Born this way a New understanding.

[Shushersbedamned]

For me realizing that they are natural can help deal with them.

You realized that NOW? well it's ....its...goo-d that you're ...learning. but you come off as either raised in a cave or just really small minded. 9 out of 10 of what you say is against common sense.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Just because you don't like the belief does mean its not true, racist is know to be a survival instinct. Being afraid of people different then you helps you to survive. A racist is just someone born or learned an extreme amount of fear. Homophobia is just the opposite of homosexual. If you can be born homosexual you can definitely be born homophobic. Again there are species survival properties of homophobia.

I think it's often down to insecurity more than fear, and I think political views - more right-wing, for example - have been associated with insecurity too. Those who feel more secure probably will be more liberal.

From my understanding, we are likely to have inherited traits and tendencies but few will be set in stone as to be unalterable. I would have always seen myself as an introvert but in the last decade or so this seems to have largely vanished such that I am hardly an extrovert but more neutral - having the ability to do either now.

 

[siti]

I disagree. Among rational people I think that at most there may be distrust, but normally it would be curiosity. Fear has to have reason to back it up, and that reason has to have been acquired through past influences, either through personal experience, including psychological peculiarities, or outside sources.

Yes OK - but bear in mind I was talking about "innate" tendencies - i.e. what we are born with, not what rational people have learned to do with/about them. Obviously (to me at least) xenophobia and homophobia are irrational instinctive responses backed up by (sometimes purposefully) programmed revulsion. But the drive to ostracize outliers in social groups and the drive to vehemently and sometimes violently oppose 'other' groups are biological imperatives in the dog eat dog world of evolution. A young antelope does not observe a lion with interested curiosity - it hides behind its mother or runs in fear. We have the same biochemistry (more or less) - but we have the power of reason to gain mastery over it by widening the circle of our group several orders above that of the pack or the herd. The challenge is to encourage enough folks to use it - and to persuade our leaders to desist from appealing to pack mentality in their politicking and their law making. We are making slow progress - but it is, at least, progress.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What I can agree with: there is nothing so over simplified as a nature versus nurture argument. There is a incredibly overused tendency to reduce complex behaviors and feelings to either one or the other. Psychology and other aspects of biology and sociology aren't that simple nor are they entirely separate. Something that isn't biological doesn't mean you chose it, something that is chosen doesn't mean it can't affect biology.

What I disagree with: making decisions about how behavior should be valued based on whether or not they are "in born." Not only is it highly inaccurate to the dynamic relationships affecting behavior, it removes from the focus we should have on assessing behavior, the conequences. Who is harmed and why. For example, it doesn't matter if your upbringing or culture instilled in you a deep homophobia, or if it's an innate gut reaction or mixture of the two. Attempting to limit homosexuality causes way more damage to homosexuals then limiting homophobic behaviour does to homophobes.

 

[siti]

Attempting to limit homosexuality causes way more damage to homosexuals then limiting homophobic behaviour does to homophobes.

ADA - I agree with everything you said but I think this needs a bit of clarification. For example, how do you quantify "harm". And are we talking about harm to individuals or harm to "society"? If, say, 10% of a population have homosexual tendencies, 60% find the very idea of homosexuality repulsive (for whatever reason) and the other 30% couldn't care less - is it really less "harmful" to limit the homophobic expressions of the majority? Not saying it isn't - but I think the idea needs fleshing out because the argument about the perceived harm of homosexuality to society seems still to be a widely held view - believe it or not, some people really feel that marching around with "God hates ****" placards is a way of protecting their children and that criminalizing homosexual behaviour is actually protecting individuals with homosexual orientations from their own "sinful" desire. If in a community such beliefs are held by the majority, why should they not be allowed to prevail?

PS - I can't believe the RF filter objects to the word "f ags" - that's quite funny - I wonder if this is because the term is offensive to homosexuals or we have influential members from Westboro.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

ADA - I agree with everything you said but I think this needs a bit of clarification. For example, how do you quantify "harm". And are we talking about harm to individuals or harm to "society"? If, say, 10% of a population have homosexual tendencies, 60% find the very idea of homosexuality repulsive (for whatever reason) and the other 30% couldn't care less - is it really less "harmful" to limit the homophobic expressions of the majority? Not saying it isn't - but I think the idea needs fleshing out because the argument about the perceived harm of homosexuality to society seems still to be a widely held view - believe it or not, some people really feel that marching around with "God hates ****" placards is a way of protecting their children and that criminalizing homosexual behaviour is actually protecting individuals with homosexual orientations from their own "sinful" desire. If in a community such beliefs are held by the majority, why should they not be allowed to prevail?

PS - I can't believe the RF filter objects to the word "f ags" - that's quite funny - I wonder if this is because the term is offensive to homosexuals or we have influential members from Westboro.

I'm happy to debate the perceived harm of homosexuality and why I don't think the evidence supports the assertion that homosexuality is inherently harmful to individual or society. And why the evidence is independent of public perception and majority rule. Buuuut I also don't want to derail the thread too much that direction because that can be a fun kettle of worms for another time.
My point was more to illustrate that choice or non choice isn't a value judgement, and often oversimplified. The value judgement should be placed on actual consequences.

 

[siti]

My point was more to illustrate that choice or non choice isn't a value judgement, and often oversimplified. The value judgement should be placed on actual consequences.

Again I agree - my point was not to derail the thread but to elucidate what exactly constitutes "actual consequences" and how far should we go in ensuring that the "harmful" effects of irrational objections to inherently "harmless" behaviors are minimized? That is, I believe, the exact topic of the thread.

Note I am using quotes above to emphasize the 'values' that are not defined - let alone evaluated.

Let's change the focus from homosexuality to some other issue - lets say stealing. Is stealing inherently harmful? Yet almost everyone agrees it is "wrong". But if I stole an apple from Donald Trump's fridge who have I really harmed? Even if I stole a million dollars from his bank account - was anyone actually hurt? If I was caught I would certainly go to jail and almost everyone would reckon I had got my just desserts. No other animal does that. No other animal imposes penalties for theft. There is no biological or evolutionary trait that makes humans harpaxophobic (look it up - I promise its a real word) is there? (I am now making your argument of course). Fear of thieves is surely learned behavior...

OK - I am waffling but there is a point here somewhere - can anyone find it for me?