This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Why and when did homosexuality become such an issue?

Why and when did homosexuality become such an issue? - Comments

AnthonyMiller's Avatar Comment 70 by AnthonyMiller

Comment Removed by Author

was just a repost...

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:02:31 UTC | #635917

ezrarez's Avatar Comment 71 by ezrarez

Since most humans are heterosexual, I would assume that bias against homosexuals has the same root as most biases: our innate wariness/dislike of those who are different. But intolerance of homosexuals is especially bad because many religions have declared it an official "sin," hated by God, and thus automatically immoral. This way of thinking must, of course, be strenuously opposed.

I've written more on this topic here.

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 14:44:16 UTC | #635956

BeanSlap's Avatar Comment 72 by BeanSlap

Okay so lemme get this straight; having it off with a 9 year old after marrying her at 6 is kosher, but TWO people, of AGE, of HOMO SAPIEN origin who are not RELATED and who just happen to be the same gender is disgusting? Clearly she has some issues.

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:04:46 UTC | #635965

Alexandreina's Avatar Comment 73 by Alexandreina

@ Ignorant Amos You say, "I was under the impression that the Phelps muppets picketed the servicemen/women's funerals because they were servicemen/women and that they died because God hates all the debauchery going on in the U.S., including homosexuality....divine retribution so to speak. I was unaware that it was only the funerals of gay soldiers they picketed. I think it is an important distinction."

You are actually correct. They'll picket any military funeral. Their premise is that our soldiers are being killed, along with all the other violence that befalls us or we are embroiled in, because God is displeased with America because of our tolerance of gay people.

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:00:16 UTC | #636021

keymaker's Avatar Comment 74 by keymaker

I would assume that bias against homosexuals has the same root as most biases: our innate wariness/dislike of those who are different.

I don't think it can be explained in that way because the premise is in doubt - human abnormalities more usually attract sympathy rather than wariness or dislike. No, the case against homosexuality as I understand it is not borne of bias but that it should not be encouraged because it's generally detrimental.

km

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:05:29 UTC | #636023

Sparkasaurusmex's Avatar Comment 75 by Sparkasaurusmex

Isn't marriage itself an institution of indoctrination? Personally I view Gay Marriage as a sort of oxymoron. Religious society has a problem with your gayness, why not turn the table and oppose their idea of Marriage? We don't have to be married to reproduce, this is just a lie of the church. Gay couples don't have to worry about consummating the marriage in order to reproduce, so why marry anyway? You can be just as happy living together without the silly institution to declare it as "official."

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:25:08 UTC | #636028

keymaker's Avatar Comment 76 by keymaker

You can't legistlate against a belief - only a behaviour.

Yeah, I mean the proposition I was responding to was that humans have 'evolved away' from thinking that certain behaviours such as racism, genocide and homophobia were acceptable as a social norm. I wouldn't think any of 'em have been subject to evolutionary change although there have been legislative changes in the last few decades... with somewhat mixed success.

km

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:25:32 UTC | #636029

AnthonyMiller's Avatar Comment 77 by AnthonyMiller

"Their premise is that our soldiers are being killed, along with all the other violence that befalls us or we are embroiled in, because God is displeased with America because of our tolerance of gay people"

It goes deeper than that. Most rational people can cope with the idea that God may or may not exist. But when your buisness is based on insisting God exists it all gets more tricky. The natural law arguments which are a cloak for just condemning homosexuality extremely verhmently when actually the Bible doesn't mention gayness that much are the result of the fact that the Bible is flawed when it comes to teaching on homosexuality.

If you admit that the Bible is wrong on a subject : homsexuality, slavery, whatever ... then you're undermining the idea that it is the divine word of God and if you're a professional Godbotherer you're in danger of making yourself redundant. So the reason homosexuality winds them up so much is they see their power base crumbling away and their security blanket having a hole.

Also many people who are gay have repressed it because their religion told them to and so if religion suddenly said "this is bollocks" they'd start to realise they'd been doing something completely stupid for years. So they have a vested interest in making everyone else miserable.

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 18:36:03 UTC | #636058

rocket888's Avatar Comment 78 by rocket888

"Why and when did homosexuality become such an issue?"

For me it was when the Gay community embraced the force of government to make people like them and their ways.

I could care less what people do provided they don't put a gun in my face. If Gays are free to associate and do what they like to do, then I should be free to dislike what they do (provided I too don't use force to stop them - except in self defense). But when they decide that I must hire them without prejudice, or they can sue the bejesus out of me, then that's when it becomes an issue for me.

Freedom first, government is never the answer in the long run. It divides people into groups and then panders to each group for their own sake.

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 18:53:51 UTC | #636064

Robert Howard's Avatar Comment 79 by Robert Howard

Go on any right-wing religous website and you'll see that the justification for discriminating against gays is that homosexuality doesn't exist in the animal kingdom and is unique to humans. Educate this lady that gaydom crosses all species barriers, is perfectly natural and therefore the Quaran must be wrong. Good luck with that.

(ps all sex is disgusting if you're doing it right.)

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 20:36:53 UTC | #636104

danconquer's Avatar Comment 80 by danconquer

Comment 69 by rocket888 :

But when they decide that I must hire them without prejudice, or they can sue the bejesus out of me, then that's when it becomes an issue for me.

The World Atheist Convention has just released the Dublin Declaration. Section 4(c) of which states: 'Employers or social service providers with religious beliefs [and naturally those without] should not be allowed to discriminate on any grounds not essential to the job in question'. Were you in Dublin Rocket? If you had been you could have told everyone why this provision is such a shameful infringement of 'freedom'.

Freedom first, government is never the answer in the long run. It divides people into groups and then panders to each group for their own sake.

This is pure dogmatic rhetoric. You aren't American by any chance are you? Just a hunch. For a freedom to be truly absolute, requires that it doesn't impact (at least not adversely) upon the other members of society with whom you have to share the planet. Peoples personal gender and orifice based predilections when it comes to bedroom sports with fellow adults clearly meets this criteria. But very few freedoms so neatly meet the criteria.

Instead the 'freedom' to fire or refuse to hire people based on such irrelevant factors is necessarily an infringement of the freedom of others to participate in economic life on a level playing field. The 'freedom' of louts to drive gas-guzzling monsters comes at the expense of the freedom of others to breathe the cleanest possible air. The 'freedom' of some twat who lives in the flat downstairs from me to play their music out loud at 3am, is at the expense of my 'freedom' to have a peaceful nights rest.

Because we are social animals, in constant interaction with each other, most peoples actions fall into this latter camp... They are freedoms which are necessarily in a permanent state of balance (a zero-sum game, often) with the freedoms of others. Humans carry with them millenia of evolutionary baggage which frequently leaves us ill-equipped to behave in truly rational ways. So when these freedoms come into conflict (as they do every minute of every day) if we are to prevent ourselves from self-destructive all-out ceaseless warfare, we have to agree to establish some sort of arbiter, a referee, one which has the consent of each side. We can call this system of binding arbitration 'government'. And until you come up with a better method for resolving the conflict-of-freedoms which defines almost every type of day-to-day human interaction, you're just going to sound like another mindless 'Government=Evil' automaton.

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 20:41:33 UTC | #636105

BeanSlap's Avatar Comment 81 by BeanSlap

I think the bias against homosexuality stems from patriarchy and misogyny. Whenever I hear a conservative talk about why they dont like homosexuality they inevitably reference "sodomy." Of course that has nothing to do with lesbians and 60% of heterosexuals have done "sodomy" not to mention but anal play is also done by heterosexual men and women. It has to do with archaic ideas of masculinity centered around not being associated with anything deamed feminine such as potentially being the penetrated in a sexual act. They deam it inferiorizing and the sex act subconsciously or consciously as a act of dominance. I dont think its a survival technique or one rooted in anything other than regressive sociology. There have been other cultures that tolerate it so that omits survivability and other cultures just allowed male homosexuality but not lesbianism. They have even suggested that being a homosexual might have been a good thing for survivability.

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:12:15 UTC | #636203

BeanSlap's Avatar Comment 82 by BeanSlap

"But when they decide that I must hire them without prejudice, or they can sue the bejesus out of me, then that's when it becomes an issue for me"

rocket888, Thats quite bigoted. Do they have a right not to hire you? What if they were 90% of the population and you were the 10%. Just like we cant discriminate against race or gender you cant discriminate against them due to their sexual orientation. There is no rationale for not liking homosexuals unless it is to closet your own. There is no justification for you to be angry with them for not tolerating your open expectation to be bigoted against them. Jobs provide food, security and stability and when you have 90% of the population with your attitude you omit them opportunities in life and all for some petty archaic prejudice you cant even justify? Its simply disgusting. They do the same thing heterosexuals do, they just do it with someone of the same sex. Are you a Christian? This seemes to be the pope trolling an atheist discussion board. Not to mention but you want to use the government to be discriminating against them? So essentially they cant get the government to make sure that they wont be discriminated against simply due to their sexual orientation but you can make the government give you full reign to be a bigot?Sounds simply obnoxious or perhaps simply noxious.

