Why do people disapprove of homosexuality?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't understand why the government needs to be involved. Certainly ministers should be able to perform ceremonies without having to get a thumbs-up from the government. This is why I am libertarian/borderline anarchist.

Ever seen a map of all the states in the U.S. where same-sex marriage is not allowed, but those same states allow cousin marriage?

Hi ruveyn & unduki,

Remember, the claimed miracle of circumcision solves all problems of hygiene, though also precluding the knowledge of why circumcised individuals will never have a full understanding of Bette Davis's best line being "Fasten Your Seatbelts, It's Going To Be A Bumpy Night", which is religion again, but, even assuming that Jesus loves me, before packing the Divine Divinity Fudge, I going to demand protection, and no charity without mutual love.

Heterosexual couples use the "Miracle Fruit" too (Synsepalum dulcificum) (Chapter 10, "The Fruit Hunters: A Story of Nature, Adventure, Commerce, and Obsession" by Adam Leith Gollner (2008)).

Why do people disapprove of homosexuality? Why do so many people practice in private what they so disapprove of in public???

Tadzio

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sbGg31RJ3w[/youtube]


Why do people disapprove of homosexuality? Why do so many people practice in private what they so disapprove of in public???::

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4099425.html#4099425

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CoBvwhPXqg[/youtube]

[Mod. edit: please be aware that this video shows the result of a beating and is very graphic]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Jdr7kVh_4[/youtube]

It is very wrong when that happens.

I don't get the connections. The fruit. Then a hairy back and violence. That people fear difference and just fit in? Makes him hide his lovely hairy back? Causes policemen to be obscenely violent murders?
And the fruit eaters want a new but sanitised, sensory experience?

The practical value of gay "marriage" is that it could have a stabilizing influence on the gay populace. It has been demonstrated robustly that the characteristic instability of both male and female homosexuals can be at least somewhat ameliorated by the same method that we try to entrench heterosexual unions for the benefit of offspring. Same-sex marriage is a friend of social health in both individual and social aspects.

According to this CBS article, a scientific study has apparently found that gay men's health is significantly improved in regions in which they have equal access to services such as marriage. Gay men are as much a part of society as any heterosexual individual, so their general health is absolutely relevant.

However, it's not just gay men (and women, whom I am afraid are not as often mentioned) who benefit from same-sex marriage. In fact, society at large absolutely benefits, especially in terms of keeping socially transmitted diseases under control. In fact, I think that marrying and establishing a family should be considered to be a social responsibility for gay men...especially men, who are the main vectors for such diseases. We should stop treating it as something that you might do to try to be cool and progressive. It's not a joke. It is a necessity. It is part of being a responsible citizen.



Not afraid of socially transmitted diseases? Well, I think you should be, but the impact of same-sex marriage is not limited to just controlling socially transmitted diseases. In fact, fears by "family" advocates that same-sex marriage would weaken families turn out to be contradictory to current evidence. Divorce has a traumatic impact on any children that are involved, and any measure that could reduce divorce rates, even if just by limiting impulsive marriages, could help millions of young people. Apparently, in states that have laws promoting same-sex marriage, it seems that all marriages are entered with greater forethought by those involved. Honestly, this doesn't surprise me at all: authorizing same-sex marriages simply has an affirming impact on the value of marriage, and that's the beginning and end of it.

Or let me put it differently: bans on same-sex marriage reduce the utility of marriage to being simply a weapon for inflicting injury on a minority. Reducing marriage to being nothing more than something to deny to a hated minority population does not increase its esteem in most people's eyes. The long-term effect of such behavior is to cheapen it, even for people who hate the queers. Allowing marriage to be treated as a bone of contention benefits nobody. Pettiness is toxic to marriage and family. It always has been.



Finally, allow me to address your argument that states should have an individual right to ban gay marriage, even in the face of strong evidence that their behavior is counter-productive. The reason that your idea is entirely impractical is that it contributes unnecessary complications to the legal system. Allowing states to pronounce long-time unions between same-sex partners null and void results in a legal mess that could be avoided by simply requiring all states to recognize and authorize such unions. It is simply the most practical way of handling the matter, and I think it's stupid and unnecessary to keep clogging the courts with cases that arise simply because we chose to allow states to pass stupid, discriminatory laws. It's asinine.

Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on 29 Dec 2011, 8:54 am, edited 7 times in total.

I guess I do get the connection. Just seemed an oblique way of putting it and so I wondered if I was filling in the gaps wrongly.

i think that all the things listed are things that perpetuate homophobia. gay people were not always oppressed for the simple fact that there was no such thing as gay- the concept didn’t exist. There were men who had sex with men & women who did it with women but there was no such thing as gay & the way sodomy was viewed varied in space and time. Sodomy was made illegal in some places but homosexuality didn’t exist until the 19th century when gay people began to identify as/be identified as a group in society. The roots of gay oppression, like women’s oppression, can be found in the rise of the nuclear family. At the same time people began to identify as homosexual the nuclear family was being strengthened by the state in response to the social crisis created by the rise of industrial capitalism. The number of people that died in industrial accidents was such that the state had to stop and consider where their next batch of workers was to come from. This is where I agree with the point being made about exclusively gay people not producing children being a cause of homophobia. The state began to pass legal measures to strengthen the family to ensure there wouldn’t be a sudden decrease in the population and in the number of workers. This included strengthening laws against fornication, prostitution & homosexuality as well as the exclusion of women from work that might stop them from reproducing. This same concern for growth in the population of workers can still be seen today every time someone bemoans our aging population or when people like Bachman sign papers saying that the reproduction is beneficial to the economy. This is why I also agree with the violation gender/social norms bit. Individuals are supposed to get with the opposite gender and reproduce and homophobia is supposed to reduce the number of people who don’t do that. Homophobia is used to strengthen the ideology of the family and the gender roles that go with it. It also makes gay people a convenient scapegoat for other workers to scapegoat for their frustration at the state of their lives. Or divide & conquer said the ruling class. thats the marxist interpretation anyway.

at the person above me. for those who think marriage equality degrades the institution of marriage, two words- brittney spears.

Let sleeping loons lie.

It doesn't apper that any anti gay sentiments existed before religion. I have heard the case that when we first started to build societies, it was important to promote the family unit. And that this was the building blocks of society, so homosexual behaviour would not have been tolerated. Although that doesn't explain the greeks I suppose.

But I reckon when humanity realized that sex = babies, then it may have been seen that males having sex was wasteful or unproductive.

But I think in modern society it is religion that has stamped this notion onto peoples minds and also because in the western world we appear to have a very immature attitude towards sex and sexuality.

I don't know if I did this right; I tried to pick what I thought was the closest to an actual valid reason - disintegrating gender roles. Even at that, this comes down to how its handled IMO and isn't a question of whether homosexuality should be respected legally equal.

Yours is a pretty interesting take. Industrialisation required more in the workforce. Come to think of it, it is only since the 1980's that the western world has started to tolerate gays more, and that coincides with sending our industrial processes to third world where they are still very anti gay.

That would be interesting, if only it were true. Homosexual people do, however, have children and are raising them in their families.

But they can't produce children with their partner. Outside people and agencies have to be brought in to achieve this.

In reality, there are many cases where a male couple and a female couple have had children in mutual agreement. And it has not involved sex or clinics or other agencies.