General Question

Brian1946's avatar

What are some reasons for homophobia besides those based on religious beliefs?

Asked by Brian1946 (19209 points ) September 30th, 2010

Apparently most Americans who oppose gay rights are religious conservatives or ultra-conservatives, and I think that’s true for many people throughout the world.

However, if I remember correctly, homosexuality was illegal in Iron Curtain countries such as Cuba (perhaps it still is there), and the Soviet Union.

What was their reasoning or what were their issues regarding homosexuality?

Does it seem to you that more men than women are anti-gay?
If so, why do you think that is?

It does to me, but I know there are a least a few women who are, such as Anita Bryant.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

114 Answers

marinelife's avatar

I think that some straight men are unsure of their own sexuality and thus are homophobic to distance themselves from any possible homorertoic feelings.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Heteronormativity – the notion that the only ‘right’ way to be is for women and men to be together in order to make more people so that those new people can contribute to the economic affairs of the countries you mention. Apparently, people think that us queers can’t reproduce, but I guess my two kids would beg to differ. Although, the homophobes would probably ignore my identities and just say ‘but you’ve got a vagina and you’ve had sex with a penis, you’re all right by us’...that’s how, I believe, my mother views it and she’s from the ‘Iron Curtain’ country.

Blackberry's avatar

Some just can’t handle knowing that men do it to men, and women do it to women? Of course it seems natural that the penis goes in the vagina, so they saw homosexuality as unnatural.

SundayKittens's avatar

Like almost EVERYTHING that people oppose or hate, it’s lack of exposure and understanding.

Brian1946's avatar

@Blackberry

Do you think that was the real reason for whomever wrote whatever homophobic passages there are in the Bible, or other religious works?

JustmeAman's avatar

I just think that most think that the natural way is the acceptable way.

CMaz's avatar

“Of course it seems natural that the penis goes in the vagina,”

Putting everything aside.
The penis is designed to go into the vagina. The vagina designed to receive it.

But what ever ever works to scratch your back.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ChazMaz Say what you may, but it seems my asshole is designed to receive penis as well.

CMaz's avatar

That is called, scratching your back with what is available.

“but it seems”... Sounds good to me. ;-)

robmandu's avatar

As a political conservative, I for one support rights for homosexuals… they’re people and the U.S. Constitution guarantees rights for all American citizens. I think there is definitely some major confusion drawn between church and state… and at the heart of that debate, I mostly blame politicians who are trained experts in manipulating viewpoint to achieve any particular goal. They tell people what they think they want to hear in order to get elected.

If you’ve even been assigned a position opposite of your own preference in a debate class, you know what I mean.

To take a different tack on this, I cannot help but wonder if the angst against homosexuality expressed in society at large is a result of evolutionary pressures. Homosexuality doesn’t aid the biological imperative for reproduction and hence is something you might expect to see repressed individually and socially. That doesn’t make it right to do so. Human intelligence is likely the key differentiator in that we do possess the ability to rationalize beyond what’s pre-programmed.

liminal's avatar

Misogyny, sometimes. Some view same-sex attraction as the embodiment of the feminine in men and the rejection of the feminine in women and it stirs their unconscious hatred and/or biases against women.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@robmandu Many have suggested that since homosexuality exists in hundreds of other species that it actually does aid multiple biological imperatives that aren’t limited to population control but are more about who can take care of young and other matters – besides, our ‘nuclear family’ paradigm doesn’t even aid the biological imperative, if you ask me. Furthermore, I don’t get why, when people are intolerant of something, it always gets down to biological essentialism but nobody questions why heterosexuality, ahem, was completely unacceptable as a sexuality, as a label not even two centuries ago…when eroticism or sex for pleasure were deviant and abhorrent and religion ruled above biology…speaking of religion and biological essentialism, try telling fanatics that their brains are like that of earlier humans in need of explaining what more progressive brains don’t need to given research into why the brain creates gods and I’d love to hear their rebuttal. All of a sudden, laypeople are biology experts, give me a break. Most people think evolution is monkeys into man and these are the people I have to defend homosexuality based on biology to, as if.

liminal's avatar

@robmandu many suggest that there is an evolutionary pressure towards homosexuality. The v what @Simone_De_Beauvoir and hir fast typing self said =P

Blackberry's avatar

@Brian1946 It’s possible. I feel they took whatever seemed natural and used that to justify making rules. For example, women having kids, and then the baby needing the mother to breast feed, so men were like, “Well, they obviously need to stay at home and in the kitchen, make sure they don’t speak unless spoken to as well…”.

muppetish's avatar

I think a lot of homophobia stems from people thinking that sexuality is an all-encompassing part of our identity. Personally, I couldn’t possibly care less what two consenting adults do in the bedroom. I also do not think that sexuality is the only way to identify people (or even the most important.) The majority of people I know who are against homosexuality, make the sexual identity and actions of other people their business (for whatever reason) and it makes no sense to me.

In my experience, there are just as many women against homosexuality as men – some more vocal about their disapproval of it than others. I have also met non-religious, liberal individuals who are against homosexuality (particularly same-sex marriage and adoption) usually, but not exclusively, because they buy into the “slippery slope” theory that it will to the legalization of polygamous marriages, pedophilia and/or bestiality.

crazyivan's avatar

I think the honest truth is really simple. People are afraid of people that are different than them.

I find it odd that religious conservatives would be so dead set against gay marriage though. Zero chance of an abortion in that household…

Blackberry's avatar

@ChazMaz I know what you mean, but I’m sure it’s also natural for a human to be born with all their arms, legs, and a healthy brain structure, and that doesn’t happen…..

robmandu's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir, I hope I was clear in defining my ignorance when said, “I wonder…” And no, I don’t think people evolved from monkeys. Your rebuttal sounds similarly weighted in a lot of theory, much of which appears aimed at diminishing the personalities you contend with. Maybe that’s why you get so much push back.

Part of my political position is based precisely on the fact that I know I’m ignorant of the details about individuals and their lives. Indeed, I believe that’s why the Constitution is written they way it is, specifically to protect individual liberty.

CMaz's avatar

“but I’m sure it’s also natural for a human to be born with all their arms, legs, and a healthy brain structure, and that doesn’t happen…..”

Are you saying that homosexuality is a birth defect?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@robmandu I didn’t mean you when I said people believe that – most of my response wasn’t directed at you, just that your words inspired these thoughts in me. In terms of rebuttals, I don’t have to have any but if I must and they must be of a biological nature, I’d rather play ‘em with people who know what they’re talking about, rather than with people who don’t but read a TIME magazine headline here and there thinking they now know.
@ChazMaz Wouldn’t you love that?

CMaz's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – See it is that negative ignorance that takes the intelligence out of what hopefully can be an intelligent conversation.
For EVERYONE. Not just the special chosen few torch carriers.

What I would love, is the honest truth. That only coming from OPEN and honest communication.
That is all. Without bullying and/or bitch slapping.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ChazMaz There is no way to get at the honest truth as in whether or not it’s a ‘birth defect’ because it’s not only genes – none of our ‘conditions’ are, really. And whatever honest truth you will find, what does it matter? What does it matter what sexuality is or isn’t – does it mean you can then be freely homophobic without ‘bitch slapping’ by a torch carrier like me? Besides, let me not remind you of the many threads where your comments re: homosexuality were anything but indicative of open communication or objectivity.

Blackberry's avatar

@ChazMaz No, it just shows the diversity of our species, in my opinion.

Ivan's avatar

I once overheard a discussion amongst a teacher and her students (7th graders, I think) about homosexuality. All of the (vocal) students said that homosexuality was “wrong”. When asked why, all that they could come up with was the whole “the penis goes in the vagina, that’s just how it works” thing. Now, 7th graders are certainly old enough to be influenced by their parents and churches, but something here suggests to me that the aversion to homosexuals is somewhat innate.

Even if, as @Simone_De_Beauvoir suggests, homosexuality does aid in evolution, that doesn’t mean we aren’t biologically opposed to it. After all, the byproducts of evolution aren’t aware of each others’ existence. It seems as though evolution has found a percentage (10% or so) of individuals who should be homosexual. That still means that 90% of the individuals born are not homosexual. So if evolution were to give us some sort of “hate gays” gene, there wouldn’t be a way for it to say “hate gays only 90% of the time” or something. It either says “hate gays” or “don’t hate gays”. Since, on the whole, it’s “better” for the species to be made up of more heterosexuals than homosexuals, it’s more efficient for us to just oppose homosexuality.

But I could be wrong.

CMaz's avatar

SO you do not know. But for some reason you can make the rules?

And I did not imply birth defect. I was asking for reason to the statement made.

But you still feel it is OK to avoid direct answers to good questions, by in fact bitch slapping and name calling.

I get, if I do not agree with you, THAT makes me a homophobe. And honestly, I am not disagreeing. I just want to know. But, I am removed (and easier to do so) from having any credibility to my TRUTHFUL and truly honest desire to know.

Because I do not follow your idea of what is right biased on you do not know.

Sure a good way to cut through all the red tape.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ChazMaz The only rules I’m making (if any, at all) is that you can’t sit there and think there is something wrong with me because you’re uncomfortable about same-sex sex and no, I never called you a homophobe and what makes a person a homophobe isn’t whether or not they agree with me but whether or not they think homosexuals are abnormal. So what do you desire to know? Where this ‘disorder’ comes from? Why? So that you can help people to not get it – don’t worry, there are idiot mothers out there as is getting themselves injected with substances while pregnant because idiot doctors told them it’d make their fetuses feminine and straight when they grow up.

CMaz's avatar

“No, it just shows the diversity of our species”

I am all for diversity. But a round peg is best designed to fit a round hole. But by all mean you can use it to keep a door open.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ChazMaz So then it’s all about one’s ability to reproduce that you’re worried about – because if it’s designed for each other, it’s only to aid in getting someone pregnant, yes?

CMaz's avatar

“is that you can’t sit there and think there is something wrong with me”

Finally we get to the insecurity.

This is not or was ever about right or wrong. Get that out of your mind.

It is about how and why things work the way they do. That is all.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ChazMaz I don’t have an insecurity, I know there’s nothing wrong with me, duh. I only use ‘I’ statements so that we can keep it to a person you know.

tinyfaery's avatar

If hating homosexuals is innate then all people would be homophobes.

Jude's avatar

Fear and Ignorance.

JustmeAman's avatar

Hate is an awfully strong word. I don’t think many hate homosexuals. You can disagree with the lifestyle but not hate them.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@JustmeAman Is that better, somehow?

robmandu's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir, isn’t that what you do, just from the opposite viewpoint?

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

I agree with the fear and ignorance being part of it, but how do we explain the outspoken critics that get outted at some point.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@robmandu Can you be more explicit as to what this opposite viewpoint is? I certainly have no qualms with the heterosexual species ~ – nor do I think sexuality is about ‘lifestyles’.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Adirondackwannabe Internalized homophobia.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir fear of admitting it to themselves?

Blackberry's avatar

I don’t know if this is similar, but some will say they don’t have any problems with a certain race, but they also don’t want their son or daughter dating someone of a different race. It doesn’t seem logical to partly disagree with a lifestyle or group of people.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Adirondackwannabe They were raised to think it’s wrong and when they know they have desire for what they think is wrong, they have to fight it and the more public the fight the better.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

@Blackberry I agree. disagreement implies thinking it’s wrong, in my mind. I think just not choosing would be better than disagreeing.

wundayatta's avatar

I didn’t read everything, so I apologize if I am repeating something.

The “yuck” factor. For some people, there’s a visceral disgust at the idea of certain acts. So, for example, a guy might think sucking someone else’s cock is really disgusting. Or demeaning. That’s why “cocksucker” is an epithet. They would never, ever want anyone else’s cock to be near their faces, much less in their mouths.

Men often use penises as a kind of domination thing. Sure there is the size competition, but there’s also the idea of peeing on someone as a sign of domination. That also relates to the yuck factor: why would you want someone’s pee thing in your mouth?

Of course, it doesn’t apply to women, but that’s another topic.

Then there’s ass fucking. Once again, that is something that a lot of men use as a sign of domination. To be fucked up the ass is to be totally dominated. There is nothing more degrading that a man could do to another man.

So why on earth would any man voluntarily do it? How could they even like it? Shudder. It’s just too yucky to imagine.

I know those were the thoughts that went through my head when I first found out that such practices and people who engaged in those practices existed. It was very weird to find out that my first roommate in college was gay. He must have known what straight guys think, because he said, “Don’t worry. I won’t be coming after you.” Really. I was thinking that.

So that’s another thing—this idea that if someone is gay, they will go after anyone. Somehow they are ravening sexaholics. They want to demean every man they see. It’s a gut thing, not a clear thought. But those are the images that fearful people have, I think.

There was the night when I had a date. I came home to find another man kneeling at the side of my roommates bed. I could see that much in the darkness, although I couldn’t see much else. I quickly backed out and went to sit in the living room. After a while, some guy I didn’t know (and didn’t really look at) came out of our room and scuttled out the door.

My roommate came out to find me, and said, “I’m sorry about that. I thought you’d be out all night.”

As if! I don’t know. Maybe men have an easier time with other men—getting hooked up. In those days, well, I was still a virgin. I had no idea if I would ever lose my virginity and I wanted to, very badly. If I were looking for someone now, I’m sure it would be just as difficult as it was back then.

So there’s another thing. This idea that homosexuals are so profligate, fucking anything that moves practically. Even though I knew better by then, imagining what went on in the bath houses in NYC—fuck! asking my gay friends what went on—gave me a creepy feeling. Part of me was jealous and part of me was creeped out. By that time, I was more creeped out by the anonymity than by what they were actually doing.

Anyway, I think people tend to underestimate the strength of this visceral reaction. I think the religious and social prohibitions on the behavior come from this knee-jerk reaction. People are gay or they aren’t. Unless they know gay people and come to understand something about them, I think straight people will be disgusted without even thinking about it.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@wundayatta I do often wonder why some men who would never want cock near their mouths think it’s a grand idea to put it into women’s faces.

wundayatta's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Ask a question, and I will endeavor to answer. It’s a paradox, isn’t it?

robmandu's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir, what don’t you understand? Guys who aren’t gay don’t want to suck cock. And it’s not unexpected that girls who are straight – or swing both ways – actually like to take a cock in their mouths. Is that really a shocker? What’s your point?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@robmandu I get that they don’t want to suck cock but I don’t get the disgust associated with it or the epithet ‘cocksucker’ being thrown around as an insult. If a person simply wasn’t into something, they’d have no strong feelings about it either way.
@wundayatta – I have more important questions to ask. I know why some men have discomfort with dicks.

DominicX's avatar

Human nature to hate/fear what goes against that which is thought of as “normal”. Biologically speaking, men and women have sex to procreate, sex’s original purpose, and homosexuals do not do this. Additionally, homosexuality is not that common. It’s also human nature to hate/fear what is uncommon.

These reasons are behind the religious reasons. Today it’s been mutated into a position where people don’t even understand why it’s “wrong”, they just parrot what the Bible says. “The Bible says it’s wrong, so it’s wrong”. But why does the Bible say it’s wrong? It’s for the reasons I listed above. The original authors of the Bible wanted to create rules that encompassed the natural order, what was “usual” and things that went against that (such as homosexuality) were excluded. This exclusion has translated into hatred over the centuries.

There are additional reasons, of course, that help fuel this hatred for this uncommon unusual orientation. Most of these are just my theories, but I think that men naturally fear being in a submissive sexual role and homosexuality presents them with the possibility of this. Homosexuality is a threat to masculinity since it can place men in a submissive sexual role. The high incidence of AIDS/HIV among gay men strengthens this aversion as well. Then there is the “yuck” factor that @wundayatta mentioned. Anal sex in particular contributes to this. Even I, as a homosexual, am not fond of anal sex. I can understand people being disgusted by the idea of it. Anal sex is commonly associated with homosexuals and thus this “gross” factor strengthens the aversion to homosexuality along with whatever innate evolutionary aversion there may be as @Ivan mentioned or the natural instinct to avoid/fear/hate that which is unusual or uncommon.

From my experience, most homophobes don’t really understand their own position. The religious ones just parrot the Bible and don’t think about why the Bible says what it says and the non-religious ones just think “eww gross” or “but penis goes in vagina” and leave it at that. Why “penis goes in vagina” has to mean that homosexuality is wrong is what I don’t understand. The penis doesn’t belong in the mouth for procreation and yet plenty of straight people have oral sex; why don’t they consider that “wrong”?

robmandu's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir, “cocksucker” is an epithet based on derogatory homosexual reference, which we all know is a long-time tradition throughout history.

People curse all the time to express strong feelings about something or someone, without necessarily meaning the definitions of the words they use. Example, people say “godammit” all the time, without really truly wanting some god to damn some thing. Same goes for “motherfucker”... you can view it as derogatory against procreation, if you’re so inclined.

Are you really this nitpicky? You’re so invested in this fight for equal sexual/gender treatment, you might need to take step back. You can’t see the forest for the trees. Just my opinion.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@robmandu I was not being nitpicky w/my original comment to @wundayatta, just musing about, talking with him and he got my point. The etymology of the word ‘cocksucker’ has nothing to do with my fight for equal sexual/gender treatment, but anyway… I salute that in your fight for same, you can see the forest for the trees.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
talljasperman's avatar

fear of being sexually assaulted in prison?

BarnacleBill's avatar

I think even in the bible, the admonishments against homosexuality can be traced back to the fact that marriages were political alliances between families. Women were chattel to be exchanged for goat and sheep as part of a contract between families. People didn’t marry for love. Love is a renaissance period prerequisite to marriage, if that. The bible had to stone people who had sex outside of marriage or gay sex in order to preserve the social order.

For a long time, people were conditioned to the idea that marriage was necessary in order to have children. Only tramps, sluts and whores had sex outside of marriage, and had children. Thankfully, we’ve let loose of that notion, and moved away from shotgun weddings. However, as a society, we still condition our children that way, in order to preserve the status quo, right or wrong.

When I was growing up, there were people who would not date me because my parents were divorced. My best friend was not allowed by her Baptist husband to be a bridesmaid in my Catholic wedding. He truly thought God would strike her dead if she set foot in a Catholic church. Her third son married a Catholic, so I feel there was some justice in the long run.

palerider's avatar

I think the premise of your question is wrong. Homophobia is the fear of a homosexual or homosexuality. Most people, I would think, aren’t afraid of homosexuality, but have a strong distaste and dislike of the chosen sexual act(s) and believe it is vulgar and repulsive.

Blackberry's avatar

@palerider Those sexual acts are a part of homosexuality…...

palerider's avatar

@blackberry and your point is?

BarnacleBill's avatar

I could never figure out how men could want to have anal sex with a female partner but would militant about finding it distasteful with a man.

Blackberry's avatar

@palerider Well, it’s not a big deal I guess, but you said people may not fear homosexuality, but just may not like the homosexual sex acts lol. Like if I said people don’t fear interracial relationships, but just despise interracial sex….

palerider's avatar

fear and dislike/disgust are two separate emotions to most people.

DominicX's avatar

@palerider

Not according to the dictionary. The word “homophobia” has taken on a new meaning. Language changes.

palerider's avatar

people of the often offended persuasion regularly (try to) change the meaning of a word or phrase to suit their ideology, that doesn’t make it so. homo=same phobia=fear

progressive(early 1900s) was changed to liberal when a negative connotation was associated with it. liberal is now passe’ and it is changing back to progressive. numerous other examples.

DominicX's avatar

@palerider

So? People use “homophobia” to mean “dislike of homosexuality” and that’s all that matters. What matters is what people say and use words to mean, not what they should use words to mean. The word “Japanophobia” was used to refer to the hatred of the Japanese during World War II.

And by what you’re saying, all “homophobia” should mean is “fear of same”. So someone afraid of having the same computer as someone else should be “homophobic”. Words don’t always mean what their etymology literally means and the definitions of words change over time. There is no other word to mean “one who dislikes homosexuality”, thus “homophobia” became the word used for that purpose.

muppetish's avatar

@palerider The etymology behind the word “homophobia” was discussed ad nauseum in this post. The origin of the word does not overpower the current use of the word.

palerider's avatar

actually that is the point. the usage is wrong, hence the premise of the question is wrong.
what you are saying is that if i a few people start calling the color blue, haagen-daaz, then from now on that is the correct word? or say like the dispute over the word is. it all depends on what the definition of the word is, is your honor….classic. by all means have at it, just like the sexual acts of homosexuality, not all people are gonna welcome your “interpretation” of the word either.

Jabe73's avatar

It depends on the type of people that are around someone. If you are used to being around a bunch of conservative roughnecks where admitting that there is anything positive about being gay or even admitting you are gay yourself around them usually will not, lets just say make your life any easier. People are afraid of openly opposing the popular view. This is how homophobia really grows.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
MissAnthrope's avatar

@Ivan – Children are not raised in a vacuum. Any child taught basic birds and bees education has been told it takes a man and a woman to make a baby. So, because those kids have been taught that and likely been exposed to only male-female couples, they would think the idea strange. If you had a classroom full of kids raised by gay parents or with exposure to different types of parent couples, they would be far less likely to think it odd.

It all boils down to what you’re taught and what you’re exposed to. Parents’ views and thoughts on these matter tend to get handed down, too. Kids learn a lot from how their parents behave.

mammal's avatar

homosexuality isn’t illegal in Cuba, in fact homophobia is illegal, Castro admitted recently that he takes responsibility for the former persecution of homosexuals, but it wasn’t a personal prejudice, just typical of the epoch. Anyway that era was a dark and dismal episode in the history of the revolution, thankfully now over.

Brian1946's avatar

@mammal

My information about Cuba on gay rights was from a headline that I saw in 1965, so thanks for the long-time coming update.

mammal's avatar

@Brian1946 Cuba is poorly presented by mainstream western media, which invariably obsesses over the negatives, rarely if ever, offering worthwhile observations with regards to the socially progressive accomplishments.

CMaz's avatar

@MissAnthrope – I do not get your point.

If you keep the birds and bees discussion to its intent mechanics. Leaving out agenda.
No matter how you cut it. It takes a man (mans sperm) and a woman (woman’s uterus) to make a baby.

liminal's avatar

@ChazMaz I think I get her point. It is most likely that a child’s guardians or parents will teach about sex in two ways 1) as a reflection of their own experience and 2) that it is about procreation and loving a mate. Given a majority of families are of the traditional kind, a majority of children expect others to be the same.  Often, children find it odd (if not wrong) when others are not like them (for example, “I hate Johnny he thinks pokeman is stupid”) unless taught differently.  Yet, if children were taught about the reality that it no longer takes heterosexual coupling to make a baby, let alone a family, those children would be more likely to find the same-sex oriented couple different like the rest of us rather than ‘weird’ or ‘wrong’.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ChazMaz Insisting that sperm and eggs meet only to make babies is an agenda, as well. It’s just disguised. There are oftentimes when no baby is made and that’s taken for granted as acceptable but when same sex people have sex, it’s just as acceptable that no baby is made and (and I feel like we’ve had a discussion on this before, you and I) kids, teens, people need to know there are other ways of being out there besides the default straight one so that they don’t spend entire lives thinking there is nothing wrong with privilege being attached to straightness and none to homosexuality.

CMaz's avatar

“Insisting that sperm and eggs meet only to make babies is an agenda”
No, it is a biological fact. That any doctor would agree with. If you choose to not use them in that way. That is your choice. :-)

A car has wheels and a motor. It gets you from point A to point B. That is its design and its intent.
Its color, its make and model. And, any other upgrades. Is personal.
Do what you wish with that transportation device. Does not change what its intent was for.

Cars do not exist because someone wanted to express their appreciation for the color red.
But, you are more then welcome to bury it in the back yard and plant flowers in it.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ChazMaz I know what biological facts are, thanks – I have never said I don’t recognize biology or what’s happening, physiologically so don’t put conclusions into my mouth. Same-sex sex is, too, a biological fact (one I happened to commit just a bit ago) and since it exists (no matter how much you wish it wouldn’t) it must be discussed so that teenagers who are queer can be educated, properly. You can talk about design and function and cars and gears all you want – people are not machines and sexuality is more complex (for everyone) than babies. And, in general, I hope you’re not having sex in your life, like ever, unless you plan on making babies because that’s quite antithetical to what sex is supposed to do you know, according to you.

CMaz's avatar

“people are not machines”

Sure they are. Biological machines.

See, you get defensive again. I am not refering to anying being wrong. You might not be saying it. But you keep going in that direction.

We all do plenty of things that are “wrong”. Hopefully we are mature enought to accept it and say, “so what”. For the most part.

Because I like to fuck my woman in the ass. I would be ignorant to come to the conclusion or try to sell the idea that my cock was made to be put in someones ass. I will admit I like it, that being an act of responsibility for my actions. I am a grown up. No need for insecurity or hangups.

But, it does not change what my penis’s is for.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ChazMaz So are queer people, then…biological machines…and since you do have sex for pleasure and not for what it’s intended for, what is this whole discussion about – recognizing fucntions of sex doesn’t preclude one from recognizing that different sexualities exist and that sex isn’t always about reproduction.

robmandu's avatar

Sex – even for people of a strict religious background – is indeed intended for pleasure, too.

Judeo-Christian folks point to the book of the Song of Solomon in the Bible specific to that point.

So while I understand that @Simone_De_Beauvoir is challenging her perception of @ChazMaz‘s assertions, I thought it would help to be clear that the point being argued isn’t backed up by certain religious texts.

It’s interesting how easy it is for us – all of us, me too – to get riled up about a position that is not correctly portrayed or understood.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@robmandu Okay, so good..I think it goes along with my views…I really don’t think people ever thought of sex as only for babies…I never implied that religion led to that conclusion.

CMaz's avatar

“the point being argued isn’t backed up by certain religious texts.”

Yea, lets bring 2,000 year old opinions into the discussion. lol

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ChazMaz I don’t know, I think he was trying to discredit me, not you :)

CMaz's avatar

Better you then me. LOL

Just kidding. ;-)

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ChazMaz eh, it’s all good.

CMaz's avatar

See, that is cool. IT IS all good. ;-)

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir @ChazMaz You two amaze me how you can have such strong opinions and still show each other all the respect while discussing this stuff or other issues. Nicely done.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Adirondackwannabe Like strong rivers, we ebb and flow.

CMaz's avatar

Cant learn if you hold back.

And @Simone_De_Beauvoir is so right.

About the river thing. ;-)

MissAnthrope's avatar

@ChazMaz – I wasn’t denying the fact that basic birds n’ bees covers the biological norm. I have no issue whatsoever saying the vagina was intended for a penis, and in turn, for making babies. That wasn’t my point at all.. @liminal got my back, though.

@Ivan said he thought aversion to homosexuality was ‘innate’. I disagree, in that I think aversion to homosexuality is a product of what one is taught and is exposed to. My point, using @Ivan‘s example of having a classroom of middle schoolers, is that what that class says regarding homosexuality is entirely dependent on where they live, what their parents have taught them, what other kinds of adult couples/parents they have been exposed to, etc. I guarantee if you went into a classroom in Oakland or Berkeley, kids would be FAR less likely to say homosexuality is weird. Why? Because they have grown up in a tolerant community that welcomes gay people, some of their classmates have gay parents, and in short, they have been exposed to different kinds of “normal” than, say, a kid growing up in Alabama.

My sister is 10 and has grown up in a tiny village that swells to a max population of 1500 during the tourist season. I know of one lesbian in the village, but actually, she lives in the nearest city during off-season. So, there are almost no gay people there. I have been careful to not push any “agenda” on my sister, I didn’t want to force it, didn’t want to preach, or anything like that. I just wanted it to happen organically, so I would answer her questions honestly and let her figure it out gradually.

My mom planned a school year for my sister (2009–2010) in Oakland. My sister had finally just put the last pieces of the puzzle together the summer before she left for CA and figured out I was gay. She was incredibly weirded out, which kind of felt like a blow to my stomach. I’d spent so much time subtly preparing her for the knowledge, and when it finally came, you should have seen her face. :\

So, I told her: The only reason you think it’s weird is because you live in this little village and you don’t know any gay people. When you go to Oakland, you’ll see that it IS normal, just a different kind of normal. And you know what? After a school year in Oakland, she was exposed to all sorts of people, American culture, and it was so good for her. I checked back in with her after the year was over.

Me: So, now that you spent a year in Oakland, do you think gay people are weird?
Her: Ummmmmmmm… nope!
Me: Do you remember last summer, right before you left for America, how I asked you if you thought gay people were weird, and you said yes?
Her: (slightly exasperated) Yes Alena, but then, I was nine.

Anyway, since she was exposed to it and no one in her surroundings ever gave a hint of thinking it was weird, she no longer thinks it’s weird.

Ivan's avatar

@MissAnthrope

I’m willing to accept that. A formal study would be very interesting, though.

marymaryquitecontrary's avatar

A good reason is if a man doesn’t like his buddies trying to slip something up their butts.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@marymaryquitecontrary I’m sorry, you said good…

marymaryquitecontrary's avatar

Yes, a good reason to be cautious is to avoid something that one does not want to happen.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@marymaryquitecontrary I still don’t understand. Do you have a story where a guy’s gay friends tried sticking something up his butt? Like as in a prank?

marymaryquitecontrary's avatar

Well, where would you like to start? Let’s start with the US Penal system. Prisoners of course should be not only housed, but also protected from harm, yet 70,000 of them are sexually abused every year. Who says? Human Rights Watch says.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/12/15/us-federal-statistics-show-widespread-prison-rape
This is not a prank, not friends trying to surprise them, this is homosexual rape.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@marymaryquitecontrary Okay, when you say buddies..that doesn’t usually (not to me anyway) mean ‘prison inmates who rape you’...that being said, I don’t get how prison rape is a reason against homosexuality any more than rape is a reason against heterosexuality.

tinyfaery's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Oh there you go making sense, again.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@tinyfaery It’s like a disorder – must be associated with abnormal levels of the male hormones in my female brain.

marymaryquitecontrary's avatar

Well, while “buddy” might be used faceciously here, you might reasonably call the guy in the cell with another guy, a “roommate” or a “cellmate.” “Mate” is a British term for a “friend.” You live with this person though you would not otherwise choose to. And yes, you might well be raped by this person. Unfortunately, as the statistics show, this is not a rare occurrence. Should one be afraid of this happening? Yes, I think so. Is it likely to happen? Most certainly. So one who is afraid of being homosexually raped might reasonably be called homophobic, yet we can’t call them paranoid. Afraid of homosexual rape? Yes. Homophobic? yes. Reasonable? Yes. what part of this do you have a problem with?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@marymaryquitecontrary I am following you (though a lot of what you are talking about is off-topic) up until the point where you, again, call the fear of being raped by cellmates who are of the same sex homophobia…you know why it’s not homophobia?...because they wouldn’t want to (if they’re straight) have sex with men when free and willing either…

Brian1946's avatar

@marymaryquitecontrary

That’s being afraid of rape.
If a women is raped by a man, that doesn’t mean that she starts categorically hating or fearing heterosexuals

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Brian1946 Seriously, am I saying it wrong? geez

Brian1946's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir

Nope. I think we’ve covered all conceivable bases as of now.

marymaryquitecontrary's avatar

If these same men wouldn’t mind being ravaged by a woman, then what is at issue is the homosexual nature of the rape. Why don’t you ask them if they have a preference? And it’s not off topic: Need I remind you that the question asks about homo: man/same sex… phobia: fear.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@marymaryquitecontrary Oh, I see…you also don’t think a woman can rape a man? Awesome. And thanks for defining that for me…man, I was like ‘what is that word?’

marymaryquitecontrary's avatar

I did start the sentence with the word “if”

mattbrowne's avatar

It could also be a tribal instinct associated with fear of becoming too small or even extinct. Who will hunt the mammoths and feed and care for the elderly? Having many children was key. During the ice age people didn’t live in larger villages or towns. They lived in small groups. Today the situation is different.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Even the Iron Curtain countries, in spite of their claims of Atheism, built their deepest roots on Biblical teaching, whether they acknowledged it or not.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Just curious…how- could a woman rape a man? In the literal sense, I mean. I can see this was raging while I was gone but…just curious

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Dutchess_III That’s surprising because a lot of my friends and I know men who have been sexually abused an/or raped by women in their lives. Anyway, since I don’t feel comfortable sharing their stories, you can read stuff on bottom here.

Brian1946's avatar

According to Omar G. Encarnación, professor of political studies at Bard College and the author of Latin America’s Gay Rights Revolution, traditional Marxist thought considered homosexuality ”...as some sort of ultimate bourgeois decadence”.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther