Anti-gay bias is stupid

[HexMachina]

I mean the only argument you can make is that homosexuality is not functional, which is obvious, even to gays. Other than that, there is no news.

Unless you are limiting the word "functional" to reproduction, which is quite frankly bizzare (the idea that a relationships sole purpose is for reproduction seems very old fashioned imo) homosexual relationships are just as "functional" as heterosexual relationships.

[Weeping Sore]

That's a tough one. I've argued with a person who said that her child was molested by a same-sex person and that's why she supports things like banning gay people from teaching, but I've not met someone who said that they are against equality for gay people because they themselves have been victims of childhood sex abuse. I'm sure there are some small number of anti-gay people like that around, but none who have revealed that in public (or to me in person). I've met a few few people who have trusted me enough to confide to me that they are survivors of childhood sex abuse, and all but two are themselves gay/bi (selective social circle on my part, not a claim that gay people are molested more frequently, though, I do think the vulnerability of some young gay children may make them easier preys for pedophiles).

At any rate, your instinct is right in that you do not want to appear to invalidate their experience or to belittle their trauma. That's very important indeed.

*** Some potential for Triggers (pedophilia, rape) to follow ***

As far as arguing with them on the morality of homosexuality goes, I can see a couple approaches.

The first one is argument from science, which is to point out that human sexuality as we understand it is based on adults, and not entirely applicable to pedophiles. The two main types of pedophilia are "fixated" and "regressed." In the fixated type, the pedophile actually does not show a history of sexual attraction to other adults, and therefore, cannot be rightfully categorized as either homosexual or heterosexual. In the regressed type, these pedophiles actually show signs of having sexual attractions to other adults,but their sexual attraction to children may or may not be the same in gender composition as their attraction to adults is. In both fixated and regressed pedophilia, the pedophile's attraction to their victims is as much about the sex of the victim as it is about the trappings of childhood, such as innocence, powerlessness, dependency, being unconditionally loved, etc. It is similar to a rapist' attraction to women often being more about overpowering them and controlling them and forcing them against their wills rather than the simple attractiveness of the target or the fact that the target is a woman.

So if you can get that far in the argument, then you might get them to see that the person who assaulted them didn't do so out of homosexual desires. This will be easier to accomplish if they already accept that rape is not just about sex, but may prove to be doubly-difficult if they also reject that thesis.

A second approach is one you already tried, which is to point out that we don't generalize about all people of trait X because one of them does something bad to us. In this, I will attempt to identify whether there is a group that s/he already is sympathetic to and work from there, e.g. "you already see that not all Muslims are terrorists" or "you already know that not all black people are criminals" etc.

A third approach might be possible if you know them well enough to know that they also have LBGT people who interact with them positively, whether it be a teacher, a common friend, a relative, etc. And you can point out to them that as traumatic as their experience was in their childhood, they have also had great positive experience from interacting with LBGT people. In many cases, s/he probably doesn't even know because the LBGT person might not be out to them at the time.

In the end, however, this might not be a battle you can win.

And that's important for all of us to keep in mind - not everyone can be convinced to change their point of view, and more importantly, we might not be the right person to make that change happen even if someone *could* change their mind.

Finally, while arguing with people can be useful, I also see that the best way to change people's minds is not to argue with them. Of course, I love the point-by-point arguments, and there are benefits to putting it all out there for the public to see, imo, but I don't think that's the most efficient way of bringing about change in attitudes. If you're LBGT, come out when you're ready and live your life openly. If you're an ally, speak words of support to your LBGT friends, and also speak up against biased remarks. I promise you, if you stand up to a biased remark in mixed company, somebody is secretly thanking you for it. These will do much more in eradicating anti-gay biases than a successful rebuttal. ;)

Terra, must you always be so well-reasoned, thorough, brave and impassioned? How are the rest of us supposed to go on with our half-cocked sniping after a post like this? You're ruining the internet for dumbness!

ETA: I suppose there's always Twitter.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

My congress recently rejected law for equal rights (not marriage, though). It simply allowed both hetero and homosexual partnerships to have common properties and rights (like, if your husband have insurance, also do you). Some arguments given were:

"It's all right to be modern. But we can't just be modern for the sake of being modern".

"Yes, science says homosexuality is ok. But my beliefs said I shouldn't support it, so, I won't".

