HOMOPHOBIA - NOT A VALID FEAR

I think you need to look more into where your're finding your research.

I'd be more than happy to read any factual information that you can provide that supports homosexuality as a natural behavior or preference that one is born with. thanks for the response.

Rubbish. You say it's unnatural but you give no evidence to support such a claim. Boo I say to you, boo. Put a little more work into the next one.

Karmacowboy. Thanks for the response. I'm not sure how much more evidence you would need to support my "claim" of homesexuality being unnatural other than the fact that our bodies were designed for a woman and man to "fit" together and procreate. Two of the same sex can't produce a baby naturally, especially two men. There's more of these common sense observations that one could make just like this, but I think this is probably the most important. I'd be more than happy to read anything that you have to prove otherwise. thanks again.

Dunamismedia... please do more research on this topic.

What researchers have found is that people who are homosexual are atttracted to the pheramones of their own sex.

In fact.. homosexuality, and bisexuality is normal and found in nature all the time. Please see the reproductive abilities of frogs.

The last time I checked ALL men are created equal. That ALL men have the right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. There was nothing to say.. only if you are this or that.

Why should a happy loving couple not be allowed to enjoy the bonds on marriage? Looking around I see that hetrosexuals are making a mockery of the bonds of marriage. Look at the divorce rate, and the number of men that don't pay to support their children.

Marriage should be based on a mutal love and respect for each other. The desire to be the life mate of your parner. This isn't the exclusive right of hetrosexuals.

NYTheatrebug, thanks for your response. Your comment would have been more interesting to me if you didn't equate human being with frogs. While research on frogs may be useful data, it still doesn't refute the intelligent design of our human bodies and how man was clearly designed to be coupled with a woman. I've made no comments about marriage and homosexuality, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. My viewpoint/video had nothing to do with that. Also, I may need to clarify my choice of the words "natural" and "normal". My corrected statement would be that homosexuality is not "natural".

We can agree on one thing though, that all human beings are created equal. What your sexual preference is though, is a different story. thanks again. I'm enjoying the dialogue on this topic.

Dunamismedia:

I am not equating human beings with frogs. I used frogs as an example to show that homosexuality and bi sexualiity are natural and found in nature.

My question for you, is why you didn't acknowledge the research done on humans regarding pheramones? This is basically saying that in nature.. a human being can be born homosexual.

Homosexuality is not a conscience choice a person makes. It's something they are borm with, and many times struggle with all their lives. Not becaues of their ability to know, understand, and accept who they are. But of society's inability to do so.

Something to think about, is that nature works her own magic in her own way. Man cannot dictate to nature, and decide what is and isn't natural. If it exists in nature.. it's natural, and meant to be. Nature doesn't tend to make mistakes.

I too am enjoying this conversation.

NYTheatrebug, if the basis for your argument is based on the attraction of human body odor from one person to another, I'm sorry, but that is a very WEAK argument. I'm certain you're commenting on the research which states that not only do homosexuals produce natural body odor that is different from heterosexuals, but that homosexuals prefer the natural body odor of other homosexuals. Correct me if I'm wrong. But again, it proves nothing.

To add to that, it's still just research, and nothing in that research proves that a human is born homosexual. It's still an undeniable fact that man and woman were DESIGNED to compliment each other and only and man and woman can procreate. It's simply natural.

What's natural about your computer?

What's natural about your eyeglasses?


And might it be foolish to build an argument about a positions validity based on it's natural status?

Homophobia may be a misnomer, as you implied. However, I believe it to be one in a different manner. People who don't like homosexuals are generally not afraid of them per se (contrary to other fears like hydrophobia or acrophobia). These people are hateful or prejudiced against homosexuals (not afraid), and should therefore rather be called bigots.

It's interesting and philosophically insightful what NYTheatrebug wrote:

"Homosexuality is not a conscience choice a person makes. It's something they are borm with, and many times struggle with all their lives. Not becaues of their ability to know, understand, and accept who they are. But of society's inability to do so."(sic)

This brings up an interesting question- what is the purpose of assigning homosexuality as "natural" or "unnatural"? Why are those who are not homosexual (and who also have strong and negative opinion about homosexuals) constantly trying to prove it as unnatural? And why are homosexuals, conversely, citing research and providing different arguments for it's natural status?

It all ties in to what NYTheatrebug wrote. The homosexuals want acceptance and equal rights from their society, and the person prejudiced against homosexuals is seeking their exclusion and inequality.

Obviously, civil rights movements come in all different forms. From gender to race to national origin... and whether you like it or not, also to sexual orientation and beyond. It may be true that those in favor of homosexual equality cite the supposed similarity with the black equality movement, but does that matter? There is a more logical argument, and you'll find the right answer if you look with an open mind.



Furthermore, addressing an issue you've brought up:

"It's still an undeniable fact that man and woman were DESIGNED to compliment each other and only and man and woman can procreate. It's simply natural."

Coupled with this prior comment:

"While research on frogs may be useful data, it still doesn't refute the intelligent design of our human bodies and how man was clearly designed to be coupled with a woman."

Clearly you are talking about the direct and supernatural creation of man by a deity. For practicality's sake I'll assume you're referring to the god of the Bible. Where is there any evidence that your god created man and woman, and specifically intended them to be sexual with the opposite gender? You may rebut with some quotes from a text or the sincerity of your own conviction... but my question is... why are you requiring more proof from the opposition side? A poster earlier brought up scientific study of nature as support for homosexuality's natural status. You find that inadequate, but seemingly feel that your own conviction or the texts from a book prove your opinion?

Thanks for reading all this.

These are some very good points AMC and Grobbb. Let me note that my viewpoint was simply about the use of homophobia as it relates to homosexuality. I never stated that I myself "feared" homosexuals or that I hated them. I have several friends and acquaintances that are gay and it's all good.

My use of the "natural" has been very clear, and you guys are talking around the fact that man and woman are DESIGNED to "fit" together, and of course we're talking about procreation. This is NATURAL, and no one can argue otherwise. You'd have to be a fool not to see this. Because of this FACT, and clearly natural trait, common sense would have to describe homosexuality as "unnatural".

You can refer to me as a "bigot" if you'd like, but that's usually what happens when the other side can't prove anything, they resort to attacks. Appreciate it. thanks.

Priceless. You label gay citizens as "unnatural". You belittle the struggles of gay men and women and declare that their quest for basic civil rights and equal protection is "unfair" to black citizens(!?). You rely on the old, tired disingenuous argument that only those who may procreate are worthy of legitimacy (when it is clear that you do not intend to include heterosexuals who do not procreate in this group). To top it all you actually pull out that old chestnut "some of my best friends are....." to distance yourself from your obvious prejudice. And yet....and yet it is YOU who is being "attacked" when those you so label and denigrate grow weary of the tiresome rhetoric and confront you and your beliefs. Classic.

And by the way; the word "phobia" in the psychological sense does not only refer to a fear of that which is found in the natural world. You may want to begin to be a little more careful with your description of phobias, as well as what you use as a basis for denying equal rights.

AMC. You've obviously created your own interpretation of everything I've stated. I've never labeled gay citizens as unnatural, yet the sexual desire between two of the same sex is "unnatural" when you take man and woman's natural, and undeniable design into account. I've tried to make it clear that my use of the word natural is in reference to that undeniable design, but you guys seem to keep looking past that.

Your "chestnut" comment is well taken, and made me laugh. Funny, but I have to agree with you on that one, because I know that people always pull that card when discussing this issue. Point well taken, and I won't justify my gay friendships with you, as you'll continue to view me as a "bigot" whether I have one gay friend or 100. thanks.

GROBBB. Just noticed that you revised your earlier posting. Thanks for removing your attack on my "lisp". LOL!

Question to you: Why does my reference to the natural design of man and woman have to do anything with the Bible?

I haven't even used that as a basis for anything I've posted, and I don't have to. Supporters of homosexuality always assume that "non-support" of this sexual preference is influenced by Christianity. With or without the Bible's influence, the following anatomy lesson is undeniable fact, and simply natural: man was born with a penis and testicles that produces sperm. That penis was designed to be inserted into the vagina. Sperm swim through the female organs and find there way to the ovaries. An implanted sperm works with those ovaries and life is created. This is only possible with a man and a woman.

Do I need to make this any more clear? Would a diagram help? Is this not "natural"?

As it is the very sexual desire between two people of the same sex that defines them as homosexual and which you label as unnatural, I am bemused by your insistence that you did not, in fact, label gay people as unnatural. Do you not actually see the inherent contradiction here? At least you have acknowledged the ludicrous stance that having gay aquantances somehow aquits you of personal prejudice. I would also add that the fact that men and women are able to procreate has absolutely no bearing on the validity of civil rights for gay people. None. What. So. Ever. As previously mentioned, the ability to procreate seems to only be a disqualifyer where homosexuals are concerned. The inevitable conclusion of your "natural" logic would be that to procreate is natural and not to do so isn't. After all, if humans are "designed" to procreate what is the point of sexual desire for anyone if they do not? Do you honestly believe that heterosexuals who choose not to procreate are just wasting their plumbing? Are they really unnatural? Do you really expect to produce a child each time you engage in sex? I don't think you actually believe this. I think the whole "natural" versus "unnatural" stance you are taking is just a cover for basic prejudice which you are unwilling to admit to and confront. Unfortunately, it would be much easier to just say you don't approve of gay people because your religion says it is a sin. At least then you could forgo logic altogether and not struggle to shoe-horn logic into your beliefs.

AMC. Again, you're assuming that my "logic" has something to do with religion. You guys/girls have a hard time believing that someone can disagree with this sexual preference on the basis of something other than religion.

By the way, whether heterosexuals choose to procreate or not, has no bearing on the fact that, once again after repeating myself to you guys several times, man and woman, BY DESIGN, are made for one another. I'm making a very clear and common sense observation here, not out of prejudice, but out of common sense and scientific anatomical fact.

dunamismedia, you stated this:

"My use of the "natural" has been very clear, and you guys are talking around the fact that man and woman are DESIGNED to "fit" together, and of course we're talking about procreation. This is NATURAL, and no one can argue otherwise. You'd have to be a fool not to see this. Because of this FACT, and clearly natural trait, common sense would have to describe homosexuality as "unnatural"."

This argument is flawed for the following reason- you assume that there is only one possible natural outcome from a VERY complicated issue. Yes, man and woman are capable of procreation. There is no apparent design to the extremely complex workings of procreation... unless you are speaking of the blind workings of evolution.

I have already brought up my points that completely address multiple facets of your argument. You have left these primarily untouched.

Also, you wrote:

"You can refer to me as a "bigot" if you'd like, but that's usually what happens when the other side can't prove anything, they resort to attacks. Appreciate it. thanks."

Again, I'm going to assume that you're a religious person here (I would be surprised if not). This is a common tactic of the reactionary when they are debating- scapegoat themselves. It's actually very tired and trite. If you'd like to further debate on this, please go back and address my serious issues that I laid out earlier.

I didn't say that your prejudice was based on religious belief. What I did say was that you could more easily eschew logic (and negate further discussion) if you merely said that you hold your beliefs based on religion as so many have done. I understand that you have taken a different tact. What I am saying is that your logic doesn't hold water. Your premise seems to be that "phobia" only refers to a fear of what is "natural". That is incorrect. Phobia may refer to anything (including persons, objects, social situations, etc.) which is manifest in an illogical or irrational fear. "Homophobia" as a common usage term is applicable in this case. You also made the assertion that homosexuality is not "natural" as it does not lead to procreation. What you are dismissing is the fact that sexual desire may exist outside the need for procreation. One does not always lead to the other. Clearly, men and women may make babies. Sexual desire and its expression, however, do not always result in procreation. Procreation, conversely, may take place without sexual desire. Consenting adults engage in sex for reasons having nothing to do with furthering the species. No one is legally held to a commitment to procreate as a condition of marriage, for instance. The double standard is only applied when it refers to homosexuality. Are you actually suggesting that you would forswear sex if it did not explicitly result in a baby? You seem hung-up on the "design" of men and women and yet choose to negate the impact of sexual desire as anything "natural". And no, I don't think your primary concern is with science. If a gay gene were discovered tomorrow I think you would be just as uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality as you clearly are now.

your the man!

Love is a natural emotion. I love my partner. People who are afraid of our love are homophobic.

AMC... Well said!

I agree completely. To use Dunamismedia's logic
we are we are "nautally" pre-programed for procreation. Yet some hetrosexual people for various reasons are unable to procreate. Does this make them less normal? Would you call their inability to procreate unnatural??

A trigger for sexual desire/interest are pharamones. To dismiss this as simply body odor is not thinking through the process. The pharomones trigger sexual desire in the brain. This is biologically natural and normal.

I highly suspect, that you are trying to twist fact and sicience to justify your own fears about homosexuality.

so you're saying that we shouldn't call the fear of homosexual people homophobia because a phobia are fear of natural things and homosexuality isn't natural?

Seems like a pointless argument to me.

Your logic commits the fallacy of accident. You take two different definitions of the word "natural" to make your point.

You're saying that a phobia is a fear of something "natural". Natural, in that sense, means that it exists, that it can be found, that it can be found in NATURE. Thus, a fear of zombies is not a phobia--zombies do not exist.

Then, you say that homosexuality is unnatural. That's a matter of opinion (an egregious affront to me, but I'll set that aside for the purposes of exposing your fallacious argument) and although, as you assert, people may not be NATURALLY predisposed to homosexuality, it still EXISTS. Whether homosexuals are born homosexuals, they exist in the world, and that's a fact. They naturally exist. They are not zombies. Thus, homophobia CAN BE a NATURAL FEAR.

That said, you're committing another fallacy of accident. Homophobia is not a phobia. It's a colloquial term to describe people who are prejudiced against homosexuals. Some homophobes do not fear homosexuals, they just hate them. So homophobia may have the word "phobia" in it, and some homophobes may actually "fear" homosexuals, there's no 1-1 direct correlation between "homophobia" and an actual fear of homosexuals. It's an idiom. And I must say, you don't seem afraid of homosexuals--but you certainly seem like a homophobe.

This does not really have to do with a phobia dealing with something of a natural state, besides the fact that that is not the definition for a phobia. Phobias are not just fears of natural things. Phobia is also dealing with someone having a fear of something that is situational. Although I dont see why people are homophobic, they are what they are. Hmmm kind of like how homosexuals are what they are and should be respected as human beings not judged for their sexual orientation. I believe the current viewpoint at hand was Gay Rights. So before you start going off on something you clearly dont really know much about, how about step 1 you stay on topic.

Yo Sam_smash. thanks for your response. My viewpoint is clearly ON TOPIC. All of us as humans deserve to be treated equally and no special rights should be administered to any one person or race. However, the black race has always been discriminated against because of the color of their skin and it was clearly a violation of their equal rights as human beings. A black person has no control over their skin color. Whether we're straight, gay, black, white, or brown, we all deserve equal rights. However, the gay agenda has been seeking "special rights", not "equal rights" in that they are asking to receive certain rights based on their sexual preference. That's what this "equal rights" movement by the gay community has to be based on because there is no solid proof or fact that a person is born homosexual. To date, no one has been able to provide these facts. With this said, understand that I "respect" homosexuals as human beings, yet I don't believe they deserve "special rights" or should be equating their plight with that of the black race.

Dunamismedia,

Your response demonstrates your own homophobia, and your ignorance of history. There were gay slaves. Gays were treated worse in the holocost than jews. In fact when the consentration camps were opened up and the jews were released, gay people were sent to prison. You are assuming homosexuality is a choise, which it is not. Did you you chose to heterosexual? Could you just as easily be sexually attracted to a man?

Gays are not seeking special rights, just equal rights. Is a heterosexual marriage a "special right?" No.

A phobia (from the Greek φόβος "Phobos" meaning Fear), is an irrational, intense, persistent fear of certain situations, objects, activities, or persons.

Phobia has nothing to do whether target of fear is natural or not.

dunamismedia, I could have guessed your argument would boil down to this, just based on your profile.

"However, the gay agenda has been seeking "special rights", not "equal rights" in that they are asking to receive certain rights based on their sexual preference."

