What makes people homophobic?

[SomeRandom]

So what was the "power dynamics" of homosexuals and feminists going back a hundred years?
.

That mainstream society shunned and oppressed them, obviously. For arbitrary reasons which have no quantifiable reasoning behind. Incidentally that same society allowed minors to legally marry, due to a blatant lack of understanding of childhood development and outdated notions on what constitutes adulthood and consent. They also lacked the adolescent concept, seemingly once one hit puberty one was to become an adult. Factors such as higher death rates and perhaps not the life expectancy we have today, also contributed to these societal norms. Age of consent is arguably a very modern concept. As infant mortality rates dropped and more resources were spent analysing childhood and human development, it was discovered that the harsher regimes children used to grow up in were demonstrably detrimental and that a child was not able to give fully informed consent. All our ideas on pedastry are pretty much formed by modern day research and we have actually given away child marriage. Well mostly. I think there are still very ancient clauses that allow child marriage with parental consent in some Western countries. More often than not due to religious interpretation. I’m sure you’re against such outliers holding up ancient outdated tradition. I know I am.

 

[PruePhillip]

That mainstream society shunned and oppressed them, obviously. For arbitrary reasons which have no quantifiable reasoning behind. Incidentally that same society allowed minors to legally marry, due to a blatant lack of understanding of childhood development and outdated notions on what constitutes adulthood and consent. They also lacked the adolescent concept, seemingly once one hit puberty one was to become an adult. Factors such as higher death rates and perhaps not the life expectancy we have today, also contributed to these societal norms. Age of consent is arguably a very modern concept. As infant mortality rates dropped and more resources were spent analysing childhood and human development, it was discovered that the harsher regimes children used to grow up in were demonstrably detrimental and that a child was not able to give fully informed consent. All our ideas on pedastry are pretty much formed by modern day research and we have actually given away child marriage. Well mostly. I think there are still very ancient clauses that allow child marriage with parental consent in some Western countries. More often than not due to religious interpretation. I’m sure you’re against such outliers holding up ancient outdated tradition. I know I am.

So if a Muslim wants to marry two consenting 13 year old girls would you stop him?
And would he call you racist and Islamaphobic?
Pederasty was common in Greek/Roman times. Common in pagan societies too.
There's nothing stopping people from making this the next Hot Button Issue.
Remember - everything in our society will be turned on its head.

Be careful saying that society did such and such for "no quantifiable reasoning"
Our grandparents had plenty of quantifiable reasons for what they did - in Australia
we had the highest standard of living in the world, we had one of the highest standards
in schooling too, our families were much more stable, crime was way lower, little in the
way of drugs, no-one "lived in sin" and we were vigilant about vaccinations etc..
Look at Australia now.

 

[SomeRandom]

So if a Muslim wants to marry two consenting 13 year old girls would you stop him?
And would he call you racist and Islamaphobic?
Pederasty was common in Greek/Roman times. Common in pagan societies too.
There's nothing stopping people from making this the next Hot Button Issue.
Remember - everything in our society will be turned on its head.

Be careful saying that society did such and such for "no quantifiable reasoning"
Our grandparents had plenty of quantifiable reasons for what they did - in Australia
we had the highest standard of living in the world, we had one of the highest standards
in schooling too, our families were much more stable, crime was way lower, little in the
way of drugs, no-one "lived in sin" and we were vigilant about vaccinations etc..
Look at Australia now.

Yes, I would stop that. Since according to Australian law, the age of consent is 16 and 18 for marriage. Would you stop a Catholic pastor from marrying a 12 year old girl to a middle aged man, even as he quotes the 1917 canon law?

1917 Code of Canon Law - Wikipedia
Interestingly they continued to up the ages and it eventually became 16 for girls and 14 for boys.

8 child marriage myths that need to go - Girls Not Brides

Religion and indeed culture should not break secular law, imo. And I say that as a child of an immigrant to this country.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, I would stop that. Since according to Australian law, the age of consent is 16 and 18 for marriage. Would you stop a Catholic pastor from marrying a 12 year old girl to a middle aged man, even as he quotes the 1917 canon law?

1917 Code of Canon Law - Wikipedia
Interestingly they continued to up the ages and it eventually became 16 for girls and 14 for boys.

8 child marriage myths that need to go - Girls Not Brides

Religion and indeed culture should not break secular law, imo. And I say that as a child of an immigrant to this country.

The thing is - the law will be broken.
Laws reflect attitudes and those attitudes are changing.
It's amazing we haven't yet admitted defeat in the "war
against drugs" like we did with the war against gays,
feminists, abortion, divorce and gambling.

About 10 years ago a Time article stated that conservative
people feel about gay marriage like liberals feel about
polygamy. That's about to change, with about one in five
now accept polygamy in America - a rise of about 200%
in 15 years.
When polygamy is accepted it will hit many liberals like
a blinding light. They will ALL accept polygamy, and even,
deny they were ever against it. Because it now feels right.
And they will hate conservatives for opposing it.
Same with pederasty.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I last read that about 75% of African American children come from broken or single
parent families. This has lasting effects upon
1 - the kids
2 - the mother.

What on earth does this have to do with sexuality?

In Australia about half of all kids come from divorced parents or unmarried couples.

And yet Australia has an extremely high standard of living.

In 1900 the divorce rate shot up to .... 3%. And they called it an "epidemic."

People still slept around, had mistresses and multiples wives back then. The fact that divorce was harder to get doesn't change people's nature.

Birth rates are plummeting in Western societies. It is said that if Italy, for instance, tried to turn this around by having every Italian have two or more children, it would not be enough to correct the death spiral. Same for Japan. Getting that way every where.

Got any sources?

IT'S NOT AN ISSUE TO SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS.

I doubt it's an issue, period.

Yet it can destroy us - no firemen, few soldiers, few tradesmen, people walking off the farm, taxes going through the roof as fewer workers must care for an ever growing army of retirees, schools closing, industries shifting out etc..

Do you have any evidence that the global population is actually decreasing?

No, the next generation of kids could be had (in Europe) by Middle East and North African immigrants.

Once again, this is the great replacement theory. It's white nationalist nonsense with no basis whatsoever.

These people do not respect the values of Europeans and will create of Europe another Middle East - eventually. For the remaining Europeans this will not be pretty.

Yep. You're now on ignore.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

These terms are a replacement for argument.
You vilify as evil anyone who disputes your point.

No, I call people racist who demonstrate evidence of racism.

And usually, the person vilifying is the one who is actually at fault.

Makes perfect sense. That's why, when Martin Luther King called people racist, it was actually HIM who was the racist.

This is where you get this "white supremacy" latest buzz word from -

You think "white supremacy" is a new term?

Look it up. The great replacement is a theory advanced by white supremacists, and you are advocating it.

it's racist, and men hating from women fighting "sexism", "diversity"
calls from people shutting down debate and alternate beliefs,

It seems to me that you're the one who wants to shut down debate by going off on a tangent about why I'm not allowed to call you racist or ageist or homophobic, regardless of whether or not you have said racist, ageist or homophobic things. It is clearly you who has a vested interest in not being challenged, because you know that when you are your beliefs will be exposed.

"equality" from people wanting the rule over you, "peace" from
people who support every violent regime in the world and so on,
so on.

Since you're the one expounding white supremacist rhetoric in the form of the great replacement theory, perhaps you should think carefully about what it is that you're really accusing me of, here.

Psychologists call this "Projection" or "Transference."

They sure do.

"I think black people are replacing us."
"That seems racist."
"NO! HOW DARE YOU CALL ME RACIST! I AM NOT THE RACIST, IT IS CLEARLY YOU WHO ARE THE RACIST, NOT ME!"

Perfect example of projection.

 

[SomeRandom]

The thing is - the law will be broken.
Laws reflect attitudes and those attitudes are changing.
It's amazing we haven't yet admitted defeat in the "war
against drugs" like we did with the war against gays,
feminists, abortion, divorce and gambling.

About 10 years ago a Time article stated that conservative
people feel about gay marriage like liberals feel about
polygamy. That's about to change, with about one in five
now accept polygamy in America - a rise of about 200%
in 15 years.
When polygamy is accepted it will hit many liberals like
a blinding light. They will ALL accept polygamy, and even,
deny they were ever against it. Because it now feels right.
And they will hate conservatives for opposing it.
Same with pederasty.

War against gays and feminists? Wtf? Drugs hurt people when used incorrectly. Sure the “war” is largely pointless and nothing but a knee jerk reaction, hurting more people than necessary. And the pragmatic solution is arguably more beneficial overall. Still doesn’t solve it, but we can minimise the damage. That’s not the same as gay people who....exist. Their presence is largely neutral so who the hell cares? I’m not Helen Lovejoy, it’s not any of my business.
Feminists argue for the equality of humankind. You’re against equality?
Geez and I thought I was an *******.
Pologymy is mostly a fringe religious practice, honestly. Some Amish and Mormon communities practice it. As long as everyone is above the age of consent and the 7 year gap rule is not broken for adolescents, then like it’s not really any of my business. It’s still illegal, but largely innocuous. So it’s more like a stance of, what people do behind closed doors is their business. Because I’m not that nosy.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Are you sure it's not the simpleton keeping things simple?

I'm sure of what I said. I never commented on or alluded what it isn't.

Please don't attempt to inject your personal judgments of people and straw men into my own assessment.

 

[Cooky]

I'm sure of what I said. I never commented on or alluded what it isn't.

Please don't attempt to inject your personal judgments of people and straw men into my own assessment.

That seems to be exactly what you meant to me, and I'll just leave it at that. And we'll have to agree to disagree, but I know I am right in what I say. Good day. No need to respond back.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That seems to be exactly what you meant to me, and I'll just leave it at that. And we'll have to agree to disagree, but I know I am right in what I say. Good day. No need to respond back.

We can disagree, sure, but I know homophobes that I don't consider to be simpletons. *shrugs*

 

[Cooky]

We can disagree, sure, but I know homophobes that I don't consider to be simpletons. *shrugs*

That's nothing to be proud of. A homophobe, by definition, is someone who doesn't like gay people themselves, because of their sexual orientation, and is not restricted to homosexuality the act.

...So clearly, any "homophobe" is an absolute simpleton.

 

[Cooky]

I have a cousin who's gay, and vacations all over Europe with his partner all the time. One of the nicest guys I've ever known.

To not like him just because of his sexuality is a simpleton being simple minded...

...And when I say "simpleton", I'm referring to people who reject further consideration on genuinely detailed concepts, based solely on their own selfish desire to maintain the most basic or "simple" answers and solutions possible.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That's nothing to be proud of.

Where did anyone state or imply that it was something to be proud of?

A homophobe, by definition, is someone who doesn't like gay people themselves, because of their sexual orientation, and is not restricted to homosexuality the act.

...So clearly, any "homophobe" is an absolute simpleton.

Or they're ignorant, fearful, or a product of conditioning.

 

[tas8831]

It has long been held that homophobes have a higher likelihood of being gay themselves than the average Joe.

It sure seems that way.
I find it odd that those that seem the most obsessed with expressing their repulsion towards homosexuality also seem rather obsessed with it.

 

[tas8831]

Some people simply picture it in their head and find it gross - I think this is the most beneign form of homophobia.

What is "it" - 2 guys holding hands?

There are many people (oddly, very often 'pro-life' people) that find nursing to be 'gross'.

 

[tas8831]

The emperor has no clothes.

This so-called "phobia" is nothing more than a bad attempt to brand heterosexuals as somehow mentally unsound.

Um, no...

Usually to guilt trip straight people into gay sex that they wouldn't otherwise consider.