"If we give them rights, then they will believe they can have more rights".

"We can't make laws that only benefit a minority" (said by the same guy who once said he didn't know who the "Wizard of the Andes" (a famous peruvian commander, who earned the nick because he knew the mountains and knew where to hide, hence, being unfindable) because he was a christian and he was forbidden to know about witchcraft)

And, by the same guy (who became Trending Topic, sadly):

"Breastfeeding is not cultural, is biological and exclusive of women, like cooking, washing and ironing".

"The State is not intolerant. But our society is sexist" (defending the "right" of the Congress to vote for sexist policies to please the "society")

"I'm aware of the problem. I'm an expert in enviroment" (whatever...)

and last but not least (by the same guy too):

"I read Mein Kampf, by Hitler, who was extremist, whose ideas I don't share, but he said we should follow an ambitious guy, a prostitute, a comunist: we've done that and I've realise they're jews, hence, we should banish jews. It's extremist, but somehow, he's right, because some misbehaviours are generated by a life style".

So, it's not thet homophobia is stupid. Stupid people are homophobic.

[Arkhangel]

Christ I worship and pray to weeps for this sort of thinking.

no way. christ doesn't sit around crying; he's a natural born killer. he extirpates this stuff.

That is a delightful word. I shall incorporate it into my vocabulary (and moral philosophy).

[Poète Lauréat]

Unless you are limiting the word "functional" to reproduction, which is quite frankly bizzare (the idea that a relationships sole purpose is for reproduction seems very old fashioned imo) homosexual relationships are just as "functional" as heterosexual relationships.

Well, the primary function is to reproduce. You can twist and turn but it remains the same, it is not biologically functional. I have nothing against gays, I support them, but please don't be absurd and argue that point.

[HexMachina]

Well, the primary function is to reproduce. You can twist and turn but it remains the same, it is not biologically functional. I have nothing against gays, I support them, but please don't be absurd and argue that point.

IVF.

I also object to the idea that a relationship requires reproduction to be functional. Seems a rather outdated viewpoint, and a heterosexual relationship is no guarantee of having children anyway, since some people just don't want kids

[The guy from the Vale]

I think we should divide biological functionality from social functionality though. Socially, any relationship between two sane, consenting adults has the same potential functionality. There are barriers to fulfilling that potential for many homosexual couples though, as we enshrined the majority's prejudices in laws that we are quite slow in repealing.

But on a biological level, it is certainly true that homosexual couples are "pointless". Any relationship that can't bear children is, from that perspective. But that does not only include same-sex couples, but also infertile couples, those too old to bear children, or indeed even any couple that opts not to have children and uses contraception.

Still, modern humans have overcome their biology in so many ways, we should be able to take that next step in stride. :)

[Poète Lauréat]

IVF.

I also object to the idea that a relationship requires reproduction to be functional. Seems a rather outdated viewpoint, and a heterosexual relationship is no guarantee of having children anyway, since some people just don't want kids

This is not a view it's a fact. I don't know why you're arguing it. You might as well say that its an opinion that we have legs and arms.

[Poète Lauréat]

I think we should divide biological functionality from social functionality though. Socially, any relationship between two sane, consenting adults has the same potential functionality. There are barriers to fulfilling that potential for many homosexual couples though, as we enshrined the majority's prejudices in laws that we are quite slow in repealing.

But on a biological level, it is certainly true that homosexual couples are "pointless". Any relationship that can't bear children is, from that perspective. But that does not only include same-sex couples, but also infertile couples, those too old to bear children, or indeed even any couple that opts not to have children and uses contraception.

Still, modern humans have overcome their biology in so many ways, we should be able to take that next step in stride. :)

Yes, you can overcome it, but it does not disprove the rule. A biological function is a biological function. Sure, we don't need use for it with the science we have, but to say its not our true function, is absurd.

[The guy from the Vale]

My point was, we're already ignoring many biological rules as humans nowadays, because socially, technologically and intellectually, we managed to do so. I view human society, technology and rationality as far more important guidelines as to what should be permitted than our biology.

Or in other words, I don't view biological functions as anything other than remnants of our biological descent.

[Biglose]

My point was, we're already ignoring many biological rules as humans nowadays, because socially, technologically and intellectually, we managed to do so. I view human society, technology and rationality as far more important guidelines as to what should be permitted than our biology.

