Yeah, I've heard of "DWB - Driving while Black", now we have "FWB".
Demonizing people
- Thread starter Sorcerer
- Start date
Only punishable where WASPs are still running the courts and legislatures. Over there it's pure homophobia. Religiously motivated.
You might consider giving the Rastafarians some credit here too...
Hey there's a crazy religion. I get the thing with holy smokes, but Haile Selassie? And this has something to with Jamaica? It's weirder than the story of the Great White Lizard in Morman lore. Although all things pale by the belief that (in between creating supermassive black holes, and playing tricks with neutrinos, etc) God is watching to see who hasn't yet cut off his foreskin.
I hear you. I just brought up Rastafari to see what Fraggle would say. The only reason I know anything about it at all is Bob Marley...
Good ole Marley. And Marley-sahn. Didn't mean to derail your thoughts but it does show how stupid it is to rest on any world view that's built out of legend and lore. You were taking Syne to the shed before I interrupted. You, Bells and everyone except maybe Jan. Carry on, Syne made his bed here.
My comments do none of that. I make no assumptions, as I'm only discussing people I've encountered. I also do not extrapolate, as I'm only discussing the people I've countered.
And your bias against atheists does not change the content of my posts. I simply have not done what you accuse me of doing. I'm sorry you're not getting any satisfaction here. Perhaps if your goals were less reliant on dishonesty, you'd get better results.
Speaking of strawmen...
I don't. It's not a scientific experiment, it's one person making character judgments of another human being.
My post does not generalize. I'm specifically talking about people I've encountered. I do not say "All religious people lack integrity," I say, "All religious people I have encountered on sciforums.com lack integrity.
Whether that statement is true or not is another matter. But being wrong doesn't make it a generalization, much as you wish that were the case.
If you judge a behavior as immoral, then you judge the practitioner of that behavior as immoral. That's inescapable. The straw man you're employing here is that I'm accusing you of saying homosexual are only immoral, and possessing of no other notable characteristic. That's not what I'm accusing you, of that's not even what bigotry is.
I'm not excusing anything, because the behavior in question is not in and of itself harmful, and therefore not worthy of condemnation. It is not homosexual behavior that is the cause of higher AIDS rates, but the fear, recklessness, and ignorance that results from how people like you treat homosexuals. If not for the demonizing, dehumanization, oppression, and abuse of homosexuals, the rates of HIV and AIDS would be near the levels of heterosexuals, or perhaps lower, because there would not be any of the stigma attached to it that causes these behaviors.
But, again, you're wrongly criticizing homosexual sex, rather than the behaviors attributed to homosexuals (lack of knowledge of how STDs are transmitted, lack of condom use, more anonymous sex). Presumably, you ignore these details because they make condemning homosexuality impossible.
Again with the rape comparison. Ugh.
It is incorrect to blame feminism when a woman kills her abusive husband.
Whether homosexuality is immoral or not is not a meta-ethical issue. Meta-ethics investigates what "good" and "moral" mean, not whether a certain action is or isn't moral. Yes, it obviously informs those more specific questions, but it does not apply to them directly.
Your position on homosexuality is a normative one. You think X is bad because Y. And since you're a human being, you certainly concern yourself with all branches of ethical philosophy, so I have to again ask that you stop trying to hide, grow the hell up and own your opinion. Or, if this is simply a matter of you not actually understanding what you're talking about, to follow your own advice and read up on meta-ethics.
The "suggestions" are rooted in demonstration. If you're looking for the "gay gene," sorry we haven't found one. And it likely isn't as simple as that, either, as sexuality seems to also have some relation to gender-specific traits.
But, more to the point, you're evading me again. I asked you how you arrived at "no" to the question of whether homosexuality is an in-born trait. The research suggests that it is, so why do you disregard it all and come down on the other side?
Considering that we've had to pry the truth from you on several occasions over the course of this discussion, I thought this might be another one of those times. I still do, until you actually answer the question.
Finally, a straightforward answer from Syne!
Knowingly harmful? Not likely. I didn't realize until now that you're also making the assumption that gays who put themselves at risk are aware of that risk and don't care. That simply is not the case.
