The Issue of Homosexuality

[Rainbow Mage]

I'm not linking the 2, the fact that secular societies do not recognize same sex rights for homosexuals is sufficient evidence that people see it as something wrong, not necessarily a disease or a cancer or whatever.

Why the need to merge my examples into meaning the same thing?

Those in secular societies who see it as wrong usually do so based on religious reasons. My point is that is not enough to pass a law against it in a secular society where government and religion are separate.

 

[photvid]

So in the same way, if there was nothing wrong with homosexuality, for whatever reason, secular states/countries would recognize same sex rights for homosexuals.
.

Erm...by that logic:

- if there was nothing wrong with peace, secular countries would always be peaceful (there wouldn't be war).
- if there was nothing wrong with x, there wouldn't be opposite of x

right?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Still doesn't make any sense. The suffix -phobic means fear and loathing of whatever precedes it. Homophobic= fear and loathing of homosexuals, IOW, what you as a Religious person feel toward gay marriage. If you want to call someone phobic it doesn't make any sense unless you can explain what they fear and loathe.

Yeah kind of hard to accuse homosexuals of heterophobia

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Perhaps we should determine if issues with homosexuality are mostly religious based by using a different method.

Esalam is the reason you believe homosexuality is wrong solely because Islam says it is?

 

[Draka]

Exactly why I gave the AIDS example. It is unfortunate for those who have it, however, those of us who don't go out there to get AIDS don't need to justify our choice in not doing so. We consider it wrong.

First off, no one goes out to get AIDS. It's not a choice whether or not you get it. You may get into a traffic accident with someone who has it and because you both get cut and you get exposed to their blood you may get it. It's not like people go out choosing to get AIDS. :areyoucra

So in the same way, if there was nothing wrong with homosexuality, for whatever reason, secular states/countries would recognize same sex rights for homosexuals.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, which is why the justification for not recognizing same sex marriage needs to be questioned of those who do deny it. Just because a country is supposed to be secular, it doesn't mean that religion isn't seeping into the politics and that should be taken care of. There is no logical, purely secular, reason to deny same sex rights, only religious.

Homosexuals are phobic in the exact opposite way that heterosexuals are considered phobic.

Completely illogical. How are homosexuals afraid of or disturbed by the thought of heterosexuals? Furthermore, how are they acting against the rights of heterosexuals because of that supposed phobia?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

those of us who don't go out there to get AIDS don't need to justify our choice in not doing so.

Nobody goes out to get it, except a wierd fringe of people who are already sick in teh head. I think they call them 'bug chasers' iirc.

So in the same way, if there was nothing wrong with homosexuality, for whatever reason, secular states/countries would recognize same sex rights for homosexuals.
.

That's not true at all.
Secular states still have trouble because there are vocal imbeciles who don't want equal rights for all.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Note- This is a political thread not a religious thread.

The question- Who does homosexuality hurt or in what way is it damaging to society that it should be determined as criminal or not by the government?

What grounds do politicians that oppose homosexuality have to justify using the legislative process to persecute gay people?

Remember- not a religious thread. What social problems do opponents of homosexuality feel that being gay creates?

There are no social problems with homosexuality and the political issues are only thinly veiled religious objections. Politicians don't really care one way or another, for them homosexuality is just another means of manipulating voters through emotional triggers.

 

[waitasec]

Why does there have to be any justification?

hmmm.

 

[waitasec]

I'm not linking the 2

you did.

 

[Jainarayan]

Nobody goes out to get it, except a wierd fringe of people who are already sick in teh head. I think they call them 'bug chasers' iirc.

You are correct. They are called 'bug chasers'. There are even 'bug chaser parties' where those known to be HIV+ will be sought out to have sex with someone who is HIV- so as to become infected.

 

[waitasec]

Note- This is a political thread not a religious thread.

The question- Who does homosexuality hurt or in what way is it damaging to society that it should be determined as criminal or not by the government?

What grounds do politicians that oppose homosexuality have to justify using the legislative process to persecute gay people?

Remember- not a religious thread. What social problems do opponents of homosexuality feel that being gay creates?

the social problem of change and adjusting ones POV to being tolerant of something one was taught was "deviant".

 

[Rainbow Mage]

the social problem of change and adjusting ones POV to being tolerant of something one was taught was "deviant".

Yeah that's about it. Why do they want to raise another generation up to be intolerant though? When liberals try to push for tolerance being taught they get up in arms.

 

[fallingblood]

Still doesn't make any sense. The suffix -phobic means fear and loathing of whatever precedes it. Homophobic= fear and loathing of homosexuals, IOW, what you as a Religious person feel toward gay marriage. If you want to call someone phobic it doesn't make any sense unless you can explain what they fear and loathe.

Actually, homophobic would actually mean fear of the same thing (homo). How homophobic eventually meant fear and loathing of homosexuals is beyond me, as the two parts of the word simply don't imply that.

 

[waitasec]

Yeah that's about it. Why do they want to raise another generation up to be intolerant though? When liberals try to push for tolerance being taught they get up in arms.

why tolerate intolerance?

how i see it is, it's not intolerance, from the POV of those who see homosexuality as deviant behavior. it's one's "right" to uphold 'common sense'.

 

[MoonWater]

Yeah that's about it. Why do they want to raise another generation up to be intolerant though? When liberals try to push for tolerance being taught they get up in arms.

they get up in arms because, in their minds, teaching a child that homosexuality is okay is like teaching them adultery is okay.

or their afraid such education might "turn their child gay"

personally I don't understand it.

 

[fallingblood]

Yeah that's about it. Why do they want to raise another generation up to be intolerant though? When liberals try to push for tolerance being taught they get up in arms.

Liberals can be just as intolerant as conservatives. There are even large groups of liberals who are opposed to homosexuality. So that really isn't fair to say.

As to why they want to raise another generation to be intolerant is easy. They don't see it as being in tolerant. They see it as being right. And it doesn't even really boil down to being a religious conviction (religion is only later used to justify the prejudice they already hold).

Left handedness is very similar here. It was simply seen as inherently evil. So the prejudice was passed down from one generation to another. It may have made no sense, but since they were a minority, and were seen to be different, it scared others.

 

[waitasec]

there is no way to change this mentality overnight.
this mentality has been engrained in most societies and because it is something that is taught to be ashamed of, and why people remain silent.

i wonder if more people came out, having a coming out day or something to that affect, i wonder if this would force people to begin to think differently... since it's very likely every heterosexual knows at least one homosexual

but of course this is easier said then done.
:sad:

 

[Alceste]

Actually, homophobic would actually mean fear of the same thing (homo). How homophobic eventually meant fear and loathing of homosexuals is beyond me, as the two parts of the word simply don't imply that.

Technically true. People do use the word "homo" as rude shorthand for homosexual, so that's probably why it makes intuitive sense even though it's not perfectly constructed. Even so, "phobic" doesn't make much sense outside the context of being fearful of some particular thing.

 

[Levite]

Why does there have to be any justification?

Asking for justification misses the whole point of their rejection/disapproval to it.

I have mentioned this example before, but it's not those who reject homosexuality that are phobic, it's those who are homosexual that are phobic.

There is no cure for AIDS yet as we all know, so now is it justified to call those who don't have AIDS and who view it as a disease 'Aidophobic' or do we call those who have AIDS sick and sufferers of a disease?

Note, I am purely arguing from a non-religious standpoint.

And if there were a disease to which women were slightly more subject than men, similarly able to be ameliorated by education and safe behavior, would that justify institutionalized misogyny?

Not all gay people have AIDS. At least, in free societies with vigorous anti-bigotry laws, such as in Europe and the US, very few of those who do have AIDS are dangers to themselves or others: they know their status, they take precautions, they just wish to live their lives in peace.

The places, actually, where the spread of AIDS is least checked are all countries where homophobia and other bigotry are virtually unrestrained, or are even institutionalized in society and government. As you can see on this list of countries grouped by highest incidence of AIDS, no European countries enter the list until number 62 (Portugal)-- the US comes in at number 63 out of 168. The top 62 countries in the world for AIDS incidence are all either African or Carribbean, places where homophobia is virulent, and anti-AIDS bigotry is uncontrolled.

Therefore, raising the spectre of AIDS to justify homophobia is utterly specious.

Hatred always demands justification for its presence. Secular societies are founded upon the premise that all people are inherently equal, and that for that reason, governments must give sound, reasonable, and verifiable justification for any infringement upon any individual's sovereign rights. It has been well established that the mere possibility of being subject to an illness is not sufficient grounds for legitimized discrimination.

 

[MoonWater]

there is no way to change this mentality overnight.
this mentality has been engrained in most societies and because it is something that is taught to be ashamed of, and why people remain silent.

i wonder if more people came out, having a coming out day or something to that affect, i wonder if this would force people to begin to think differently... since it's very likely every heterosexual knows at least one homosexual

but of course this is easier said then done.
:sad:

we already do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coming_Out_Day:D