An amusing thought. Until you realize that we are always limited by our biology. To argue you can't feel the chain anymore, therfor it is of no interest or even gone is silly at best.

It is like: We do not have to care about global warming, we have air conditioning.

The most actual discussion about it (since I consider it in this debate more or less a pointless academic exercise) would be vaccination. Sure, you do not need to vaccinate your child as long as the diseases you would vaccinat against do not return. This does not mean you have overcome the biological issue of getting sick (in those cases). The second they emerge again, well you might even be worse off. Technology and social structures are crutches (unless you talk about genetic engineering of human and other out of space sifi). They do not overcome biological problems and they do not allow you to ignore them, they help you to deal with them.

[Neumond]

If reproduction is the only important criteria for a relationship. Are barren people also to be dropped?

I really don´t get the point why someone can´t have a great relationship without being able to reproduce biological.

[Poète Lauréat]

My point was, we're already ignoring many biological rules as humans nowadays, because socially, technologically and intellectually, we managed to do so. I view human society, technology and rationality as far more important guidelines as to what should be permitted than our biology.

Or in other words, I don't view biological functions as anything other than remnants of our biological descent.

Yes and my point as I've explained 300 times is its our true function. Is it as relevant today as it once was? No. Your first sentence is vague and makes no sense either. We ignore our strength, speed and agility in sport? We ignore our brain functionality in education and learning? Lol what on earth...

and this

''Or in other words, I don't view biological functions as anything other than remnants of our biological descent.''

I don't think you even know what a biological function is lol...

Can't believe what I just read.

[The guy from the Vale]

It's rather "We managed to loosen the chain a lot already. Yes, it's still there, and will probably never go away completely, but we're making progress there. Instead of focusing on what's left of it and enshrine it in law, let's try to loosen it even further."

Vaccination, in that context, is a step in trying to further loosen that chain, so it should be encouraged.

[Poète Lauréat]

If reproduction is the only important criteria for a relationship. Are barren people also to be dropped?

I really don´t get the point why someone can´t have a great relationship without being able to reproduce biological.

O for the love of...

How does my points convey.... Wow just wow. People really can't read these days...

[Poète Lauréat]

It's rather "We managed to loosen the chain a lot already. Yes, it's still there, and will probably never go away completely, but we're making progress there. Instead of focusing on what's left of it and enshrine it in law, let's try to loosen it even further."

Vaccination, in that context, is a step in trying to further loosen that chain, so it should be encouraged.

I just don't even...

How my simple point has lead to this...

Am I being trolled?

I don't understand how this person even operates.

[The guy from the Vale]

Yes and my point as I've explained 300 times is its our true function. Is it as relevant today as it once was? No. Your first sentence is vague and makes no sense either. We ignore our strength, speed and agility in sport? We ignore our brain functionality in education and learning? Lol what on earth...

and this

''Or in other words, I don't view biological functions as anything other than remnants of our biological descent.''

I don't think you even know what a biological function is lol...

Can't believe what I just read.

We're talking sexuality here though, first and foremost. (Although other biological functions, like defecation or illness, have also been regulated socially). And for humans, reproduction just isn't always the primary function of anything any more. We're already rather too many than too few. Otherwise, things like contraception (or sanitation, or medicine for that matter) would not exist because we would deem such attempts at restricting our "primary function" silly.

[Poète Lauréat]

We're talking sexuality here though, first and foremost. (Although other biological functions, like defecation or illness, have also been regulated socially). And for humans, reproduction just isn't always the primary function of anything any more. We're already rather too many than too few. Otherwise, things like contraception (or sanitation, or medicine for that matter) would not exist because we would deem such attempts at restricting our "primary function" silly.

http://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg

[The guy from the Vale]

If reproduction is the only important criteria for a relationship. Are barren people also to be dropped?

I really don´t get the point why someone can´t have a great relationship without being able to reproduce biological.

This is the important part. Everything else really is extrapolation from people on both sides of the discussion talking past each other. So let's try to focus on that question now, shall we? :) Otherwise, the derail will be unstoppable, I fear.

[Neumond]

O for the love of...

How does my points convey.... Wow just wow. People really can't read these days...

Well it was a question. If you think I misunderstood. Please clarify your point.

Perhaps answering the question would be a good start.

I don´t know how we are supposed to discuss, if we just dismiss other answers as signs of illiteracy.