Demonizing people

That is ridiculous.

Someone who "believes she deserves her abuse" does have a "problem with her beliefs" to an extent that counseling/therapy is warranted. Such beliefs very much do rely on acceptance of opinion, granted often enforced through violence/coercion.

Lack of Self-esteem: The woman may come to believe that she somehow deserves the abuse to which she has been subjected (she has been told this repeatedly by her partner). - http://www.domesticabuseshelter.org/InfoDomesticViolence.htm#why​

Non sequitur. Who said anything about an opinion causing others to act differently? You also seem to be making a red herring comparison of opinion and action.

I just said that I am not claiming causation, only correlation. And I think African-Americans who were told where they could or could not sit, eat, piss, etc. would disagree about homosexual discrimination being worse.

So they have absolutely no choice or responsibility for their own actions?

Wrong can be mistaken, whether by irrationality, ignorance, etc., while immoral usually denotes a measure of malicious or knowing intent. Remember, you said "If you judge a behavior as immoral, then you judge the practitioner of that behavior as immoral." See the difference yet? "Wrong" can occur without assuming any significant character defect in the individual, where "immoral" usually implies an intent which could.

There is very clear evidence that those behaviors are most strongly correlated with homosexuality. Are you disputing that?

Nonsense. You can address the erroneous beliefs of people without any address directly to the catalyst itself. Otherwise all therapy/counseling would require including an ever-widening sphere of influences (possibly including the victim having to confront the abuser or rapist, adding to the trauma). Nothing about this practical consideration does anything to blame the victim.

My utilitarian normative ethics only require that I hold myself to that standard, as it is exemplified by the Golden Rule (which only indicates what I "ought to" do unto others, not what I "ought to" make them do or not).

What "mountains of research"? I have given you both evidence supporting what I said AND evidence against what you assume. Until you can bother to attempt likewise, you have no substantial argument.

Really? Inconclusive evidence and a lots of theories?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again, which you keep ignoring, the "vast majority" of the population are heterosexual, so that fact is trivial. And I have already said I equally condemn the same behaviors in heterosexuals (but you have to ignore that to demonize me).

Cite your sources. Here, like this:

Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections. MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available.

In 2010, white MSM continued to account for the largest number of new HIV infections (11,200), by transmission category, followed closely by black MSM (10,600). - http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/​

Your statistics seem to be more outdated: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/23/AR2010092306828.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No it isn't trivial that aids is a disease of the majority and not a minority. In fact it refutes your whole attempt to stereotype gay men as exclusive victims of HIV. So as often as you bring up the skewed stats of gays only in the U.S, I will counter them with the real situation as it is globally.

Only in the U.S. Not globally. But then you knew that didn't ya?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So no sources to cite, huh? "Gay men as exclusive victims of HIV" is a straw man. I have never denied heterosexual HIV transmission. You are ignoring the percentages by demographic.

Huh, you might want to see the bolded bits in the post you quoted. You know, the one you replied to.

Just as there is higher risk of harm, there is more wrong.

 

Oh wait, here are some worldwide statistics from the WHO:

There has been a recent resurgence of HIV infection among men who have sex with men, particularly in industrialized countries. Data are also emerging of new or newly identified HIV epidemics among men who have sex with men in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America. Generally, men who have sex with men are nearly 20 times more likely to be infected with HIV than general populations. HIV infection rates among transgender people range between 8–68% depending on the country or region. - http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2011/hiv_20110621/en/​

In case you missed it, "Generally, men who have sex with men are nearly 20 times more likely to be infected with HIV than general populations."

There is your direct comparison of demographic percentages, and worldwide to boot.

 

Syne ,

Homosexuality is simply an arbitrary characterization of a portion of the human to human attractivity spectrum.

Any given person will find another person attractive or unattractive according to a vast set of criteria. For example one man might find the female ass very attractive, another prefers legs, another breasts, face, poise, height, skin color, emotional state, intellect, etc. The man to woman criteria can also range from the very voluptuous to the nubile and boyish. But there is no essential limitation to why that range should not extend across the gender boundary to actual boys, men and all their various male physical characteristics.

Within the realm of heterosexual relationships there is also a vast range of fetishes, some quite extreme, bizarre, dangerous, crude, brutal, exquisite, etc. At the intellectual level each gender has many gender specific traits that some will find attractive and some otherwise by either gender. One gender may simply feel more comfortable with those of the same gender and feel threatened by the opposite, and that regardless of any physical attraction.

