Homophobia

[Balthazzar]

Yup. Even Freud, for all his crackpot ideas, didn't even see anything wrong with it. The APA couldn't find any real reason to include in the DSM and no reason to consider it an illness so it was removed.

The mental illness declaration, I wonder, who would be exempt? If I'm not mistaken, we could all use a little work in how we conduct ourselves in life. The Doctors, curriculum, protocol, accepted by the majorities ... is this the litmus test for sanity? If this is the case, I would suggest there to be two ways to view life; one would be as if everyone is insane and the other would be as if no one is.

I simply think it's natural and that we all fall short of being accepting of many things. Anchovies, for example: They are an unholy abomination on pizza. They are very likely very cool in other areas of life.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Does one need a certificate to do that?

You: I advised you so you might behave better in the future with other people.
Me: You're still flattering yourself. Who do you think you are to be giving me unsolicited, condescending advice?
You: Does one need a certificate to do that?

Even if you had excellent life advice to offer, good manners dictate that you should have permission before offering it. If you're not asked what you think another should do, you should at least first ask, "Do you mind a little unsolicited advice?"

I play contract bridge and have a good reputation as somebody you can ask a bridge question of and expect an accurate, concise, understandable answer. I am frequently asked at the table by opponents familiar with me, "What should I have done?" and I tell them. Less often, I ask somebody, "Would you like a constructive opinion about what you did there?" I've never been told no, but if I were, I wouldn't say anything. People don't like being told that they made a mistake and what they should have done instead uninvited even when the advice is accurate and would be helpful.

Given your faux pas, you don't seem qualified to be giving advice. You've already undermined your ethos:

*There's a term in the philosophy of argumentation called ethos, which refers to the meta-messages a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his argument, such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, does he seem to be a sound thinker, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with sound impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, is he emotionally secure, and the like.

But you don't have excellent life advice to offer a critically thinking empiricist and agnostic atheistic humanist. You're a zealous Abrahamic theist. Our worldviews and values are miles apart. I could offer you unsolicited life advice, and despite considering it excellent advice, I don't and haven't. It would be rude and pointless. You wouldn't be interested and might be offended.

My ethos matters to me, but not with everybody. A person like you will never trust or respect a person like me. For starters, you likely consider me immoral for being an atheist. Not all Abrahamists do, but the zealous ones tend to.

Still, I want to put my best self forward in my posting. There are many people who think enough like me and share my value, and I want them to know who I am: what I know, what I believe, and what I value. I represent my humanist tradition just as you represent your world of beliefs and values. I like to think that discussions like this one help to emphasize what those differences are and to illustrate why I consider reason and empathy a better choice than faith and dogma.

 

[Pawpatrol]

This was in response to, "That's what "Focus on the Family" claims anyway.

Here is their mission statement:

"To be led by the Holy Spirit in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as possible by nurturing and affirming the God-ordained institution of the family and proclaiming biblical truths worldwide."

They have a very obvious agenda."


Ummm, no they don't and the article you've provided doesn't say the do either.

I can't make heads or tails of this post but I'll say even if the source has an agenda that doesn't automatically mean they're wrong.

The whole world save for Noah and his family all die in the flood story.

Not according to the Quran.

It's not just them but also professional experience.

We all know how unbiased and 100% correct that is.

Please explain how you see your reply as being relevant to that which you replied to.

Please explain why I should teach you simple things? Try to make it on your own.

You think that feminists think men have their best interest in mind with the sexual revolution?
What do you think we had a sexual revolution for, in the first place then?

As a reaction to christian repression of such things I guess.

You forgot the rest of the quote you were quoting: "you can't value people while you are comparing them to substance abusers and incest and child pornography"

What would I do if you didn't keep posting me quotes one after another. Maybe you think it helps you keep up, but it doesn't help me.

What made you have such sick, seething, twisted hatred for a minority?

Why would I change my standards for a group just because they're a small one?

 

[metis]

Let me ask you instead, what made doctors previously consider homosexuality a mental health issue?

Only if they ignored science.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Several studies have found a tie between homophobia and latent homosexuality.

It's called reaction formation. Here's an interesting article on that that I just read: Reaction formation in MAGAland

A reason science doesn't say a child needs a mother and father is because it's known mom and dad can be the worst thing ever for their child.

As you know, if one is an Abrahamic theist, he is commanded to honor them anyway.

Yea I was gonna respond to edit: the person being mean, but it’s like feeding oxygen to fire. So I’m gonna stop

Please don't. None of us is helping this person, who is self-immolating before the thread. Let him or her speak and show us one kind of person her faith generates. God allows homosexuals to practice homosexuality, too. They're still sinful, it's still wrong, and they'll still be punished for it.
Your god is indistinguishable from a figment of your imagination. Batman and Santa also permit homosexuality. Why? They don't exist.

Did you ever think that maybe they're "losers" (you sound like such a positive person to be around) because they're single?

Being single doesn't make one a loser. However, having it imposed on you unwillingly does.

I've posted more evidence than all of you together — you just keep ignoring it.

Ignored? No, just rejected as saying what you seem to think it does. What you call evidence in support of your claims apparently isn't being interpreted as you do.

Only when it [bigotry] happens to be against your values. Otherwise you love it.

What a beautiful faith you have and look at what an exemplary person it has made you. You just called him a bigot without justification. YOU, however, are an unashamed, homophobic bigot. Your religion requires it.

Sorry, but I'll take a humanist over a zealous Abrahamist every time.

I don't see a problem with a priest being homosexual so long as he doesn't practice it. A person can't be blamed simply for having a desire. We all have desires we aren't allowed to follow. God tests us that way.

That's a nice god you believe in. It creates people with homosexual proclivities and then punishes them if they indulge them.

I asked, don't you find them disgusting?

You don't want to know what I find disgusting. Hint: it's not any legal, consensual practice. It's a particular set of small-minded, destructive, views we call bigotry on my side of your religion - the outside.

People do rape people they love.

You have a deformed understanding of what love is, but you didn't invent it. You just swallowed it uncritically.

You do know that a big chunk of the societies today are considered burdens on one way or another?

Yes, I know. America is dealing with its Christian theocrats now. And that they vote for fascistic candidates. Trump could not have desecrated the Capitol without the help of white Christian evangelicals and probably a whole lot of other Christians.

And then there's the Abrahamic bigotries.

Let me say that although I don't respect your homophobic opinions or those who taught them to you, I do appreciate you sharing them so candidly.

 

[Argentbear]

I can't make heads or tails of this post but I'll say even if the source has an agenda that doesn't automatically mean they're wrong.

What Focus on the Family does say on the topic is demonstrably wrong.

What would I do if you didn't keep posting me quotes one after another. Maybe you think it helps you keep up, but it doesn't help me.

Maybe if you responded to what was actually posted instead of quote mining he wouldn't have to remind you what was actually posted.

Why would I change my standards for a group just because they're a small one?

How large does a minority have to be before bigotry against them becomes wrong?

 

[McBell]

Having heterosexual parents does not guarantee a good upbringing AT ALL.

Wearing a seat belt doesn't guarantee we won't get hurt in an accident — we still wear them.

Please explain how you see your reply as being relevant to that which you replied to.

Please explain why I should teach you simple things? Try to make it on your own.

So no relevance then.
Gotcha.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Let me ask you instead, what made doctors previously consider homosexuality a mental health issue?

Like much else, medicine (particularly psychology and mental health), has progressed over the years, such that much like most sciences, when new evidence arrives so then do attitudes within professions regarding any new information. Awful things were believed in medicine, and well within my lifetime, so don't expect medicine and mental health/psychology to be stationary. Attitudes long ago were also probably affected by church teachings - and we know these are not necessarily true or based on proper evidence. Child marriage would be one example of this - where the notion of maturity by medicine and any particular religious teaching might certainly be at odds with each other.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hmm..let me check.

Russia has added LGBT activists to the list of terrorists and extremists.

That's all I found for now. What did you find?

Do you have a source other than "trust me bro"?

"In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) asked all members at its convention to vote on whether they believed homosexuality to be a mental disorder. 5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain it.

The APA then compromised, removing homosexuality from the DSM but replacing it, in effect, with ‘sexual orientation disturbance’ for those people ‘in conflict with’ their sexual orientation. Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM." Source

Do you know why?

Because mental illnesses are meant to be something that cause distress to the person experiencing them.. That's kind of the point.
Like how panic disorder or obsessive compulsive disorders cause dysfunctional distress to a person who has to leave the house or go to work or interact with people. Homosexuality in itself, doesn't cause this. Neither does heterosexuality. Especially in a world where homosexuality is acceptable, which is was not in our society until just a couple of decades ago. Because people like you thought it was weird and icky.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If the latter was devoid of opinion, there wouldn't be a vote, or even a discussion like this.

LOL Then how would you suggest they add or remove anything at all from their own publication?
This makes zero sense.

Let me ask you instead, what made doctors previously consider homosexuality a mental health issue?

It caused distress to the person experiencing because it was not acceptable to be a homosexual member of society up until just the last few decades.

Does one need a certificate to do that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can't make heads or tails of this post but I'll say even if the source has an agenda that doesn't automatically mean they're wrong.

Their agenda is not peoples' general welfare or to learn or understand psychology.

Their agenda is to push pre-conceived beliefs they've drawn from the Bible which are not rooted in reality.

Not according to the Quran.

Who cares? They're all unverifiable stories in old books. There is zero evidence of any global flood.

We all know how unbiased and 100% correct that is.

Please explain why I should teach you simple things? Try to make it on your own.

As a reaction to christian repression of such things I guess.

You think that feminists think men have their best interest in mind with the sexual revolution?
What do you think we had a sexual revolution for, in the first place then?

What would I do if you didn't keep posting me quotes one after another. Maybe you think it helps you keep up, but it doesn't help me.

When your responses don't seem to match up with the comment you're responding to, you'll find me doing this to bring you back on track.

Why would I change my standards for a group just because they're a small one?

What you should do is change your mind when previously unknown information is brought to light.

 

[Argentbear]

By having at least one discussion with you.



No, you insist on playing silly games, you just refuse to acknowledge your games are silly, even while they prevent you from doing what you propose they are doing. But also when they are advantageous. You can't play a real game on a level playing field. You make the rules. You can't adapt outside the home court. Why argue the obvious issues of homosexuality when you can just label anyone that doesn't subscribe to your ideology, even a homosexual, as homophobic?

what are the obvious issues of homosexuality?

 

[libre]

Let me ask you instead, what made doctors previously consider homosexuality a mental health issue?

The same social forces that made them consider female hysteria to be a legitimate condition.