Why are you so focused on this particular behavior, and not its cause? Why not moral condemnation for the bigotry and abuse that naturally leads to the kind of culture that breeds this risk?
Wow, so you actually found the one guy stupid enough to think rape is about sex. Sorry, one of the two guys stupid enough to think rape is about sex. Anyway, good for you. And good luck finding that scientific consensus.
Do you beat your wife?
Actually, anal sex does increase risk (as someone else pointed out, that is why suppositories are effective). But I did not limit my point to sex, as many of the risk factors are additional behaviors that only exacerbate this. You seem to be aware of these, and likely aware of their higher prevalence among homosexuals, so I fail to see how you expect your comment to be a criticism of my point.
Again, does a "good" excuse pardon harmful behavior?
Wow, Fraggle, I gave you more credit than you deserve.
sub·set
: a group of things, people, etc., that is part of a larger group
: a group of things, people, etc., that is part of a larger group
It has nothing to do with the size of any subset.
I judge choosing to engage in harmful behavior wrong, but like any other wrong behavior, the person may not necessarily be malicious, but only deluded, self-destructive, incompetent, or ignorant. You assume that wrong equates to immoral and that immorality is then a innate characteristic of the person. Morality has very much to do with intent, just like we distinguish murder from man-slaughter and negligent homicide.
I do not think that a person making mistakes allows us to pass judgment on the character of the person, without rather clear indication of malicious intent.
Like Kittamaru, you seem to think the behavior I condemn is solely isolated to sex. It is not. See my response to Kitt. Again, does a "good" excuse pardon harmful behavior? Are homosexuals somehow inherently incapable refraining from high-risk behavior? Certainly you must think they are, since you seem to absolve them from all responsibility for said behavior.
IOW, you are excusing their high-risk behavior by solely blaming the stigma placed on them by others. It is nothing more than scapegoating in lieu of personal responsibility.
No, I also criticize those behaviors you mention that make sex especially high-risk. Drug use, promiscuity, poor safe-sex practices, etc..
That was no comparison. It was a clear statement about condemning harm not being considered bigotry. Do try to keep up.
My judgment on the issue is only expressed in my meta-ethical view, not in my normative-ethical stance. I realize that you may not be sophisticated enough to entertain an opinion with no desire to enforce that opinion on others.
Seem you are the one in need of growing up. Just because you think something is wrong does not necessarily give you the right nor the justification to insist upon what others "ought" to do.
So all those drunk college lads are doing it solely as violent dominance, huh? Black and white answers rarely work in the real world.
I have no wife.
So now you're trying to say that--
Higher rates of mental illness
Higher rates of substance abuse
Higher HIV risk/transmission
High rates of promiscuity
--are all due to homosexuality itself?
In this case, you're overly concerned with the symptoms and ignoring the disease.
:facepalm:
I'm sorry, you said homosexuality was immoral. You said that.
And if you think it's inappropriate to make a character judgment of someone without knowledge of intent, then it's inappropriate to say that homosexual behavior is immoral without knowledge of intent. After all, if morality has very much to do with intent, you can't make a general statement about it.
Prior to this post, you have repeatedly stated that it is male-male sex that you find immoral. Now you've broadened your scope? To what?
I'm providing you the context you seem to be lacking.
When a battered woman stops bathing, you don't chastise her for her poor hygiene. You make an effort to understand the causes of the behavior, and address those. Again, you seem to be concerned only with the symptom, not the disease.
So you really do think that homosexuality causes increased drug use, mental illness, and promiscuity?
I'm going to need you to explain that one.
Of course it was a comparison. You effectively said, "This is a way in which homosexuality and rape are similar!"
Again, meta-ethics does not address the question of homosexuality's morality. It addresses the concept of morality itself. It's a conversation about the conversation. Hence "meta"-ethics. So no, your position on homosexuality is not meta-ethical.
But I realize that you may not be sophisticated enough to understand that concept.
That's what ethics are, Syne. You can't make a moral judgment without believing that it is what ought or ought not to be done. You may not have the desire to physically enforce morality, but you certainly have a belief that your morals should be adhered to.
Dominance and anger, yes. It's the old, "I'll show her!" It's got nothing to do with getting off.
You don't seem to think so.
I have no wife.