First of all, there is no uniform "gay agenda", as you say. There is, however, a very clear and strong ANTI-gay agenda that is spearheaded by members of your religion. Homosexuals are not looking for any "special rights", this is yet another pathetic regurgitated talking point from the Christian side. Homosexuals are seeking equal rights under the law that are intended for all free citizens. Due to the vast and mind-boggling ignorance of many people, homosexuals and other groups have historically been denied these rights due to prejudice.

"That's what this "equal rights" movement by the gay community has to be based on because there is no solid proof or fact that a person is born homosexual."

Homosexuality can be inborn or socialized (though either is irrelevant because all are entitled to equality under the law). It most certainly is not a choice. Christians and other bigots choose to label homosexuality as a choice because it makes the task of persecuting those people that much simpler.

"To date, no one has been able to provide these facts. With this said, understand that I "respect" homosexuals as human beings, yet I don't believe they deserve "special rights" or should be equating their plight with that of the black race."

1. http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155
2. www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/
3. http://gaylife.about.com/od/naturevsnurture/i/naturevsn...

Form your own opinion on whether or not people "choose" to be gay. There is very, very little 'evidence' that people choose to be gay, in fact that is widely discredited (except by those who also foolishly believe in "creation science"). Regardless of the reason people are gay, they are still PEOPLE, and deserve the same rights. To say that gays are searching for "special" rights, while they are seriously lacking in equality, is plain ignorant.

Grobbbbbbbbbbbbbb. This is definitely my own opinion. Why the name calling by the way? Bigot? Com'on Gmoney, you seem to be more educated than that. Just share your opinion and reserve the name calling to Junior high. Are you still in high school by the way? And again, why do you guys keep assuming that my opinion on this subject is a "christian" viewpoint. Take God out of the discussion, because I never added him in this from the beginning. Thanks Grock.

How do you know god is a "him"?

Dunamis, the viewpoint you are projecting is a bigoted one. That would make your idea bigoted, and in short makes you a bigot. This isn't name-calling, it's a simple observation. As you said, you've presented your opinion. My idea about your opinion is that it's bigoted. That isn't "name-calling".

No, I'm not in high school. I'm 21 years old. But that's beside the point.

I'm not simply assuming that your viewpoint is a Christian one. I know that it is. I was Christian for 10 years and have been to thousands of hours of bible study and read the Bible cover to cover multiple times. That's why I keep bringing up the Christian aspect of this- it's the most substantial basis for your argument. I can see that because all appeals to logic and facts have been disregarded by you.

Mr G-rock. You've exposed yourself. Former disgruntled Christian who thinks he understands all aspects of christianity. Every opinion you've expressed up to this point is definitely influenced by your "hatred" towards christianity and God, and because of this hatred, you choose to equate any opinion such as mine as a "christian" one. Again, I've never added any deity element to my opinion, only you have, and now I understand why.

I'm willing to have a decent, reasonable discussion about any topic, but not with someone whose opinions are tempered with anger and personal attacks. If you can discuss this reasonably and without anger, then I'm open. If not, please take your anti-god speech elsewhere. thanks.

A phobia (from the Greek φόβος "Phobos" meaning Fear), is an irrational, intense, persistent fear of certain situations, objects, activities, or persons. The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive, unreasonable desire to avoid the feared subject. When the fear is beyond one's control, or if the fear is interfering with daily life, then a diagnosis under one of the anxiety disorders can be made.

Your definition of a phobia is waaaay off.

This argument has zero basis in fact. You provide no evidence or statistics to support your claim that it is not natural.

it isnt that they are scared it is that they think it is wrong so they hate them this is just a cover up.

Thanks for the response Jdogg. You say that I provide no evidence or stats to support that homosexuality is not natural, yet no one can provide any evidence or solid fact that it is. This is where the argument lies and my viewpoint simply raises this big question, which of course, is nothing new. Anything at this point is simply theory. If you have any factual information that you can direct us to, I'm sure we'd all love to look at it. Keep it to facts though, not just theory or agenda driven research. thanks.

Well first of all I provided a definition of the word phobia so lets start with that part of the debate. You describe a phobia as "a fear of something natural." You then proceed to describe homo