Why are many Americans still homophobic? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14919226
Image


This is in the news today..

A Denver gay couple was stabbed multiple times because they were holding hands.
Gabriel Roman and his boyfriend Christopher Huizar were enjoying a night out with friends when they were approached by a man yelling homophobic slurs at them just after midnight on Sunday, they claim.
In a matter of seconds, the man repeatedly stabbed both men as they tried to to run to safety. They were left with serious injuries. Huizar thinks the attack was triggered by the fact he and Roman were holding hands.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/05/29/g ... rtal&utm_c
#14919232
Why don't we just generalize an entire nation's views on homosexuality on the basis of a single incident of crime that was allegedly motivated due to prejudice.

which is a pretty fucking gay thing to do.

@anarchist23,

;)
#14919244
Hong Wu wrote:That's not very specific.


Hmmmm.

They seem to be omitting certain descriptors for this assailant, like demography......for some reason. :lol:

anarchist23 wrote:Perhaps this is one of the reasons why many Americans are homophobic....


Because we all know there are no homophobic fundamentalist religions in the UK right? :lol:

Besides, the sign is not incorrect as stated, just not sufficiently comprehensive. :D
#14919246
If you tend toward homosexuality yourself, then I can see you being comfortable with it. If you are strictly heterosexual then it is natural to find it ‘unnatural’, because it is unnatural for you. Insisting I must be comfortable with everything you decide I should be is self righteous bullshit.
Homosexuality is not natural for me.
#14919270
I am not gay and have no care whatsoever what people do in their "bedrooms" as long as they do not cause physical harm to others. Even then I mostly don't give a shit as long as I am not the one getting harmed. It is strictly none of my business what someone else's sexuality is. Homophibia is strictly for small minded busy bodies who need to concentrate their attention on more important things such as "why is the sky blue".
#14919276
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Why don't we just generalize an entire nation's views on homosexuality on the basis of a single incident of crime that was allegedly motivated due to prejudice.

which is a pretty fucking gay thing to do.

@anarchist23,

;)


Please note that @anarchist23 said many Americans. Not “all”.

And frankly, anarchist23 is not the topic.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/219 ... countries/

This chart shows that 33% of USians are homophobic. This is significantly higher than the percentage of homophobes in other developed western countries.
#14919278
jimjam wrote:I am not gay and have no care whatsoever what people do in their "bedrooms" as long as they do not cause physical harm to others. Even then I mostly don't give a shit as long as I am not the one getting harmed. It is strictly none of my business what someone else's sexuality is. Homophibia is strictly for small minded busy bodies who need to concentrate their attention on more important things such as "why is the sky blue".


‘Small minded people’ are those who insist everyone must be in agreement.
#14919284
Homophobia is gay.

jimjam wrote:I am not gay and have no care whatsoever what people do in their "bedrooms" as long as they do not cause physical harm to others. Even then I mostly don't give a shit as long as I am not the one getting harmed.


That made me laugh. :D
#14919314
Why are many Americans still homophobic?
Ask Victoribus Spolia as he is homophobic?

Victoribus Spolia wrote.
practicing homosexuality is actual person destroying via potential person destroying given the OP, and is the same as murder only if you define the willful destruction of life for reasons other than war, capital punishment, and self-defense, as murder. (you should also know this from the OP, if you actually read it).


viewtopic.php?p=14866948#p14866948

Victoribus Spolia wrote..
Thus, homosexuality and bestiality are anti-procreative as they are a volitional deviation from natural sexuality, they are a wasting of semen that could be used for procreation (no circumstance would make this permissible, except the possible non-existence of all women in the universe).


viewtopic.php?p=14863492#p14863492
#14919320
anarchist23 wrote:Why are many Americans still homophobic?
Ask Victoribus Spolia as he is homophobic?


Image

anarchist23 wrote:Victoribus Spolia wrote.
practicing homosexuality is actual person destroying via potential person destroying given the OP, and is the same as murder only if you define the willful destruction of life for reasons other than war, capital punishment, and self-defense, as murder. (you should also know this from the OP, if you actually read it).


viewtopic.php?p=14866948#p14866948

Victoribus Spolia wrote..
Thus, homosexuality and bestiality are anti-procreative as they are a volitional deviation from natural sexuality, they are a wasting of semen that could be used for procreation (no circumstance would make this permissible, except the possible non-existence of all women in the universe).


viewtopic.php?p=14863492#p14863492


All true, because the logic of my syllogism is irrefutable.

At the same time, it still doesn't change the fact that you've just made hasty generalizations based on a single incident. Now you're butt hurt about it because I pointed it out. Which is hilarious.

For those interested: here is the argument in full:

I. Introduction

Most have either seen or heard of the movie "The Terminator," in that movie the Terminator was sent back in time for the ultimate purpose of eliminating John Connor, of which the means was assassinating Sarah Connor (his mother). But answer me this: Would "The Terminator" have succeeded in eliminating John Connor if he had disguised himself as a gynecologist and implanted a permanent IUD (birth control device) in Sarah Connor? The answer is as obvious as my syllogism below, if you want to eliminate people who would otherwise exist (given a natural course of events), then practice birth control. If intentionally eliminating people is murder, then birth control must be regarded as a type of murder in the same way the Terminator's ultimate goal was to murder John Connor. If this is the case, then people who use birth control are no less nefarious in their intentions when practicing contraception than the Terminator, whether you call it murder or not, and that is a matter of simple logic as I shall now demonstrate.

II. The Pronatalism Master Argument

Syllogism One

Premise One. All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Potential Person Destroying).[All X is Y]

Premise Two. All Non-Potentials Are Non-Actuals.

Corollary To P2: All (Potential Person Destroying) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All Y is B]

Conclusion. All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All X is B]


III. Definitions and Explanations

Terms To Be Defined:

1.Destroying: Stopping, or causing to cease, what would otherwise exist given a natural course of events (all things being equal).

2. Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality: Denotative: (1) Heterosexual Contraception or Pregnancy Prevention, (2) Bestiality, (3) Homosexuality, (4) Pedophilia. et. al.

Premise One Explanation:

1- All intentionally procreative sexual acts are transitional acts of a potential person (who’s existence is implicit in procreative or “natural” sexual relations) being made into an actual person. This is given by (1) The natural course of events, and (2) all things being equal.

2- All intentionally non-procreative sexual acts are purposefully disruptive acts of stopping a potential person from transitioning into an actual person through procreative or “natural” sexual relations. This is given because to purposefully engage in such acts is to stop the natural consequence of procreation which is transitioning a potential person into an actual person.

3- The definition of destroying is an adequate descriptor of the effect in #2 above.

Premise Two Explanation (With Corollary):

1- For every potential-person there is a corresponding actual person. All actual persons were once potential persons who, through intentional or unintentional procreative sexuality, were transitioned (actualized) into actual persons.

2- If there is no potential person in a given situation, then there can be no, and is no, corresponding actual person. That is, if there never was a potential person, then there could never be an actual person, for all actual persons originate from being a potential person.

3- Therefore, to make a potential person become a non-potential person (see definition of “destroying” above) is to make the corresponding actual person to become a non-actual person. This is because, without a potential person, no actual person can come into existence by the natural order of events (see premise one explanation #1).

Conclusion:

This conclusion follows given (P1) and (P2). If X is Y, and Y is B, then X is B.


IV. Further Thoughts for Clarification

Some people may wonder what this argument implies ethically (as my above argument is not an ethical argument per se, at least not in-and-of itself), and that would depend on which ethical school one subscribes to. At the very least, most deontological schools would be forced to admit that if potential-person-destroying is inseparably connected to actual-person-destroying by force of logic, then by necessary inference contraception would have to be regarded as unequivocally immoral so long as it by definition was anti-procreative (ipso facto). Both the deontological schools of Divine Command (e.g. orthodox Christianity), and the categorical imperative (Kantian altruism) therefore seem obligated to the thesis that contraception should be condemned as a deviant practice.

Now when it comes to consequentialist or teleological schools (utilitarianism, egoism, etc.) it seems that at the very least they would be forced to admit what they are actually permitting (actual person destroying). They would likewise have to admit that if they so choose to promote contraception that they must also justify it on their consequential grounds in the same way as justifying certain types of murder (that is, that murder "can" be justified if it is one's self-interest or promotes the greatest pleasure for the greatest number, all things being equal).

For instance, whether or not these schools decided, by their own systems, to condone or condemn contraception is irrelevant to the fact that they must admit that it is qualitatively the same as actual-person-destroying (given my argument). Hence, contraception must be justified in these schools via the same arguments as any other acts used for the purpose of destroying life (i.e permissible abortion, euthanasia, etc.). Now as a point of note, these schools (all of them) are forms of what might be called “empirical ethics” and should all be dismissed anyway since to infer obligation from observation is always a fallacy (as no necessary connection exists between “is“ and “ought”---see Hume on the naturalistic fallacy ); therefore, since empirical ethical schools are always fallacious one is left with deontology and we have already seen that the deontological schools must forbid contraception (if they still allow for logic, as many Christians seemed to have abandoned in favor of mere sentimentality or cultural relevance).

Now, before concluding this article, it must be made clear what is not meant by contraception and what is:

Pregnancy prevention is not: the elimination of circumstances by which procreation and conception could take place, but the use of semen for non-procreative purposes when procreation was not only possible but the circumstances also permitted it.

Thus, homosexuality and bestiality are anti-procreative as they are a volitional deviation from natural sexuality, they are a wasting of semen that could be used for procreation (no circumstance would make this permissible, except the possible non-existence of all women in the universe).

Similarly, contraception is a wasting of semen within the bounds of marriage wherein a heterosexual couple could produce offspring but instead deviates from that practice. Contraception, homosexuality, and bestiality must, therefore, all be regarded as anti-procreative on these aforementioned grounds.

Now, within the context of heterosexual marriage, if a couple is unable (by the observable laws of nature) to produce offspring (I.e. during pregnancy, menstruation, or post-menopause) then non-procreative sex acts between them would not be ipso facto immoral because such acts would not be anti-procreative or an act of pregnancy prevention (no circumstance of actualization exists and therefore the semen may be used but is not "wasted").

Hence, getting your dick sucked when your wife is on the rag, is pregnant, is breastfeeding (for most women) or is post-menopausal, would not be an anti-procreative sex act under the above definitions, no matter whether she spits or swallows
#14919325
Black Americans are significantly more homophobic than White Americans. the least homophobic are non Hispanic Whites. but if you want real homophobia go to Muslims lands or Christian Africa. This is yet more bigoted anti White racism from the left.
Last edited by Rich on 31 May 2018 12:15, edited 1 time in total.
#14919404
Rich wrote:Black Americans are significantly more homophobic than White Americans. the least homophobic are non Hispanic Whites. but if you want real homophobia go to Muslims lands or Christian Africa. This is yet more bigoted anti White racism form the left.

Nah, most homophobia is a psychological reaction based on personal perceptions of threat and stress. As stress levels go up, tolerance goes down. The "unknown" gets scarier. Make no mistake, homosexuality -IS- truly an unknown to straight people, our minds simply cannot relate to the concept.

Stress levels have been on the rise since Obama left office. Tolerance has decreased, so of course we see more racism and homophobia. Selfishness and greed are also more apparent.

Zam
#14919406
Zamuel wrote:Make no mistake, homosexuality -IS- truly an unknown to straight people, our minds simply cannot relate to the concept.


All you have to do is imagine two people attracted to each other. Who have the same genitalia. They call it "nature".
#14919422
skinster wrote:All you have to do is imagine two people attracted to each other. Who have the same genitalia. They call it "nature".

Then you are gay … straight people can't do that.

Zam

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]