually were property). That type of social conditioning is what influences and perpetuates unjust laws.

Women at the time weren't seen as gross, but they were seen as less than in other ways (not as intelligent, emotional, seen as property of spouce, etc) and it limited what women could do legally as well as socially. 



(Formerly RCTjunkie)

TargaryenVers2 on 05 June 2017

Also I feel like I should make a long overdue apology to OP if he feels I'm attacking him or saying he's wrong. I don't mean to get hostile or nit-picky to people that genuinely try to understand or be sympathetic to lgbt people, especially if they are far on the hetero side of the kinsey scale. It was just kind of threw me in a loop considering I'm in a very progressive bubble right now in life. I don't think you're bad or wrong, I just think from this you should really ask yourself why you get disgusted.

Also, if you haven't talked about this with your lgbt friends, I'm sure they would be happy to talk through this with you as you're coming from a genuine place.



(Formerly RCTjunkie)

Locknuts on 08 June 2017
JWeinCom said:
Locknuts said:

If it helps, I see creationism as a possibility, but the iron age books seem ridiculous to me. 

 

I also try to operate based on reason and evidence. The greater the claim: the greater the body of evidence required to substantiate it. The claim of 'this is god' would require so much evidence I don't think I could ever believe it.

 

The only conclusion for me is that noone can ever know the nature of god. That is what it means to be agnostic to me: the belief and acceptance that noone will ever know god.

That doesn't exactly help.  The language is kind of fuzzy.  When you're saying things like the nature of god, that leads me to think you are a theist.

Simpler way to do it is this.

1.  Do you believe that there is a god?
2.  Do you know that god exists?

Yes/Yes=  Gnostic Theist   Yes/No= Agnostic Theist  No/Yes= Gnostic Atheist  No/No= Agnostic Atheist.

No I do not believe that there is a God. But I do not believe that God does not exist. I am fully willing to accept that I don't know. Even if someone brought me mountains of proof, there is a good chance I still wouldn't believe them. It's too large a claim.

Simply: some things are beyond human comprehension.



RustyShell on 08 June 2017

I mean, I want to vomit when I see people eat some foods. Those people find that food delictable. So no, it doesn't make you homophobic but you might want to try and get a little more comfortable with it. However the hell you're supposed to do that.