I could perhaps guess at probable genetic traits and mutations that might explain the vast range of criteria for attractiveness, but really I don’t know enough about the relevant science. But I have seen enough of life and real world relationships to be no longer surprised at what people find attractive and what they do not.

So to take a position that one type or set of attractiveness criteria is wrong when compared with another seems to be quite confusing and irrationally judgmental.

The population of the planet is now so large that propagation of the species through further childbirth could be considered more detrimental than helpful. So an ability or inability to reproduce should no longer be considered a factor in relationship types. There are also a large number of unwanted children which potentially permits same gender couples to adopt if they so wish.

It seems it is long overdue that we stop seeing people as separate genders but instead just people with a vast variety of desires, wishes, personalities, etc. From that huge pool if two people find in each other characteristics with which they find comfortable, regardless of gender, then why should that ever be considered wrong?

 

I would add to what Bells & Cris said the fact that all of this is virtual. It's just thoughts. These particular thoughts (regardless of preference) are genetically endowed. Sexual reproduction was an innovation at the Cambrian explosion. It enabled a whole new syndrome for developing variations, aside from random mutation. Now a second order type of selection could take place--sexual selection, which is way better than selection by the niche in the sense that the organism itself "becomes the niche". The genetic variability afforded by this allow the "nich-organism" to change the selection parameters itself without waiting for the physical niche to change.

That allows for all kinds of things to happen--like rams with antlers 20 feet across, or the zany rituals of the blue-footed boobies, or the bower birds and so on. These traits and behaviors have a windfall benefit. They bond individuals to the family or community, which gives rise to all other kinds of behaviors, including those we enshrine, like altruism and empathy. Extrapolate on this and you get all of the attitudes which give rise to human ethics. They are all rooted in the successful bonding of individuals to the group.

The sexual attraction trait then is at the root of everything we hold sacred, at least if we trace it biologically like this. Oddly enough, the human capacity to develop taboos --- which evolved from a continuation of ways to keep the group bonded -- are purely cultural artifacts. They are entirely removed from the process of natural selection. (There may be a few rare cases where an entire tribe or civilization was wiped out on account of cultural attitudes or rituals, I suppose.)

The irony of all of this is that homophobia is itself an attitude that was engendered through acculturation stemming from the traits which reinforce bonding. And yet it does exactly the opposite. It marginalizes innocent people. It disrupts society. It wastes resources. By all the evidence, homophobia is the destructive influence that damages the group. Hence the altruistic and empathetic nature espoused by liberalism rises to meet this adversity and hold it in check. Harmony is restored (someday anyway). Life goes on, the species thrives, and we move on to fix the next problem that confronts us.

That's progress. It's natural.

 

Well duh. But since you've defined these traits as "homosexual," it's the argument you're stuck with.

But that isn't "the" problem. The problem is the abuse and the abuser, not the woman who has been conditioned to believe she deserves the abuse. Saying the problem is here, again, absolves the abuser of any responsibility and blames the victim for her own abuse.

You did. You said yourself that an opinion can be harmful if the person being opined about comes to believe the opinion is true. And let's not pretend that opinions don't influence actions, because that would be stupid. Would you argue that a negative opinion of homosexuals has caused no action? By all means, let's hear that one.

Nonsense. You've defined these traits as being homosexual in nature, so yes, you're claiming causation. You've also failed to demonstrate correlation, since all of the traits exist in heterosexuals. You've also chosen to ignore the causes of the higher prevalence of these traits in homosexuals, retreating behind the red herring "Do they have no choice over their actions?"

Who said homosexual discrimination was worse? I said discrimination between groups was necessarily dissimilar, not that one was worse than the other.

Here we go again.

You're creating a false dilemma. Without moral context, "wrong" has no meaning and therefore serves no purpose. You're retreating from your own argument again.

Of course I'm disputing that. You're attempting to argue that one has something to do with the other, even if one does not cause the other; that's what correlation means. You're suggesting a commonality there that simply isn't present.

But to the point, you have suggested causation when you classified such traits and behaviors as "homosexual." You've literally defined these things in the context of homosexuality, so you're not fooling anyone when you say you've made no such claims.

If you had any knowledge of such counseling, you'd know that the catalyst must be addressed, otherwise no progress can be made. There would be no way to address this misapprehension without proper context; ie, it was the abuser who conditioned you to believe this as a means of controlling your response. I have no clue where you get the idea that this causes an infinite regression, or that it would possibly result in a confrontation with the abuser; neither of those scenarios make any sense.

I don't know where you get the idea that utilitarian ethics put you in a bubble, but this is not the case. Utilitarian ethics is merely a means of identifying moral and immoral behavior; it does not permit the illogical assertion that moral value judgments carry no "oughts." (and again with the "make" strawman)

LOL! You've provided a series of links to disputed Wikipedia articles, representing what amounts to a lone dissenting opinion. If you want to know what I base my arguments on, look at virtually any other research on the matter.

That is a weak misrepresentation of his post.

It's not surprising, also, that you hold everyone else to higher standards than you hold yourself. For things you believe in--such as the idea that homosexual behavior causes AIDS, mental illness, promiscuity, etc.--you need only the vaguest suggestion that the two are related to accept it as fact, even going so far as to ignore every other indicator if it disagrees. When someone proposes an alternative to your beliefs, however, you demand inconclusive evidence. For example, your denial of homosexuality being a condition of birth despite virtually all evidence suggesting that it is. You'll accept other ideas without any conclusive findings, but you'll refuse others without it. This smacks of preconception.

 

I think it is wrong for one guy to stick his hangy down thingy into the back end of another guy.

that being said, since I think it is wrong means only that I would never do that.

do I think homosexuality in general is wrong?
I have met several homosexuals (I used to live in california, cant avoid knowing one) and off all the homosexuals I have met I would say maybe 1 in 100 are the type that I would consider 'wrong' and even through my discussions with other homosexuals as to that definition of the one, they also agree that that type is wrong..(im talking the flamboyant, flaming in your face type) most keep it on the downlow, its nobodies business to know about their sex lives.
so I would say no, being homosexual is not wrong..

is there a choice in being homosexual?
I think genetics plays a huge role in it, and im not talking a preference for male/male sexual interaction, there have been studies that have revealed genetic anomolies in humans like a guy who grows boobs or a woman who grows a penis, in my head it isn't all that impossible to pass on a genetic attraction to a particular sex, even though one was born into that particular sex, iow maybe there is a genetic disposition to be attracted to males, regardless of if you are male or female.

yes but is it a choice?
as much as it is that I choose NOT to partake in male/male sex (just cause i think its wrong, doesn't mean the choice isn't there), my sexual attractions tend toward the female not the male.
girls can choose to have sex with other girls and not be thought of a homosexual, by default so should men have the ability (just because we think it wrong, does not mean this choice does not exist) to choose to have sex with someone of the same sex and not be thought of as homosexual.
but I digress, I am getting off point..
yes it is a choice, in as much as a girl can choose to have sex with another girl and not be homosexual, to still prefer male over female sex.

(I use male because females tend to default to thinking about how 'good' another female looks, where as males don't usually give a crap as to what other males look like)(and its easier for girls to do girls and not be thought of as homosexual)


------------------------------------

now as far as abusive relationships..
its not 'blaming' the victim to say they put themselves into that situation,
I mean it is and it isn't, its a matter of degree, if the women keeps getting herself attached to abusers then she MUST consider that she herself is to blame, even though the abuser is wrong to abuse.
( I have met women who know this and are ok with it, meaning they aren't happy unless they are getting abused, and they refuse to hook up with a non-abuser(not aggressive enough for them) :shrug

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

otherwise if she moves on and hooks up with a non- abuser, then yes she is not to blame.

 

What is encouraging from my point of view is that the overwhelming response to the question, is it right to demonise people, is a resounding no. I haven't been here long but it is clear that there is a large majority of people on this forum who are decent and moral, who support the right of gay people to love and be loved as they want, and who are prepared to take the time and trouble to argue those issues better than I ever could. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that includes getting laid, and anyone who says otherwise, and tries to deny people their basic human rights, has adopted a deeply immoral stance.

 

Why all this talk about homosexual activity anyways. The bible gives equal punishment to adulterers.
I think they get way too much attention.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

jan.

 

Sorry, but homosexuals do NOT have higher rates of drug use, promiscuity or mental illness. Trotting out these obvious fabrications time and again only shows just how desperate you are to deflect away from the cause of your homophobia. You can equally condemn heterosexuals for the same behavior, but you certainly can't honestly distinguish between them as having any real differences.

It is also an objective fact that heterosexuals transmit HIV, hence your point is absolutely irrelevant and doesn't support your homophobic agenda.

Why can't you be honest and just admit your homophobia is due to your religious beliefs? That is also the objective truth.