I don't even want to know what that wink is for.
Anyway, you intentionally overlooked something in my previous post, and I'm not going to let it go until you answer. Again, I'm aware that you lack the conviction in your position to be forthright, so I'll just keep poking until you've been sufficiently shamed into acting. (again)
Blahblahlerion said:
Last edited:
Indeed... he has lost footing on his contention that the male-male or female-female sex in itself is the act that is wrong, and now he is backpedaling to try and find new ground to reestablish his defensive... sad that you lack the conviction to stick to your guns when you are proven wrong AND the humbleness to admit when you were wrong and redact your biogtry, Syne.
Why won't you answer Balerion's question, hm?
Why won't you answer Balerion's question, hm?
Are you saying heterosexuals never engage in anal sex?
Such as what? Participating in gay pride parades? Wearing silk underwear? Thumbing through House and Garden magazines? What?
Considering you have failed miserably to show that homosexuals engage in things that heterosexuals do not, your point is irrelevant.
Wow, those are words that I would save for you, considering you're engaging in harmful, malicious behavior: homophobia. Is it because of ignorance, incompetence, delusion...?
Given his apparent lack of knowledge of most things sexual, I'm can only assume Syne has not had sex before... not that that's a bad thing in and of itself, mind you.
Yes, yes, and yes, those are all EEEEEEEEVIL traits and MUST be stomped out with holy vengeance and purged in burning hellfire!
Wait... I'm talking about the Orks of Kaurava and their WAAAAAGH... my bad
I'll take "All of the above" for $1000, Alex!
It is sad when moderators fall for trolling and become trolls themselves, Kittamaru.
(Q),
Heterosexuals do engage in anal sex, but due to relative frequency, higher rates of drug use, promiscuity, and mental illness, homosexuals are at much higher risk of HIV transmission. I equally condemn heterosexuals who engage in such risky behavior.
Opinions are only harmful if the "harmed" believe they may be valid, in which case it is a problem of their beliefs. It is an objective fact that homosexuals are at higher risk and even account for the vast majority of new HIV transmissions in the US (even being such a small minority).
Kittamaru,
I have said that I think homosexuality is wrong. Where have I limited that to MSM and FSF? Homosexuality includes more behavior than just sex.
Balerion,
I have not made any claims about causation where things like rates of mental illness relate to homosexuality, but there is clearly a correlation. Discrimination alone does not readily explain the behavior (as all discriminated minorities do not demonstrate similar rates) and does not absolve personal responsibility for one's own actions.
Where did I say homosexuality was immoral, other than describing the general view that homosexuality is wrong?
Again, it seems you have assumed "homosexual behavior" to be limited to same-sex sex acts.
Someone who stops bathing is not harming others, but is still the only one responsible for their own hygiene.
What do you not understand about the fact that an ethical opinion does not "give you the right nor the justification to insist upon what others "ought" to do"? That would be the same as what you describe as "physically enforce morality". Just because you think something is wrong does not mean that you think it "ought to" be outlawed.
You seem to be wholly convinced of the feminist theories of rape, even though:
I am not convinced that homosexuality is in-born because the evidence is not conclusive (including discrepancies between genders), it does not serve a biological imperative nor have a rationale for evolutionary development (as current theories seem to throw the ball squarely back into the social environment as cause), and is highly correlated with behaviors such as mental illness, drug use, promiscuity.
These are no secret, nor unique to me, as far as I know.
(Q),
Heterosexuals do engage in anal sex, but due to relative frequency, higher rates of drug use, promiscuity, and mental illness, homosexuals are at much higher risk of HIV transmission. I equally condemn heterosexuals who engage in such risky behavior.
Opinions are only harmful if the "harmed" believe they may be valid, in which case it is a problem of their beliefs. It is an objective fact that homosexuals are at higher risk and even account for the vast majority of new HIV transmissions in the US (even being such a small minority).
Kittamaru,
I have said that I think homosexuality is wrong. Where have I limited that to MSM and FSF? Homosexuality includes more behavior than just sex.
Balerion,
I have not made any claims about causation where things like rates of mental illness relate to homosexuality, but there is clearly a correlation. Discrimination alone does not readily explain the behavior (as all discriminated minorities do not demonstrate similar rates) and does not absolve personal responsibility for one's own actions.
Where did I say homosexuality was immoral, other than describing the general view that homosexuality is wrong?
Again, it seems you have assumed "homosexual behavior" to be limited to same-sex sex acts.
Someone who stops bathing is not harming others, but is still the only one responsible for their own hygiene.
What do you not understand about the fact that an ethical opinion does not "give you the right nor the justification to insist upon what others "ought" to do"? That would be the same as what you describe as "physically enforce morality". Just because you think something is wrong does not mean that you think it "ought to" be outlawed.
You seem to be wholly convinced of the feminist theories of rape, even though:
However, an 1983 study comparing 14 indicators of male dominance and the incidence of rape in 26 American cities found no correlations, except one where greater male dominance actually decreased the incidence of rape. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_sexual_violence#Feminist_theories_of_male-female_rape
But I know how you hate dirtying your hands with references to support an argument.I am not convinced that homosexuality is in-born because the evidence is not conclusive (including discrepancies between genders), it does not serve a biological imperative nor have a rationale for evolutionary development (as current theories seem to throw the ball squarely back into the social environment as cause), and is highly correlated with behaviors such as mental illness, drug use, promiscuity.
These are no secret, nor unique to me, as far as I know.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
"There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation;[1] however, biologically-based theories for the cause of sexual orientation are favored by experts,[3] which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, or both in combination.[4] There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation;[4] when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women.[5] While some hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural,[6][7] research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.[1][8] Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.[1] There is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
"There are numerous evolutionary mechanisms that might explain homosexual behaviour, which is common in many species of animals
"Simple reasoning shows that evolution cannot explain homosexuality - how would a homosexuality gene get selected for?" "Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?"
Such arguments are surprisingly common - and completely wrong.
Homosexual behaviour has been observed in hundreds of species, from bison to penguins. It is still not clear to what extent homosexuality in humans or other animals is genetic (rather than, say, due to hormonal extremes during embryonic development), but there are many mechanisms that could explain why gene variants linked to homosexuality are maintained in a population.
A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common.
Reasons why
Among animals, homosexual behaviour is usually non-exclusive. For instance, in some populations of Japanese macaques, females prefer female sexual partners to male ones but still mate with males - they are bisexual, in other words.
It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males - rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair.
Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it benefits groups or relatives, rather than individuals. In bonobos, homosexual behaviour might have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion. One study in Samoa found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in the bodies of others).
For your health
Or perhaps homosexuality is neutral, neither reducing nor boosting overall fitness. Attempts to find an adaptive explanation for homosexual behaviour in macaques have failed, leading to suggestions that they do it purely for pleasure.
Even if homosexuality does reduce reproductive success, as most people assume, there are plenty of possible reasons why it is so common. For instance, gene variants that cause homosexual behaviour might have other, beneficial effects such as boosting fertility in women, as one recent study suggests, just as the gene variant for sickle-cell anaemia is maintained because it reduces the severity of malaria. Homosexuality could also be a result of females preferring males with certain tendencies - sexual selection can favour traits that reduce overall fitness, such as the peacock's tail (see Evolution always increases fitness).
Given that, until recently, homosexual behaviour in animals was ignored or even denied, it's hardly surprising that we cannot yet say for sure which of these explanations is correct. It could well turn out that different explanations are true in different species."---http://www.newscientist.com/article...l-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html
"In this article the author reviews research evidence on the prevalence of mental disorders in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (LGBs) and shows, using meta-analyses, that LGBs have a higher prevalence of mental disorders than heterosexuals. The author offers a conceptual framework for understanding this excess in prevalence of disorder in terms of minority stress—explaining that stigma, prejudice, and discrimination create a hostile and stressful social environment that causes mental health problems. The model describes stress processes, including the experience of prejudice events, expectations of rejection, hiding and concealing, internalized homophobia, and ameliorative coping processes. This conceptual framework is the basis for the review of research evidence, suggestions for future research directions, and exploration of public policy implications."---http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072932/
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
What makes it wrong?
When did you choose your sexuality?
How old were you? What were you doing when you chose your sexuality?
But such risky behavior would be defined as "homosexual," correct? In other words, a heterosexual who is promiscuous, suffering from a mental illness, and using drugs is behaving like a homosexual.
Nonsense. You'd never classify a battered woman who believes she deserves her abuse as "a problem with her beliefs." And it certainly doesn't require acceptance of opionions by the affected to be harmful. Unless you have a compelling argument for black Americans believing they're less deserving of justice for why they are treated differently by the court system of course.
No one, as you know, has disputed this. The dispute has been with your claims that the related traits are somehow caused by homosexuality, which seems to be what you're really getting at.
That doesn't follow, because not all groups are descriminated equally. African-American descrimination doesn't look like homosexual or Latino descrimination. It would be absurd to expext the results of descrimination to be the same for all groups.
Meanwhile, the traits you're insinuating are caused by homosexuality certainly fit what one would expect from the type of descrimination they are subject to.
It's an explanation for their actions.
How could you possibly mean "wrong" outside of the context of morality?
It isn't an assumption. You have not made a case for why promiscuity, unsafe sex, or mental illness should be considered "homosexual."
(A claim you should be banned for, by the way)
The point, which flew right over your head, is that there are underlying causes for certain behaviors. To ignore them and focus merely on the behavior isn't just unhelpful, it's harmful because it blames the victim and provides no workable solution.
Strawman. I never said you called for legal bans on homosexuality. I said that a moral opinion of homosexuality necessarily results in an "ought." Which it does. But again, you would know this if your understanding of ethics went beyond its wikipedia entry.
Again you align yourself with a fringe opinion championed by literally one or two people, and dismiss the mountains of research to support the prevailing opinion. Just like your dismissal of homosexuality as a naturao trait, your view on this seems to be more about supporting prejudices.
Well, MR proved that you're ignorant to the facts. Your opinions are ugly, and you do not deserve membership at this site.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
It is also an objective fact that the World Health Organization estimates that heterosexual transmission has accounted for 75% of the HIV infections in adults world-wide. The remaining 25% are primarily due to the use of contaminated blood and blood products, needle sharing by intravenous drug users, and homosexual/bisexual transmission.
Perhaps you missed the bolded bits.
Considering that LGBT comprise only about 4% of the population and that their higher rate of drug use includes intravenous drugs or ones that can directly exacerbate HIV risk, their transmission rate is still higher. Now if heterosexual transmission accounted for 96% then you would have something.
“Meth” use is associated with increased HIV risk and has become a public health threat in recent years because, like alcohol and other substances, it is linked to high-risk sexual activity with nonsteady partners under the influence. In addition,
The largest numbers of meth users are white males. According to one study, gay and bisexual men report using meth and other stimulants at rates approximately 9 times as high as the general population. - http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/behavior/substanceuse.html
The strong associations between injecting drug use, sexual risk practices and blood-borne virus infection suggests the need for combined sexual health and harm reduction services for gay and bisexual men who inject drugs. - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23321949
- It is highly addictive and can be injected.
- It tends to dry out the skin on the penis and mucosal tissues in the anus and the vagina, which may lead to small tears and cuts during sex where the HIV can enter the body.
- Some gay and bisexual men combine meth with erectile dysfunction drugs that are also associated with unprotected anal sex.
The largest numbers of meth users are white males. According to one study, gay and bisexual men report using meth and other stimulants at rates approximately 9 times as high as the general population. - http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/behavior/substanceuse.html
The strong associations between injecting drug use, sexual risk practices and blood-borne virus infection suggests the need for combined sexual health and harm reduction services for gay and bisexual men who inject drugs. - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23321949
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Doesn't mitigate the fact that the vast majority of aids cases globally are due to heterosexual sex. Funny, I haven't heard you demonizing those people yet. Oh wait. Bigots like you don't demonize the majority. Only minorities. My bad!
That would only be a tiny sliver of the overall gay population, which is already like 3 % of the world population. Within that 3% only 20% are infected with HIV. Of that vanishingly insignificant number, an even smaller number would be gay meth addicts who inject and were infected by swapping needles. Seems hardly worth mentioning when you think about the overall population of needle using drug abusers in the world. But then that would never stop you from demonizing this one tiny segment of the population in any way you can, would it?
Last edited: