The Problem with "Fighting" Homosexuality

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Well spiders (especially out here in Africa) are bloody nasty little critters.
Most South Africans have a fear of snakes for the same reason.
To the person who has not had bad experiences with snakes and spiders,
it may seem irrational; but to those who have, its a logical reaction.

How about therapy for those who are homophobicphobic ???

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Well, yes fashion has replaced reason to a large extent. But at least you recognize that its a developmental process.
People who fear spiders have had a bad experience with spiders, hence...

Phobias don't work like that. What you are describing is more like post traumatic stress disorder if people have a traumatic occurrence and react as if the same occurrence happens repeatedly.

Phobias are irrational fears. Crowds, flying, elevators, or even balloons, tin foil, and clowns populate peoples fears that are irrational.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

How about therapy for those who are homophobicphobic ???

I can assure you that my dislike of homophobes is entirely rational.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, yes fashion has replaced reason to a large extent. But at least you recognize that its a developmental process.
People who fear spiders have had a bad experience with spiders, hence...

If you want to call it "fashion" that are legions of psychiatrist who have studied Erikson and have found his approach to be better than Freud's, that is your call, but you can't expect it to be taken very seriously by those who have more than an armchair-psychologist's understanding of Freud and how psychiatry and psychology have changed significantly since then.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

If you want to call it "fashion" that are legions of psychiatrist who have studied Erikson and have found his approach to be better than Freud's, that is your call, but you can't expect it to be taken very seriously by those who have more than an armchair-psychologist's understanding of Freud and how psychiatry and psychology have changed significantly since then.

Psych Hons
Phil Hons
But I was sitting in a comfy armchair during my studies.

Perhaps you could respond by paraphrasing how Erikson explains increases in Heterphobia after conflict, rather than simply uttering his name and assuming that takes the form of a rational argument. So far I have only seen his argument take the form of 'Lots of people like Erikson therefore Freud is wrong'.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Phobias don't work like that. What you are describing is more like post traumatic stress disorder if people have a traumatic occurrence and react as if the same occurrence happens repeatedly.

Phobias are irrational fears. Crowds, flying, elevators, or even balloons, tin foil, and clowns populate peoples fears that are irrational.

The distinction between 'fear', 'phobia', and 'PTSD' is mostly arbitrary; at best a matter of degree; certainly not a categorical difference in form.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I can assure you that my dislike of homophobes is entirely rational.

Yes. It probably is. There are many people who have reacted to their own negative experiences with uncalled for aggression.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The distinction between 'fear', 'phobia', and 'PTSD' is mostly arbitrary;

I disagree, they all have specific meanings and I don't see why you would want to conflate them here.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There are many people who have reacted to their own negative experiences with uncalled for aggression.

I don't see anything aggressive about challenging homophobia and other forms of discrimination and bigotry.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Psych Hons
Phil Hons
But I was sitting in a comfy armchair during my studies.

I have those, and more, under my area of studies, including honors. And I need to explain nothing, as you are the invoking obsolete and outdated theories from an heavily sexually repressed society and trying to suggest something like arachnophobia and hetero/homophobia function the same, and that heterophobia is the result of a stage of a failure to meet sufficient development during a stage that is a part of a series of developments that has very largely fell out of favor. And what has risen in the place of Freud's psychosexual development is Erikson's psychosocial development. It doesn't explain the same things, but it begins by assuming we aren't a bunch of sexually deprived/repressed hysterics who are only capable of functioning and developing around our sexuality and sex organs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To everyone responding to 1Robin's posts.

Sorry if you feel slighted but I must end this at some point. I am not seeing anything new and this thread is taking up all my time and is not what I enjoy debating anyway. Instead of ending that abruptly I will instead give what IMO is a fair summary which you may disagree with at your leisure but to which I have no intention of debating further.

Again my two primary claims were:
1. That homosexuality leads to massive additional suffering (usually at rates in excess of heterosexuality).
2. That homosexuality does not contain any gain that justifies the cost.

With the exception of one response which challenged one of the minor supporting claims for my first argument all other responses have been the result of either not including one of the two or neither, or of misunderstanding or distorting one or both.

First the one point that actually challenged on of the minor supports of position one. I listed STD's, physical damage, spousal abuse, sexual violence, divorce rates, adultery, promiscuity, unsafe sex, etc...... One of homosexuality's defenders effectively challenged divorce rates. The data is very premature and hard to find but they did provide a significant amount. Since even granting the point my primary claim suffers little damage I did not feel it justifiable to seriously investigate whether it was a fact or not. I granted it out of convenience and because I am burned out.

Every other argument I saw fell into a few categories though they were stated in countless ways.