 

you do realize that this applies to every person on earth, don't you?
it even says as much in the bible.
(I am lousy at quoteing verses, but have read it all the way through and have studied it extensively)

 

Of course I do.
Welcome to the real subject of religion.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

That's thinned things out a bit then. Some empty chairs left.

 

So you're advocating in favor of gay marriage, so that they can have sex legally?

Heck, even the Anabaptists reach out to the alcoholics. I see the list of offenders doesn't include homosexuals. And I don't notice the alcoholics, thieves, robbers or the greedy being obstructed from marriage. Nor do I see them being demonized.

And of course the greedy would include just about every for-profit corporation. Yet the fundamentalist Tbaggers in the US are consistently in bed with the corporations on many issues such as climate change.

I like that you picked this quote, though, since it looks like you're assuming that it's Ok to demonize people for losing their inheritance to the Kingdom of God, which is the crux of the matter. Why are people doing that? Aren't they too busy trying to save their own souls to worry about who else has lost theirs?

This I think speaks to the root of the problem. Where in the Bible are people told to police God's law? And what happened to the admonishment not to judge others?

There is a serious breakdown in logic here. I think what you've demonstrated is that a lot of heinous conduct (such as the atrocities against gays in Uganda or Iran) can be rationalized by quote mining scriptures. Therein lies the rub. I think that's been the focus of this thread from the outset.

Why are people doing this?

 

Aqueous Id,

I don't regard it as marriage. Sorry if that offends. But, they want it, they got it, so let's move on.

I don't see that creating a law that prohibits consenting adults from having sex, will make things better.

I'm afraid homosexuality would be under the heading ''adulterers and sexual perverts'' of the text.

From where I stand, I don't see homosexuals being demonized.

I picked this quote to demonstrate that we have losing the point of religious discussion, and the point of religion by focusing on one group of people who seem very keen to do what they do, with pride, to the point of infiltrating long standing institutes, which are in complete opposition to their way of life.

The ''root of the problem'' is in this question. It implies that we are separate from God. It's told you what is what, now the rest is up to you. You can decide not to adhere to anything remotely God connected, or, you can try and understand that you don't know anything for real, and start to take notice, eventually gaining some kind of understanding. That's the choice. It doesn't care for our opinions.

Why do you only focus on gays?
No atrocities (including the massacres in Iraq) on innocent people, are enjoyed by good people.

Because people are godless, and they feel they can do whatever they like.

jan.

 

Only mean, stupid person (dictionary definition for 'asshole') would invest any energy in demonizing gays.

Educated people are more likely to be tolerant of others. They are more like to take umbrage at the way religion is being used as an excuse to justify homophobia. Through education we learn about the world, and when we learn about the world we learn about the plight of people less fortunate than ourselves. When we learn about misery, we develop empathy. Once we've acquired empathy, we instinctively rise in defense of the runts of the litter who are being bullied. (Runts in comparison to rest of us who haven't been dwarfed by society, that is. Anyone who's being marginalized.)

I think the same way. I feel a lot of solidarity with members (except of course the trolls' sock puppets). I'm always stumbling onto rather profound and insightful things coming from people with all kinds of different backgrounds. It reinforces in me the same thing you're feeling, that folks here can usually say things I'm feeling much better than I can. For example, I thought you really nailed it on the head when you brought up the atrocities in places like Iran. We tend to forget the depth of the injury of hatred. The press glosses over most of the really desperate circumstances since they tend to be mundane. The focus is on new kinds of shocks, not the ones that are linger day after day.

You shouldn't even have to go there. No one should give a damn what's going on behind closed doors in the first place. It smacks of voyeurism. But heteros have an interest here. If the uppity religious people can snoop on the gay bedrooms, what next? They want to watch me with my gal to see if we're meeting some other specification for "moral sex"? This is worse than Big Brother. It's voyeurism. It's pathological.

Voyeurism is I think the underlying syndrome to all forms of demonizing, not just sexual preference. You see a similar attitude played out when some sensational crime takes place, and the accused person is being tried in the media. Who cares? At least give the poor son of a bitch the chance to defend himself in court before the mob lynches him. Why are we as a society so preoccupied with the conduct of others? And the answer, I think, is voyeurism. When someone says "mind you own business" it isn't just being rude. It's expressing a belief that snooping is twisted.

Bashing gays on religious grounds, and denying them the same perks that heteros get through marriage, is "snooping for Jesus". That's about as twisted as it gets! :bugeye: