Posts by Edward Wilson82

Ryan Wood98 said:Personally, I find hooligan groups at American football games quite repulsive. Perhaps we could just pass a law to ban them? That is what nature seems to be suggesting, I guess. Thanks!

What part specifically gets under your skin?

Look—you’ve got fans who actually care about the game and just want to bring the energy to the stadium, then you’ve got the psychos who use a match as an excuse to be aggressive—treating the stands and the city streets like their own personal playground for violence.

If your issue is with the people who show up purely out of love for the team, then honestly, that sounds like a personal problem. Those fans don't hurt anyone or mess with social norms. Nobody complains about them—not here in the States, not anywhere else. On the flip side, you see similar levels of irrational hostility toward the LGBTQ+ community in pretty much every society.

Now, if you're talking about the violent types? Yeah, I get it. But let's be real—no law in this country gives them a free pass to act like thugs.

Fearless? No, it's Disgust, Not Fear, Drives Homophobia
Some psych researchers over at the University of Arkansas dropped a study showing that "homophobia" isn't actually rooted in fear or anxiety—the way a real phobia works—but in a sense of pure disgust.
Matches my own experience when I first saw those crowds parading around. It wasn't fear. It was straight-up disgust.

That feeling of disgust is basically nature’s way of signaling how broken, sick, and damaging those types of relationships are—warning us they shouldn't be legalized or socially accepted. And honestly, nature knows what it's doing. Just look at the health stats regarding homosexuality and sexual behavior.

More than half of all people diagnosed with AIDS are homosexuals. Syphilis, which we thought we’d wiped out decades ago, is knocking on the door again. In the United Kingdom, for instance, syphilis rates among the gay population have spiked over 600% in the last six years. In San Francisco, it's practically an epidemic. One public health facility in San Francisco sees about 75,000 patients annually, and 70-80% of them are from the gay community, with 59% suffering from intestinal parasites. The risk is massive because they pass these things on to the heterosexual population.

Then there’s the usual list of STDs most common in the homosexual population: hepatitis A, B, C, D, gonorrhea, colon cancer, intestinal parasites, typhoid fever, herpes simplex, Chlamydia trachomatis, Shigella, Entamoeba, Giardia lamblia, cytomegalovirus, incontinence, hemorrhoids, and even tearing the rectal lining which often requires emergency surgery. Life expectancy drops to maybe 39-42 due to infectious inflammation, and suicide rates are climbing because of the mental strain caused by all these physical ailments.

The mortality rates suggest that homosexual relationships are more dangerous than nicotine or alcohol. You also see much higher rates of psychological disorders in the gay community—depression, addiction, stress, identity issues, loss of touch with reality, mood swings, narcissism... you name it.

People love to blame an intolerant society for these psychological issues, but that's a myth. The rates of mental disorders are pretty much the same in places where homosexuality has been socially accepted and legalized for ages, like in the Netherlands. Check this study out: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14663994

Bottom line: the disgust we feel toward homosexuality and its behaviors is a natural defense mechanism meant to prevent the biological and cultural contamination of society. So, pushing back against parades is perfectly logical—even necessary. Like that first link says: Disgust, however, triggers a bi-phasic physiological reaction, with heart rate and respiration initially rising but plummeting shortly thereafter. While fear causes a "get me away from that" reaction, disgust manifests as "get that away from me."

Lisa Hernandez3 said:Not really—unless they happen to know something I don't. Based on everything I understand about homosexuality, there aren't any valid reasons to respect them, yet at the same time, efforts are made to ensure they still don't receive full civil rights. I suppose that qualifies as homophobic behavior—declaring one thing while acting against them in practice. None of the rights they're fighting for—things like marriage, inheritance, or parenting—can be disputed by any facts regarding those individuals themselves.

I'm not sure I follow.
Is that innate? To whom is it innate? For me, for instance, it isn't.

Biological programming isn't set in stone—it’s influenced by everything from genetics and prenatal stuff to hormones, how you were raised, and even social circles. But for most people, that biological baseline stays pretty standard, leading to a natural aversion toward various sexual orientations. That's why you see pushback against homosexuality in every society on the planet, no matter how hard political correctness tries to bury it.

Ryan Wood98 said:I'm not quite sure how to explain this... I believe morality is largely something conditioned by society. If the majority of people in a culture consume pornography, then that behavior becomes the norm, and one's refusal to do so would be considered the deviation.

It is perhaps similar to how heterosexuality is viewed as the standard, while homosexuality is seen as a deviation.

The question, I guess, is whether deviating from the norm should be judged, or if it even can be.

Is it right to judge homosexuals or those who abstain from pornography? In a sense, both groups are simply deviating from what society deems the standard.

Man, you really love twisting arguments.

Being gay and watching porn aren't the same thing.

One is an orientation—it's how you're wired. The other is just an action.

Ryan Wood98 said:I find myself wondering how they "don't fit" when roughly 5-10% of the population identifies as homosexual?

It seems that in those 5-10% of cases, they actually *do* fit. 🤷 That’s just what common sense would suggest. ☕

Furthermore, contrary to your specific definition, if you look at the internet(http://www.answers.com/topic/primitive), it seems an anthropological definition of a primitive person is someone who is uneducated, unsophisticated, or at a lower stage of development.

Your premise is flawed.

Just because something exists doesn't mean it automatically goes hand-in-hand with something else. Necrophilia exists too. That doesn't mean a corpse and a living person "go together" in any sexual context.

Ryan Wood98 said:So, I suppose my initial point stands: certain behaviors trigger an aversive reaction—and I am certainly not referring to sexual contact here—but only when those actions are specifically associated with homosexuality.

If those very same behaviors are carried out by people we wouldn't typically categorize as homosexual—for instance, professional football players—then I suspect those same actions won't trigger that same aversion.

It follows, then, that it isn't merely the behavior itself (like hugging or physical familiarity) that causes the reaction; rather, the reaction seems to depend heavily on who is performing the action. ☕

It’s clearly the behavior, it just depends on the context. Guys hugging after a big win? That's just celebrating a touchdown. Nobody views that as anything homoerotic. But if two guys are walking down a street in downtown Chicago holding hands, most people are going to see that as homosexual behavior, and that's what triggers the aversion.

Ryan Wood98 said:Are you suggesting that being primitive is biologically predetermined? That you view it as some kind of disorder?

Nah. A primitive is just someone who refuses to listen to their own conscience and common sense—specifically the part that tells them male and female aren't sexually compatible. Look, the whole foundation of sexuality relies on duality (male female). You take away that duality, and the whole concept of sexuality doesn't even exist.

Ryan Wood98 said:Are you suggesting that if, for instance, two men were walking through Times Square, hugging and fondling each other, it wouldn't trigger any negative reactions from bystanders?

Of course it will.

Ryan Wood98 said:I am not sure I agree with that. For instance, athletes often engage in very homoerotic behavior, yet that usually doesn't trigger any strong negative reactions from the public.

I suppose if two football players are being intimate behind closed doors, people tend to overlook it, but if two random civilians are making out in the middle of a busy plaza in downtown Chicago, they might actually face a risk of being harassed or attacked, whether verbally or physically.

Homo behavior is just sexual activity with someone of the same sex.

Ryan Wood98 said:So, is an aversion to the Church and conservative extremists supposedly innate?

Nah—it's just projection stemming from an inability to accept biological reality.

Lisa Hernandez3 said:So, you're saying an aversion to homosexuality is something we're born with?

It’s not about being averse to homosexuality—it’s about the behavior.

Some people just refuse to accept that the aversion to homosexuality—or any other sexual orientation, including things like incest—isn't about society or culture. It’s biology. Period. They’re basically just fighting themselves at this point, not the Church or some bunch of conservative Neanderthals.

Lisa Hernandez3 said:I suppose you could define homophobia as any kind of resistance—whether it's psychological, or expressed through subtle behaviors or speech—that a person feels (consciously or otherwise) when they encounter homosexuality, whether that’s through seeing actual people or just through abstract examples, like statistics, symbols, biographies, or even media representations. Since so much regarding how we perceive sexuality and gender is socially constructed, I imagine that this internal resistance is also something learned and socially determined. In a broader cultural sense, it's essentially any form of societal discomfort tied to homosexuality.

If we were looking for a "homophobe" in a practical, everyday sense, it would probably be someone who feels uneasy about homosexuality or resists the idea that it exists, should exist, or is a normal part of the human experience.

Incestophobia is just like it—any psychological or behavioral resistance someone feels when facing examples of incest, whether it's through real people or more abstract things like media or statistics. Because our views on sex and gender are socially constructed, this reaction is essentially programmed by the culture we live in. Broadly speaking, it's just societal unease regarding incest.

In practice, an "incestophobe" would be anyone who feels uncomfortable about incest or resists the reality that it exists or the notion that it could be viewed as something natural.

"Homophobia" is just a lazy, unprofessional label used for people who feel some level of aversion toward homosexuals. It’s an instinctive reaction—a gut feeling regarding what many see as an unnatural lifestyle. Look, people have a natural revulsion toward things like necrophilia, incest, or pedophilia. By that same logic, someone could try calling a normal person's disgust toward those acts "necrophobia" or "incestophobia"—but we all know that's nonsense. A mentally healthy person is naturally going to recoil from those deviations.

So, yeah, the term "homophobia" is a total fabrication; it has zero connection to the actual medical definition of a phobia. In clinical terms, a specific phobia is an irrational, persistent fear triggered by an object or situation that isn't actually dangerous. Exposure causes intense anxiety or an overwhelming urge to flee. These symptoms can seriously mess with a person's ability to function daily. Most adults with a real phobia realize their fear is irrational, yet they still can't control it.

When facing a true phobia, you get hit with physical symptoms—sweaty palms, flushing, racing heart, chest pains, shortness of breath, trembling, or a shaky voice. It's obvious to anyone paying attention that the people being slapped with the "homophobe" label aren't experiencing any of this clinical symptomatology. They don't fit the definition.

Originally, "homophobia" was psychiatric jargon used to describe an individual's fear of their own homosexual inclinations. But then activists hijacked the term and rebranded it to mean any negative attitude or "fear" directed at homosexuals. It’s a rhetorical weapon designed to discredit and humiliate anyone standing against homosexual behavior or its legalization.

The problem is that they don't distinguish between different types of opposition. Sure, activists will reserve the "homophobe" tag for violent bigots—like skinheads—to frame them as the true villains. But in everyday conversation, they’ll pin that label on anyone who thinks homosexual behavior is wrong, abnormal, or harmful. If these activists actually had a leg to stand on, they’d be able to explain the difference between a hateful bigot and someone holding a moral opposition to homosexuality.

Furthermore, the term "homophobia" frames opposition to homosexuality as a mental illness. This is a sweet deal for activists since homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973. Now, they get to claim they are the healthy ones, while anyone disagreeing with them is labeled mentally unstable. Obviously, changing a line in a manual doesn't fix a disorder, nor does it make someone else crazy.

Third, the term is used as a semantic substitute for "racism." The goal is to convince the public that opposing homosexuality is identical to racial prejudice. All these tactics serve one purpose: to silence and shame opponents. If you speak out against the lifestyle, the parades, or the legal shifts, you're immediately branded as either mentally ill or a bigot.

Bottom line: "homophobia" is a ridiculous concept cooked up by activists to use as a blunt instrument against anyone who disagrees with them.

redharbor9 said:Maybe you could try answering using the same method you use for everything else—just ignoring it? 😍

Here’s one for you:
Is nature being "homophobic" just because biological reproduction requires a man and a woman, rather than two men or two women?

Daniel Wilson5 said:Is it homophobia to commit Ana Dragičević to a mental asylum?
Is it homophobia to physically assault people at a Pride parade?
Is it homophobia to get fired simply because you're gay?
Is it homophobia to verbally abuse someone based on their sexual orientation?
Etc...

I'm looking for answers here. Thanks.

Daniel Wilson5 said:Treating homophobia...

Homophobia: basically a profound lack of love for one's own gender, which inevitably morphs into a deep-seated resentment toward anyone else who actually feels that connection... It’s the delusional belief that one specific way of loving is inherently superior and, therefore, should be forced upon everyone else.
Audre Lorde

For way too long, we’ve treated same-sex attraction and relationships as if they were the primary crisis facing our society. But let's be clear: the connection between two people isn't the issue. The actual social rot is homophobia—the endless, exhausting ways people choose to degrade others simply because of who they love or how they identify...
In many cultures, same-sex relationships are widely accepted as just another normal part of the human experience. But here in America, we still have people who cling to the idea that sexual contact between two men is somehow diseased or immoral... and they go even further when it comes to women, acting as if any kind of intimacy between them is either fundamentally wrong or simply impossible. It's exhausting...
This piece dives into how to spot homophobia within yourself and in those around you. It explores why this prejudice actually ends up hurting heterosexual people too, digs into the root causes behind the bias, and looks at what the path toward healing really looks like...

How to spot homophobia in yourself and others...
There are four distinct, yet deeply interconnected, layers to homophobia: personal, interpersonal, institutional, and cultural...
Personal homophobia is essentially just a prejudice rooted in the deep-seated belief that anyone identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual is somehow sinful, immoral, broken, or simply "less than" a heterosexual person... or just an incomplete man or woman. It shows up through fear, discomfort, dislike, or even outright hatred toward same-sex attraction. And honestly? Anyone can experience it, regardless of their own orientation. When someone in the LGBTQ+ community experiences those exact same feelings toward themselves, we call that internalized homophobia...
Just like heterosexuals, lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are conditioned to believe that same-sex attraction is somehow inferior to being straight. A lot of people end up internalizing that nonsense... it becomes this deep-seated struggle where true self-acceptance feels almost impossible. They just swallow the stigma attached to being queer without ever realizing their own shame is actually a byproduct of societal pressure. It’s a vicious cycle. One result is that many people go to extreme lengths to hide who they really are; others desperately try to deny or "fix" their orientation; and some, tragically, end up driven to suicide...
Interpersonal homophobia isn't some abstract societal concept; it’s driven by raw, personal prejudice. It manifests through the small, ugly stuff—slurs, cheap jokes, verbal harassment, or even physical aggression. It's just one person targeting another... purely out of individual hate.
At its most extreme, interpersonal homophobia manifests as physical violence—people attacking lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals simply because they can't stomach their existence. But for most, that fear shows up in much quieter, more insidious ways. It’s the family members who suddenly find reasons to avoid their queer relatives; it’s the coworkers who become cold and distant the moment they realize someone isn't straight; it’s the "friends" who suddenly lose all interest the second you mention your partner... It's a subtle, constant withdrawal.
Institutional homophobia isn't just about individual prejudice; it’s much deeper than that. It refers to the systemic ways the government, major corporations, religious institutions, and other organized bodies discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. In academic circles, this is also known as heterosexism... It's baked right into the system.
Institutional homophobia shows up in all sorts of ways. You see it in religious organizations that cling to rigid rules preventing LGBTQ+ individuals from leading services... you see it in agencies that flatly refuse to provide essential resources or support to those same communities... and you see it in government bodies that simply fail to protect equal rights for every citizen, regardless of who they love. It’s everywhere...
Cultural homophobia essentially boils down to those ingrained social norms and standards that dictate one version of reality: the idea that being heterosexual is inherently superior, or more "moral," than being a lesbian, gay, or bisexual. It’s this pervasive assumption that everyone is—or absolutely ought to be—straight. In academic circles, we call this systemic bias heterosexism...
Cultural homophobia is baked into our daily lives through TV shows and commercials where every single character is straight. Every romantic connection features a man and a woman, and there’s this unspoken assumption that every "normal" kid will naturally be attracted to the opposite sex and eventually marry them. In those rare instances where lesbians, gay men, or bisexual women and men actually get screen time, they’re usually portrayed through tired tropes—depicted as miserable, stuck in stereotypes, prone to self-destruction, or constantly questioning their own identity...

So, how does homophobia end up hurting straight people too?
While homophobia and heterosexism clearly target lesbians, gay men, and bisexual individuals through everything from verbal harassment to physical violence and systemic erasure, the fallout isn't limited to them. It hits straight people as well. By enforcing these rigid, suffocating definitions of what "appropriate" sexual behavior looks like, society limits everyone's ability to enjoy genuine sensual connections or emotional intimacy with the same sex. There's even a lingering fear that being too close to a friend of the same sex might lead others to label you as gay or lesbian. These anxieties create unnecessary stress and emotional rigidity, which can ultimately sabotage even heterosexual relationships.
Homophobia frequently tears families apart when parents discover their child is a lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Honestly, wouldn't life be much better if we just kept our families intact by supporting and respecting all our relatives, regardless of who they love?
In a society where the achievements of LGBTQ+ individuals are either hidden or actively disparaged, straight people end up living with a warped view of reality. They essentially learn about life through a single lens, ignoring the vast experiences, skills, and wisdom that lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people bring to the table. People could really enrich their own lives if they simply stayed connected with the LGBTQ+ community.
Denying equal rights to lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people inevitably leads to the erosion of rights for everyone else. Historically, American governments that most aggressively suppressed gay people were also the ones restricting others based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or class. If the LGBTQ+ community can be targeted for discrimination, then any other group in this country is vulnerable. If we truly believe in freedom and individual rights, we have to value all people and the differences that make a pluralistic society work.

What actually drives homophobia?
Personal homophobia—those deep-seated prejudices—is primarily fueled by ignorance. Much like sexism and racism, people are essentially taught how to be homophobes. Even with accurate information readily available, outdated myths about the LGBTQ+ community continue to circulate in American culture. Very few children receive unbiased information; instead, many adults cling to stereotypes learned in childhood, while certain religious and conservative organizations continue to peddle falsehoods.
Interpersonal homophobia, involving bullying and individual discrimination, can be understood through social psychology and its link to prejudice. People who are uncomfortable with their own sexuality, or who feel threatened by same-sex attraction, tend to be extremely rigid about what is considered "correct" behavior. They often try to punish others or force their beliefs onto lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people.
Institutional homophobia is driven, in part, by the struggle for power. Modern societies often create scapegoats just to maintain the status quo and protect those currently in charge. Throughout this century, various groups—including Jews, Black Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, women, and the LGBTQ+ community—have been blamed for a wide array of social and economic issues. When scapegoating works, the dominant group avoids having to take responsibility for injustice or give up their hard-won privileges.
Cultural homophobia is mostly driven by societal norms that dictate what counts as "acceptable" sexuality. Same-sex contact has existed in every society throughout history and has been openly embraced in many cultures. However, Western civilization tends to be repressive toward almost all forms of sexuality, unless it’s strictly for procreation or occurs within the framework of a heterosexual marriage. Because of this, same-sex attraction often becomes a target for fear and condemnation...

Is there a cure for homophobia?
Homophobia is widespread in America and many other places. Since we are all products of our environment, most of us carry some level of homophobia, regardless of our own sexual orientation.
Dealing with homophobia constructively starts with acknowledging that it exists everywhere. We can't just flip a switch and erase these ingrained feelings, but if we are willing to admit that these biases are present in all of us, we can take responsibility for our choices and change how we act.
Beyond acknowledging its ubiquity, here is what we can actually do:
Identify homophobia—not homosexuality—as the actual problem that needs solving. When talking with friends or colleagues, address homophobia directly. For too many people, discussions about lesbians, gay men, or bisexuals only happen through the lens of homophobic jokes or slurs.
Look at the parallels between homophobia and other forms of prejudice. Applying what we know about racism, sexism, or classism can help us better understand homophobia and find effective ways to push back against it.
Listen to the lived experiences of the LGBTQ+ community and assume their accounts of oppression are valid and true. Similarly, we should accept that the way lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals navigate the world is fundamentally different from the way heterosexuals experience it.
Actively support anti-discrimination efforts and campaigns aimed at dismantling homophobic prejudice and violence.

Dr. Livia Puljak

Is a parent being homophobic if they ask their son if he likes any particular girl?
Is a parent homophobic just because they want their kid to be straight?
Is someone homophobic for knowing the difference between a vagina and an anus?
Is a parent homophobic for demanding that, if something happens to them, their child be adopted by a man and a woman rather than two people of the same sex?
Is a kid without parents being "homophobic" if they want a mom and a dad instead of two moms?
Is nature itself—the very thing that made reproduction between a man and a woman possible, rather than between two men or two women—being homophobic?

And one last thing. If you were that kid losing your parents, would you actually want to be adopted by a man and a woman, or two people of the same sex?

The whole concept of "homophobia" is just one of those constructs cooked up by gay intellectuals that has zero connection to reality. Originally, the term was used in psychiatric jargon to describe an individual's fear of their own homosexual inclinations. But then, activists hijacked the word and redefined it to label any negative attitude, hatred, or supposed "fear" toward homosexuals.
As a rhetorical weapon, its sole purpose is to discredit, smear, and belittle anyone standing against homosexual behavior or its legalization. Naturally, they don't bother pointing out that this includes all opponents universally. In the public eye, activists will slap the "homophobe" label on actual violent bigots—like skinheads, for instance—to shift focus onto those specific character flaws and show why those people oppose homosexuality. But in practical discourse, they’ll pin the "homophobe" tag on anyone who thinks homosexual behavior is bad, abnormal, or harmful. If they want to be honest, we should demand that activists and lawyers actually explain the difference between a homophobe and someone who simply opposes homosexuality without being one.

Furthermore, the term "homophobia" frames opposition to homosexuality as a mental illness. This gives activists a certain kind of thrill since homosexuality was removed from the list of psychiatric disorders back in 1973. Now, suddenly, they're the healthy ones, and anyone speaking out against them is mentally ill. It's obvious to everyone that a stroke of a pen doesn't fix a disorder, nor can it make someone mentally unstable.

Thirdly, the term "homophobia" acts as a semantic stand-in for "racism," intended to signal to the public that opposing homosexuality is equivalent to racial prejudice against minorities.
Basically, these different angles of "homophobia" serve to silence and shame opponents. That way, when someone disagrees with homosexuality, its behavior, its legalization, or pride parades... they can be immediately branded as either mentally ill or a racist.

Bottom line: "homophobia" is a load of nonsense invented by gay pundits to use as a rhetorical club against anyone in their way.

slywolf45 said:You think just because two people didn't say anything, that's the whole story.😉

Look, it doesn't matter how close you are or how much you trust someone—some things stay buried. Just because they don't share doesn't mean there's nothing there.

So, just because someone keeps their mouth shut, you're gonna assume they're fantasizing about the exact same stuff you are?

Alex Patel96 said:Did you even read this thread from the start?😕 I wasn't actually making any claims myself. The two people before me were just bickering over whether it was a majority or not. So... you completely missed the point.☕

Didn't miss it—just applied your "logic" to some other scenarios.