1. Gains. About half the arguments were of the type that either falsely claimed I said no gain can possibly exist in homosexuality or claims that any gain justified any cost. These are both incorrect. I never said that someone could not claim some benefit from homosexuality. I said they could not find any gain that offset the cost. Of course the appeal to emotion by claiming love justifies anything is not true to begin with but is actually not believed to be true by virtually anyone. We can love drugs, abusive partners, even killing. Yelling love does not justify anything. Those that thing what makes them happy justifies any cost are called psychopaths and are locked up.
2. The tried and true sub category was the next most common. I can't evaluate every form homosexuality may come in in a post. I am judging a general behavior. Of course some forms are less risky than others but that does not even matter anyway. They all have significant risks and none contain compensating gains for those costs.
3. Another was claiming that because bias merely exists that competent authorities like the CDC are incompetent until proven competent. As I explain debates take place on common grounds. If no other can be found legal procedure serves the purpose. In legal circles those highly trained and fluent in a particular subject are considered valid unless proven otherwise. I served on a Jury where expert testimony was the entire case.
4. Another, that unless I have a solution I am not allowed to mention a problem. Wrong, I can claim cancer is bad without being able to treat it.
5. Or that homosexuality is not a choice. A. No one on earth knows that, the science is all over the map currently. B. Even if the orientation is not a choice acting on it is, the same way heterosexuality is not a choice but promiscuity is. C. Given that no species is 100% homosexual and very few have homosexual tendencies the odds strongly suggest the orientation it's self is a choice with additional evidence being how many practice both types of sexuality.
6. One of the last ones was suggesting that my faith was driving my claims. Or that I had some personal animosity towards homosexuals. The former might be personally true but it had nothing to do with my argument and the latter is just plain wrong. I view all immoral acts as equally wrong. I commit immoral acts just as everyone else does. I hope to not be hated or resented for my mistakes and treat others the same. I hate the sin and try to love the sinner. My beliefs are theological my argument was secular and my intention is forgiveness.


Ok, none of this is aimed at anyone in general. I am just tired of spending so much time in one area and it not even being among my primary interests and the debate requiring me to repeat myself in almost every post. Rebut this as you wish. I do not plan to respond and I cannot even promise to read them but I hope to see you all in other threads. Happy debating.

I guess there's no point responding to all this, even though it's not quite an accurate representation of the discussion that has transpired here, because you say you are never coming back.

But to suggest, as you continually do, that there's some big controversy surrounding whether or not homosexuality (or any sexual orientation) is a choice is to be out completely out of touch with reality, in my opinion. I'll tell you who on earth knows whether sexual orientation is not a choice ... every single person who's ever found themselves attracted to any other person on the planet. This is why I kept asking you when you chose to be heterosexual. It's the exact same question as asking someone when they chose to be attracted to members of the same sex, and equally as bizarre. I really have no idea in the world why people make any distinction between the two, as if they're totally different things. They're not. I never made any conscious choice to be attracted to men - I just find myself being attracted to men. Creating some fake controversy out of doesn't make your argument any more sound, it just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about, or haven't thought enough about it. I have no idea what point you're try to make by repeating over and over again that no species is 100% homosexual. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. And to suggest that there aren't many species of animals that practice homosexuality in some form or another, as some kind of point toward homosexuality being a choice doesn't make much sense at all (and by the way, there are many species on earth that exhibit homosexual tendencies).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Firstly, its pointless hating those you disagree with about anything,
it will not convince them; only generate more polarization.

Its important to understand just why homosexuality increases after conflict.

Social conflict generates feelings of antipathy as well as putting normal family relationships into a state of close
interpersonal conflict.

Typically the man returns to his family after warfare and is suffering from PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder),
This increases his sexual desire as a coping mechanism, but as his emotions are damaged, he is often
incapable of genuine positive emotion towards his wife. The mother then transfers this lack of emotion onto the child.
The male child then has ingrained feelings of fear towards his mother, and sometimes the father tries to compensate;
thus the male child bonds maternally with the father. The daughter often rejects the aggression in her father, and
fixates on the mother where rejection of the male becomes ingrained.

This happens in what Freud called the 'phallic' phase of development - between 4 and 6 years old. This is why
most of the homosexual psychological construction is felt to be 'from as far back as can be remembered'.

I describe a typical scenario, and gender inversion can happen in many other scenarios. The subconscious
then begins to become active during puberty. So its deeply ingrained - originating in very early childhood.

For those who manage to transcend it, embarrassment at their own trauma, and not wanting to revisit it,
makes them unlikely to want to speak out about it.

Unfortunately those who have been through such trauma are more likely to become involved in conflict again.
So the psycho-social behavior repeats through the generations, and normally occurs in the proximity of other
psychological problems, which form a complex. This makes it very difficult for the victim to isolate the various
traumas from each other analytically.

A way of helping the situation is that when the mother rejects the male child, it should ideally be placed in the
care of another woman. If the father is suffering from PTSD, the daughters should as early as possible bond with men
who are emotionally stable.

As for the teaching of Jesus on the issue, he claims that homosexuals shall be redeemed before the sinners of
Capernaum. These are the 'money-changers' and those that beheaded John the Baptist.

This is bunk. We don't cure "hysteria" with vibrators anymore either. Just in case you weren't aware.

 

[McBell]

The distinction between 'fear', 'phobia', and 'PTSD' is mostly arbitrary; at best a matter of degree; certainly not a categorical difference in form.

Only to someone who has not kept up with the field for last 20 or so years.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The distinction between 'fear', 'phobia', and 'PTSD' is mostly arbitrary; at best a matter of degree; certainly not a categorical difference in form.

No. PTSD involve the mind being pushed beyond its limits, to an area where going back to the breaking point would be an improvement. A fear is a conditioned response do to a negative experience in the past. A phobia is an irrational fear.

 

[Ingledsva]

You may project your anger on to me if it helps you.

Calling Bull - BULL! Is not anger, - just fact.

We have links to multiple real homosexual studies in these gay threads.

*

 

[Skwim]

No, arachnaphobia is usually an irrational fear, that's the nature of phobias. Once phobics get the appropriate therapy they become more rational and less fearful, and before you know it they will happily let a tarantula sit on their hand.

Therapy for homophobes would be quite a good idea actually.

Now THERE'S an Idea, A twelve step program for homophobes.

 

[fantome profane]

I can assure you that my dislike of homophobes is entirely rational.

But there is no need to be afraid of them. They are weak and pathetic and crumble when challenged. And believe me, they are more afraid of you.

 

[1robin]

I guess there's no point responding to all this, even though it's not quite an accurate representation of the discussion that has transpired here, because you say you are never coming back.

But to suggest, as you continually do, that there's some big controversy surrounding whether or not homosexuality (or any sexual orientation) is a choice is to be out completely out of touch with reality, in my opinion. I'll tell you who on earth knows whether sexual orientation is not a choice ... every single person who's ever found themselves attracted to any other person on the planet. This is why I kept asking you when you chose to be heterosexual. It's the exact same question as asking someone when they chose to be attracted to members of the same sex, and equally as bizarre. I really have no idea in the world why people make any distinction between the two, as if they're totally different things. They're not. I never made any conscious choice to be attracted to men - I just find myself being attracted to men. Creating some fake controversy out of doesn't make your argument any more sound, it just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about, or haven't thought enough about it. I have no idea what point you're try to make by repeating over and over again that no species is 100% homosexual. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. And to suggest that there aren't many species of animals that practice homosexuality in some form or another, as some kind of point toward homosexuality being a choice doesn't make much sense at all (and by the way, there are many species on earth that exhibit homosexual tendencies).

I disagree but only do so to acknowledge I read your post and have investigated this quite a bit. See you in another thread.

 

[LuisDantas]

(...) my two primary claims were:
1. That homosexuality leads to massive additional suffering (usually at rates in excess of heterosexuality).
2. That homosexuality does not contain any gain that justifies the cost.

Odd claims to make, since they are both generalizations and reliant on the assumption that there is a choice to make.

With the exception of one response which challenged one of the minor supporting claims for my first argument all other responses have been the result of either not including one of the two or neither, or of misunderstanding or distorting one or both.

Or disregarding both, which is a better response IMO.

(...)

5. Or that homosexuality is not a choice. A. No one on earth knows that, the science is all over the map currently. B. Even if the orientation is not a choice acting on it is, the same way heterosexuality is not a choice but promiscuity is. C. Given that no species is 100% homosexual and very few have homosexual tendencies the odds strongly suggest the orientation it's self is a choice with additional evidence being how many practice both types of sexuality.

Homsexuals are not a mysterious species from an inaccessible environment. Just knowing some is plenty enough to "solve" this so-called "doubt".

As for "acting on it"... well, that is just an odd way of writing "seeking fulfillment as a person just like anyone should".

 

[stevevw]

Theres no issue as far as I'm concerned with the people themselves who are Gay. But as a Christian i think the act is wrong and against my beliefs. The same as I think sex before marriage is wrong or abortion is wrong. Hate the sin but love the sinner. But just because I declare that I believe this doesn't mean I am being discriminating or abusive. Sometimes people jump to conclusions or use their situations to declare that they are being treated unfairly. But everyone will have a belief about something. Some believe hunting is OK. Some believe we shouldn't kill any animals even for food. Some say abortion is OK and others think the death penalty is good. It doesn't mean they are right and its just their opinion.

But just because someone stands up for what they believe doesn't mean they hate the person who has an opposing view. It just means they disagree with what has been proposed. Thats it nothing else , nothing personal. People can use this sometimes and turn things around so that it makes the person taking the stand as the bad guy. They are the ones who are taking the issue to a level of us and them not the ones just having their say.