What exactly is "homophobia"?

Henry Williams said:Honestly, I don't even think the majority of people actually watch porn.☕

Ryan Wood98;25426447 said:
So, if you identify as straight, does that mean it’s totally fine to go around flaunting things with someone of the same gender?

Wait, how did you even come to that conclusion?😕 He definitely didn't say anything like that.

Ryan Wood98 said:It isn't as if everyone is forced to watch; I suppose people can always just look away.

Ryan Wood98 said:It seems pretty obvious that whenever a soccer player scores, they tend to hug each other or grab one another by the backside quite frequently.

placidwolf27 said:Look, here’s the thing—I can argue with anyone, anywhere I want, whenever I feel like it... provided they feel the same way. And honestly, it’s not just a right—officially, at least, as long as you don't cross some line—but personally, I just couldn't care less what people think...

I happen to be in a heterosexual relationship at the moment...

Now, if things were different—if, God forbid, I were in a relationship with someone of the same sex, say a man—and we felt like having a little disagreement, just being humans... well, then we’d actually have to think three times before acting. We’d have to watch where we are and when we do it, because there’s a very real chance someone might physically attack us...

Even if it’s just some random bystander sitting at a coffee shop who doesn't even have any same-sex inclinations themselves... they could end up getting screwed just by being near us...

Can you even imagine someone deciding to attack you—even if they’re just being affectionate—simply because you’re being intimate with your current partner in a public space?

It’s grim, isn't it? Unless you’re planning on performing some sort of solo act on a crowded subway or stripping down in the middle of a pub—which, assuming you're a socially adjusted human being, probably won't happen easily—the reality is much darker...

And see, that's the problem—people of that orientation aren't quite as lucky...
Those individuals can face serious trouble if they show affection or emotional closeness to the person they love, all without knowing if some primitive jerk is going to lash out at them... which can lead to getting beaten up, not to mention the entire social stigma and the endless complications that follow...

So now I’m thinking... imagine if two male friends—heterosexual, Christian, Americans—decided one day, just for kicks, to walk through town holding hands?
Just as a joke, maybe on a dare...
I’m genuinely curious what kind of reactions they’d get from the crowd, and I wonder which part of the city they’d even be allowed to walk through...

Because, goddammit, "they're acting like queers, it's not right, you can't do that in public, two people holding hands like that... it needs to be stopped."

Anthony Carter4 said:By that same ridiculous standard, one would be an antisemite just for sitting at home harboring hatred toward Jewish people without ever actively lifting a finger to hurt them.

Ryan Wood98 said:Thanks, I suppose my background in marketing comes into play here.

So, I guess the implication is that if someone identifies as heterosexual, it is perfectly acceptable for them to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same gender now and then?

If a homosexual person desires to have a child, would that not suggest they do NOT have a disrupted instinct to preserve the species, given that they want to continue the lineage?

Furthermore, I wonder if a heterosexual person who chooses NOT to have children would also be considered to have such a disruption.

Brandon Rivera2 said:Nah, they aren't getting frisky or anything, it's just how guys celebrate...

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. ☕

Ryan Wood98 said:🤣🤣🤣 Honestly, this should probably be part of your signature. It feels like one of the most powerful statements made here. 🤣🤣🤣

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.

Brandon Rivera2 said:Is everyone pushing back against the LGBTQ+ community just because they're scared, or could there actually be other reasons behind 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.

Brandon Rivera2 said:Can a person even be well-informed and still be homophobic?

Edward Wilson82 said:It’s not about being averse to homosexuality—it’s about the behavior.

wearyorca94 said:I might need to sit and meditate on that one for a bit...

I don't know 🤷 sorry.

But just going by gut feeling, I think that's the only 😉
...

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.

Brandon Rivera2 said:Those are just outliers, really... Most straight people end up having kids, while most gay folks aren't looking to have them...

Ryan Wood98 said:Even if they are exceptions, does that change much? I suppose homosexuals could be viewed as exceptions too, yet we are still discussing them here, and some even argue that they aren't "normal" precisely because they fall outside those exceptions.

Besides, I am curious where the claim comes from that most homosexuals don't want children? I am not necessarily disagreeing, but I was wondering about the source for that specific statistic, as I haven't come across it before.

Brandon Rivera2 said:So what exactly is it that homophobes don't get about gay people that makes them act that way?