So...

If you call someone a homophobe, it is to try to get them to go gay? Do you really mean the things you write?

You know, like transgender people demanding that men who don't want to date them are somehow wrong. It's a sort of shame thing. "You'd better like me, or I'd brand you a homophobe."

Fox does have a tendency to take examples of extremes and portray them as the mainstream (of their enemy). That is, in part, why rational people do not get their information from Fox.

Very few people have actual homophobia

True - most of those branded as homophobes are actually people that hate homosexuals because of their toxuc social/religious/political views.

, despite the lie of mass media in the form of movies, books, and so on. Someone actually homophobic would try to hurt or kill homosexuals due to their fear. On the other hand, anyone else, I would call a "heterosexual."

It is so cool how you totally make things up, yet present them with such conviction.
Perhaps some thinly veiled projection?

I have met many people (conservative, liberal, and unaligned) in my days on this Earth, and have seen people accused of homophobia, who I later decided were not.

Like who? and how did you determine this?

What they were afraid of is actually usually other stuff:

1. Fear of death (necrophobia) - The fact is, homosexual relationships carry a high risk of AIDS, which is a wasting disease
2. Likewise fear of disease (pathophobia)
3. Fear of perversion (paraphobia)
4. Fear of germs (mysophobia) - Aside from disease, homosexual relationships involve the back door, a very dirty place. So yea, this is also a concern, even with no risk of STDs because the area is "dirty"

Awesome crazy right-wing nonsense.

Do no heterosexual relationships involve the 'back door'? if you say no, you are a fool.

1. Fear of sexual abuse (contreltophobia) - This is less a personal fear, and more a fear that their wife or daughter will have a creep come into their bathroom. This also extends to the growing occurrence of prison rape and childhood molestation, since as gay priests molesting little boys.

Why would a homosexual "creep" go into a woman's bathroom?

None of these are irrational fears, even if they are overblown.

It depends on your definition of irrational, I guess. Given that this "fear" of a trans or gay 'creep' coming into a woman's bathroom and harassing them or a child is pretty much a non-existent thing (you are far more likely to be abused by a priest than a trans or gay person - yet Fox 'News' did not provide hours of hysteria-driven coverage to that...)

But none of these are homophobia, the psychotic fear of homosexuality to the point of harm.

Tell that to Matthew Shepard....

 

[Brickjectivity]

As an extension of the thread on factors that determine sexual preference, I am curious as to what determines a person to be homophobic?...

Shyness. Its basic shyness coupled with many other variables, but shyness is the basis I think. Call it lack of self confidence or lack of social skills. That's what it is mark my words when all the studies finish collecting and collating their data.

 

[Earthtank]

I think today, many people use the term "homophobic" the wrong way. IMO, it should be used when someone truly hates homosexuals for no other reason than being a homosexual however, many people today are labeled homophobic when they aren't. I, for example, do not support the LGBT community however, i do not hate them. Actually, I honestly don't care about them the same way i don't care about some random bird flying around. As long as that bird doesn't poop on me lol while its flying around its non of my business. As long as i am not forced to accept what they want or change how i live my life, i don't care. The LGBT community can live their life as they want and leave me alone to live mine, no i will not support them with donations, shirt or anything like that but, i also wont oppress and victimize them either. In the past, at the gym i go to, i have seen a gay guy get picked on for no other reason than he's gay, i stood up for him and even started teaching him how to workout, i did not stand up for him because he was gay, i stood up for him because some jerk were being mean to another person. With all that said, i have still been called homophobic and i honestly don't care but, the point i was trying to make is not everyone who does not support the LGBT is homophobic.

 

[Vinayaka]

It sure seems that way.
I find it odd that those that seem the most obsessed with expressing their repulsion towards homosexuality also seem rather obsessed with it.

Hatred is an obsession indeed.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think today, many people use the term "homophobic" the wrong way.

That could well, be, but the reality is that it's not. The word envelopes a lot more than hatred.