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:20:13 UTC | #636205

keymaker's Avatar Comment 83 by keymaker

Go on any right-wing religous website...

I don't think we'll learn much about it there... the Church of England specifically prohibits homophobia.

you'll see that the justification for discriminating against gays is that homosexuality doesn't exist in the animal kingdom and is unique to humans.

No the C of E position is specifically human - that homosexuality is less than ideal... so coincidentally it's has hit upon an irrefutable truth.

gaydom... crosses all species barriers, is perfectly natural

Well, natural, unnatural - depends on what one means by the word. No as I said before, since homosexuality offers no benefits to the individual over heterosexuality, only disbenefits, there's no reason to encourage it. Nor indeed is there any reason to be prejudiced against a person for characteristics beyond his control.

km

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 04:51:42 UTC | #636250

debonnesnouvelles's Avatar Comment 84 by debonnesnouvelles

Comment 69 by rocket888 :

For me it was when the Gay community embraced the force of government to make people like them and their ways.

I could care less what people do provided they don't put a gun in my face. If Gays are free to associate and do what they like to do, then I should be free to dislike what they do...

You are free to dislike whatever you want. This tendency of yours is very stupid and petty in my opinion, how great that I can voice that freely!

You seem to have no understanding why gay people want protection. Have you heard that being gay is punishable by death penalty in still some countries today and also was in some countries of the west until not long ago? Does that not seem fair to want protection from being killed?

Anyhow, good for anybody, gay or straight, who does not have to work for you.

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 07:36:18 UTC | #636273

Munski's Avatar Comment 85 by Munski

Comment 64 by Alexandreina

@ Ignorant Amos You say, "I was under the impression that the Phelps muppets picketed the servicemen/women's funerals because they were servicemen/women and that they died because God hates all the debauchery going on in the U.S., including homosexuality....divine retribution so to speak. I was unaware that it was only the funerals of gay soldiers they picketed. I think it is an important distinction."

You are actually correct. They'll picket any military funeral. Their premise is that our soldiers are being killed, along with all the other violence that befalls us or we are embroiled in, because God is displeased with America because of our tolerance of gay people.

Yup, that's spot on. Sorry for the 'speed typo' thing creating that misinformation . . . I was in the 4am mindset again, and was thinking largely about that troll Margie Phelps, Fred's idiot daughter, who created some contraversy over CplAndrewWilffaht, who's parents are campaigning for the pro-side of the 'Don't ask, don't tell' issue that Obama recently repealed. But Alexandreina's absolutely right . . . Phelps and his troll followers will picket anyone's funeral to make their point, but the soldier funeral thing is a way of calling attention to that fucked up claim that somehow, God is killing their soldier's due to American's acceptance of gays. The Cpl. Wilffaht thing was foremost in my mind because of the recent story about it. Margie Phelps is basically the representative of the Church in the courts.

What sucks is that recently, a court decision was overturned a lower court that did award the family of one soldier that did die in Iraq, Lance Cpl. Snyder, a settlement against Phelps. The higher court overturned the lower court's decision, and the court even ordered Al Snyder, Cpl. Snyder's father, to pay the court costs. Bill O'Reilly covered the costs pending another appeal, but the Supreme Court upheld the 'freedom of speech' rights of fuckhead Phelps. CplMatthewSnyder and info on that can be found here, and donations are accepted if anyone wants to contribute. In this case, it was asked and answered by Al himself that Matthew was not gay, but he has publically declared that 'would it matter if he was?'

The only good thing about this is that with all the negative publicity Phelps has generated, it's gotten a lot of people on the side of being more 'open-minded' to Obama's changes, or at least talking about it in a way that doesn't want to have anyone on the 'nay' side being compared with Phelps. The only other good news is that the funerals have a lot of help now, usually by law enforcement, but also by a group known as the Patriot Guard Riders that are actively providing a 'buffer zone' between any protesters and the funeral attendants or members of family.

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 07:51:42 UTC | #636275

Munski's Avatar Comment 86 by Munski

Sorry if my language is a bit blue for some folks, but assholes like Phelps pisses me off something fierce.

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 07:54:15 UTC | #636276

Frenger's Avatar Comment 87 by Frenger

Comment 66 by Sparkasaurusmex :

Isn't marriage itself an institution of indoctrination? Personally I view Gay Marriage as a sort of oxymoron. Religious society has a problem with your gayness, why not turn the table and oppose their idea of Marriage? We don't have to be married to reproduce, this is just a lie of the church. Gay couples don't have to worry about consummating the marriage in order to reproduce, so why marry anyway? You can be just as happy living together without the silly institution to declare it as "official."

Of course you are completely right but in their case they were moving to New Zealand where one of their parents lives. This of course was a visa issue, hence the marriage.

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:33:20 UTC | #636308

Frenger's Avatar Comment 88 by Frenger

Comment 70 by cagafort :

Go on any right-wing religous website and you'll see that the justification for discriminating against gays is that homosexuality doesn't exist in the animal kingdom and is unique to humans. Educate this lady that gaydom crosses all species barriers, is perfectly natural and therefore the Quaran must be wrong. Good luck with that. (ps all sex is disgusting if you're doing it right.)

Ha, I did mention Giraffes, I said that most sexual activity between giraffes is male on male, I did concede that there wasn't so much female on female activity as this could cause whiplash :)

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:36:36 UTC | #636313

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 89 by Cartomancer

Rocket888, comment #69

I can cope with your nauseating homophobic bigotry.

I can cope with your selfish desire to deny people like me the same basic rights and freedoms you unquestioningly enjoy yourself.

I can cope with your abysmal ignorance of the facts and issues at stake here.

I can, though only barely, cope with your facile, knee-jerk libertarian claptrap.

But this:

I could care less what people do provided they don't put a gun in my face.

This is beyond the pale. Utterly beyond the pale. Blood-boilingly, teeth-gnashingly, aneurism-inducingly beyond the pale.

The phrase is "I COULDN'T care less". Got that? COULDN'T care less.

Because if you could care less then all that's really saying is that you DO care about it, such that the possibility exists for you to care less about it. If you could care less, you do in fact care. You might only care the tiniest possible amount it is possible to care, but you still care more than someone who couldn't care less, because they, by definition, do not care at all (and there is no such thing as negative caring, because that's just caring in a different direction). Your statement is thus saying pretty much the precise opposite to what, in fact, you wanted it to mean.

I'm about as liberal, tolerant, respectful of difference and supportive of other people's right to free expression as they come. But this is crossing a line. People who knowingly do that should be taken out and shot without trial. Then burned. Then shot again just to make sure. Then jumped up and down on and thrown in a river. Then shot.

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:46:25 UTC | #636316

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 90 by Cartomancer

Sparkasaurusmex, Comment #66

Isn't marriage itself an institution of indoctrination? Personally I view Gay Marriage as a sort of oxymoron. Religious society has a problem with your gayness, why not turn the table and oppose their idea of Marriage? We don't have to be married to reproduce, this is just a lie of the church. Gay couples don't have to worry about consummating the marriage in order to reproduce, so why marry anyway? You can be just as happy living together without the silly institution to declare it as "official."

You're forgetting that marriage was not invented by the religious and has never been their sole cultural property. It was parasitised and hijacked by religious institutions like everything else they have tried to steal over the centuries.

Marriage is a human social, cultural and legal institution. We invented it, and we can define it however we choose. Currently it holds a great deal of social cachet, respect and positive connotation in our societies, and denying participation in this prestigious cultural institution to a subset of people on spurious arbitrary grounds is apartheid pure and simple. Especially as marriage carries with it a plethora of legal rights and privileges in most legal systems, in addition to the cultural prestige.

Whether there is legally recognised, legally sanctioned marriage at all, and whether it should carry with it privileges and tax exemptions that amount to nothing less than discrimination against single people is another issue. That's worth debating. But the debate should not be along the lines of sexual orientation. Either marriage should exist, in which case it should exist for everyone, or it should not exist, in which case it should exist for no-one.

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:55:23 UTC | #636321

Mark Jones's Avatar Comment 91 by Mark Jones

Comment 80 by Cartomancer

ROFL, ranked excellent. Thank you, Lynne Truss.

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:55:59 UTC | #636322

mmurray's Avatar Comment 92 by mmurray

Comment 66 by Sparkasaurusmex :

Isn't marriage itself an institution of indoctrination? Personally I view Gay Marriage as a sort of oxymoron. Religious society has a problem with your gayness, why not turn the table and oppose their idea of Marriage? We don't have to be married to reproduce, this is just a lie of the church. Gay couples don't have to worry about consummating the marriage in order to reproduce, so why marry anyway? You can be just as happy living together without the silly institution to declare it as "official."

In most western societies (certainly in Australia) marriage is a legal concept governed by secular law. In our case the Marriage Act 1961. Denying gay people the right to marry is a form of discrimination just as it would be if we denied black people the right to marry.

There are often ramifications to being unmarried like finding that your partner in life cannot make decisions for you when you are in hospital because they are not next of kin and issues with pensions and superannuation. Not in Australia as it happens but the discrimination against gay marriage still applies.

Michael

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:39:18 UTC | #636362

dandelion fluff's Avatar Comment 93 by dandelion fluff

Comment 81 by Cartomancer

Marriage is a human social, cultural and legal institution. We invented it, and we can define it however we choose. Currently it holds a great deal of social cachet, respect and positive connotation in our societies, and denying participation in this prestigious cultural institution to a subset of people on spurious arbitrary grounds is apartheid pure and simple. Especially as marriage carries with it a plethora of legal rights and privileges in most legal systems, in addition to the cultural prestige.

Exactly.

Or, simply put, marriage makes the spouses next of kin in the eyes of society. And gay couples need this every bit as much as straight ones do.

This is why it's frustrating when so many otherwise gay-friendly people would rather argue for abolishing marriage altogether rather than for including gays. Abolishing marriage is not going to happen; gay marriage, I feel sure, will -- the only question being how many people are going to be damaged in the meantime before it happens?

And "civil unions" don't accomplish this next-of-kin status; it's still in the end just one more way to keep gays "not really married."

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:55:54 UTC | #636370

BeanSlap's Avatar Comment 94 by BeanSlap

sparkasaurusmex,

I think marriage has moved away from being associated with the church. You also have church/religious interpretations that arent oppositional to homosexual marriage. Also the church didnt invent marriage and wouldnt it be nice if they could choose to not marry rather than simply be barred from doing it? Heterosexuals have that right and heterosexuals marry in spite of not believing everything about their churchs belief about men and women in marriage (ex. Catholic church believes women arent supposed to use birth control and that they should never have authority over a male). If I'm not mistaken there are also special rights married couples retain that non-married couples dont?

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 14:49:34 UTC | #636416

BeanSlap's Avatar Comment 95 by BeanSlap

keymaker,

"No as I said before, since homosexuality offers no benefits to the individual over heterosexuality, only disbenefits"

How does homosexuality offer disbenefits? Homosexuals have kids so its not like they cant reproduce. It would only be the societies they exist that try and keep them from havig kids and raising them together if they want. Also if I'm not mistaken I think I've read somewhere that homosexuality DID offer benefits since they could help out more and offer to do things because they werent saddled with kids. Though I think sexuality is far more complex than that. I find it hard to believe that in the ancient cave days when male "cavemen" would raid other tribes of cavepeople and steal their women that lesbians really had a choice in not reproducing. Technically I also dont see why one or the other couldnt still have babies from their own bodies but just raise them as their own with their partner? To me I think thats more dependent upon the society in which they live rather than anything inherent in evolution.

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 14:58:05 UTC | #636421

BeanSlap's Avatar Comment 96 by BeanSlap

"could care less what people do provided they don't put a gun in my face. If Gays are free to associate and do what they like to do, then I should be free to dislike what they do..."

But dont atheists do this to? WE have special protections as well and plenty of religious who resent it because they would love to not hire us.

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:01:38 UTC | #636423

Cormac's Avatar Comment 97 by Cormac

Hit your employer with a bullying and discrimination lawsuit, and name her as the abuser. That'll soften her cough. If you're in Europe, you'll find grounds under EU Law.

(I don't really mean this - just employ satire and piss-taking - much more satisfying).

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:49:34 UTC | #636439

keymaker's Avatar Comment 98 by keymaker

How does homosexuality offer disbenefits? Homosexuals have kids so its not like they cant reproduce.

Well the methods used are more complex and more risky than natural coitus between parents which is why they're a last resort for heterosexual parents... homosexuals however are condemned to those methods, or to desist. Other disbenefits appear to include some level of social disapproval, feelings of guilt and high suicide rates.

I think I've read somewhere that homosexuality DID offer benefits since they could help out more and offer to do things because they werent saddled with kids.

Insofar that homosexuals feel inhibited from having kids it's a disbenefit because heterosexual are generally free to choose.

km

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:36:28 UTC | #636496

debonnesnouvelles's Avatar Comment 99 by debonnesnouvelles

Comment 80 by Cartomancer :

I second that.

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 20:20:08 UTC | #636529