Turkey bans Istanbul gay pride due to 'security fears'

[Zyster]

One would have to ask, why do you support straight marriage, but not gay marriage? Since the discrepancy appears to be based solely on people being homosexuals, then you would fit the definition of a homophobe. Is it a very mild example? Yes, but it is still an example of homophobia. I think there's a great many people who feel as you do. They don't like something, but they aren't willing to stop others from doing it. Honestly, being a bigot is fine, we are all bigots. Acting out on your bigotry is the real problem.

Well, religious feelings aside (which is actually interesting since I think if I wasn't religious I would actually not want anything to do with gays yet religions gets attacked so much), I find it illogical. Maybe it's just my thought process, and I don't try to go out of my way to try and create a stack of reasons why it is illogical. I just feel there is no result of 2 gay people being together. What I mean by that is yes they can make each other happy since lets face it, a lot of us need company, but 1 + 1 = 0. That is the problem. You essentially get a faulty equation. I'm not saying that all straight couples and blah blah are perfect, which tends to get argued when this gets brought up to try and ad hominem from the actually convo, just hoping that doesn't happen, because I'm not talking about at all how good not not good someone will be as a parent of an adoptive kid or something. I also have a problem because homosexuality completely contradicts evolution, and surprised with how pro evolution is around here (I actually don't know if this is true since all threads on anything else get locked, well except conspiracy theories from other scientists) that people don't argue this more. Maybe they know, but assuming it just falls under the let them do whatever they want argument.

[Dreknar20]

It is pretty simple.

No its not.

There is hardly any difference if you consider that gay sexual acts to a straight person is hardly just a 'lack of interest' or a neutral thing. It would be the opposite of sexual arousal, a complete boner killer.

[Endus]

Your deduction is wrong on several levels. First if all, my dislike is based on gender, not homosexual nature of the act. I do not mind women kissing each other. So, with your logic, I am sexist, not homophobe.

If it were based on gender, you'd find heterosexual couples kissing to be at least somewhat repellent, since there's one dude in that kiss.

It's that the kiss is homosexual, between men, that you find repellent. That is homophobic. That you're not homophobic to lesbian couples does not make your reaction less homophobic.

[Dug]

No its not.

There is hardly any difference if you consider that gay sexual acts to a straight person is hardly just a 'lack of interest' or a neutral thing. It would be the opposite of sexual arousal, a complete boner killer.

Except no one is asking you to get a boner from two men kissing. We're saying the literal act of turning your head away because you cannot bear to look is disgust. It's such a primal reaction to disgust and that's what's being argued about. If you're disgusted with gay PDA but can tolerate hetero PDA then you're homophobic. The act of kissing in general is not innately sexual but if two men kissing, even a small peck, can bring out such a response from you then it's irrational disgust. Hell, I doubt one even puts any sort of thought into the reaction at all it just happens but that's why it's so ingrained.

[May90]

No its not.

There is hardly any difference if you consider that gay sexual acts to a straight person is hardly just a 'lack of interest' or a neutral thing. It would be the opposite of sexual arousal, a complete boner killer.

It is a neutral or positive thing to those that are not homophobic, and negative to those who are; pretty much, by definition.

Not to mention that kissing is not a sexual act per se.

[Kuntantee]

If it were based on gender, you'd find heterosexual couples kissing to be at least somewhat repellent, since there's one dude in that kiss.

This is just a guess. Maybe I find it unpleasant, though not as visually unpleasant as it is in two males? Your starting point is always that I am a homophobe, and your arguments are crafted for that. I am not going to make guesses or make apriori assumptions that I am homophobe; so, with your logic, I should be sexist and not homophobe.

It's that the kiss is homosexual, between men, that you find repellent. That is homophobic. That you're not homophobic to lesbian couples does not make your reaction less homophobic.

Finding a particular action belonging to a particular group of people "unpleasant" is not bigoted in anyway, whether its gays or babies.

I find your understanding of homophobia unhealthy and too aggressive, especially when I clearly say I did befriended gay people in the past.

[Dreknar20]

by definition.

sure, a ridiculously watered down definition

Its akin to calling slapping a girls ass to full blown rape

- - - Updated - - -

It is a neutral or positive thing to those that are not homophobic

Where is the hate or fear in someone finding 2 dudes kissing uncomfortable?

And constantly throwing around accusations of homophobic kinda contributes to making it a useless term and no more than a basic insult. Mind as well start calling people dickheads instead of homophobic cause it would be the same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

We're saying the literal act of turning your head away because you cannot bear to look is disgust. It's such a primal reaction to disgust and that's what's being argued about.

A normal act that is neither excessive or irrational.

I don't like big hairy spiders, if I walked in on one I would back out of the room. That scenario does not make me an arachnophobia.
I would be if I burned my house down and moved to a different state

For essentially describing any dislike as a phobia, which kinda belittles actual phobias.

- - - Updated - - -

but can tolerate hetero PDA

tolerate is not the same as acceptance

[Dug]

A normal act that is neither excessive or irrational.

I don't like big hairy spiders, if I walked in on one I would back out of the room. That scenario does not make me an arachnophobia.
I would be if I burned my house down and moved to a different state

That you need to back out of a room with a spider in it is irrational and excessive. Again, varying degrees. With burning your home down being extremely excessive and not being able to enter a room because of a bug being less excessive. And hey I understand I have a phobia of roaches, it's hella irrational because they cannot harm me.

Now with two gay men nobody is asking you to be turned on by it but by looking away you are disgusted by what you're seeing. It's irrational because its two adults kissing, something you see every day in hetero couples. That you cannot help yourself from the reaction is irrational and excessive

[Deleted]

You get your St.Patricks piss up
We get our Gay Pride festival

- - - Updated - - -



Thankfully the EWW ICKY reaction is slowly dying out amongst heterosexuals especially those between 16-40

Not really. Not many do get drunk for St Paddy's day since it mostly falls on a weekday and we only get one day off from work (not worth going in with a hangover).

[Dreknar20]

That you need to back out of a room with a spider in it is irrational and excessive.

which is the root of the problem, in you having a ridicoulously low criteria to what constitutes a phobia

- - - Updated - - -

Now with two gay men nobody is asking you to be turned

And no one should also be asking me to see a sexually "de-rousing" act and treat and feel about it as if staring at a blank white wall, which would be a neutral reaction.
But I guess toleration cuts only one way

[Dug]

which is the root of the problem, in you having a ridicoulously low criteria to what constitutes a phobia

It's not a low criteria it's a simple one, are you disgusted? Do you want to look away/get away from the source of discomfort? Even if that source isn't something to actively try and get away from? Then you have a phobia.

Root of the problem for you is when you think Homophobe you're thinking of some book thumping weirdo trying to ban gay marriage and out beating up on homosexuals. That's an extremely excessive form of homophobia, where being disgusted at seeing men kiss is a mild one.

[Dreknar20]

It's irrational because its two adults kissing, something you see every day in hetero couples.

Only thing irrational is your logic in this sentence

- - - Updated - - -

Do you want to look away/get away from the source of discomfort?

you do realize that is a completely normal thing to do right?

- - - Updated - - -

That's an extremely excessive form of homophobia, where being disgusted at seeing men kiss is a mild one.

a "mild excess"?
Lol, thats just called being non-excessive

[Dug]

I think that it is relatively rare, and not too long ago was taboo in most societies, it is fair to understand why some people may be uncomfortable, or have aversion to it.

That is not the problem though. People can find it gross, but still support full marriage equality, or generel rights for gay people. Picking on people for something they have not consciously chosen to dislike, and actually volitionally support the rights of, is counterproductive, and not actually making anything better.

If you are going to have a purity test for "homophobia" it should end at "harm" and prejudice in society. Not personal taste.

But it is something one can reverse. I grew up with a fairly conservative religous family and even to this day my grand parents dislike homosexuals and think they're sinners etc etc. At a young age I was taught this idea that men cannot be with men. Nor women with women. Whenever I saw gay couples I too would look away, was it disgust or some trained behavior? It must have been a combination of both.

But as I got older I realized how silly the whole notion of being homophobic was and I had to teach myself to not be prejudiced or even discomforted by homosexual intimacy. It's not impossible and simply saying "Well that's how I am!" is frankly being weak and throwing in the towel. This doesn't mean I go and watch gay porn and get off on it like some would like to imply that we're asking but I unlearned the "look away" instinct that was taught to me.

- - - Updated - - -

you do realize that is a completely normal thing to do right?

Only if its something that you should actually be trying to avoid. Like, getting shot, or lit on fire, or mauled by a bear. In my case, leaving the room because a roach in there is not a normal thing to do. It's a phobia, it's irrational and excessive. Just like having to look away when gay men kiss.

[Endus]

And no one should also be asking me to see a sexually "de-rousing" act and treat and feel about it as if staring at a blank white wall, which would be a neutral reaction.
But I guess toleration cuts only one way

You're free to feel that way.

It's just an expression of homophobia. Don't like the label? Try not being homophobic. It seems pretty damn silly to argue that it's unfair to be labelled correctly.

[May90]

And constantly throwing around accusations of homophobic kinda contributes to making it a useless term and no more than a basic insult. Mind as well start calling people dickheads instead of homophobic cause it would be the same thing.

Overuse of term doesn't destroy the term. Homophobia by definition is homophobia by definition, it has nothing to do with accusations thrown around, it is just the way the language works.

I have nothing against people disgusted by guys kissing, I'm not going to mind police anyone. But definition is definition. People, especially on the Internet, like to give words new definitions they themselves came up with, not understanding that this isn't how it works at all.

you do realize that is a completely normal thing to do right?

"Normal" is irrelevant here at all. Of course it is normal, many people share this behavior. Doesn't mean it is not homophobic though, again, pretty much by definition; not "watered down" definition, like you said earlier, but an actual definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

[Kuntantee]

It's not a low criteria it's a simple one, are you disgusted? Do you want to look away/get away from the source of discomfort? Even if that source isn't something to actively try and get away from? Then you have a phobia.

Root of the problem for you is when you think Homophobe you're thinking of some book thumping weirdo trying to ban gay marriage and out beating up on homosexuals. That's an extremely excessive form of homophobia, where being disgusted at seeing men kiss is a mild one.

Definitions must have a functionality. How it is achieved? The criteria used in a certain definition must serve a purpose, it must be meaningful, it must achieve something in real life. That's the sole reason of making a definition; to make a useful classification.

Let's use your "simple" criteria. What does it classifies? According the stupid criteria that you so eagerly support, I am a homophobe, yet I do not hate homosexuals, I support their rights and vote accordingly, befriend them, have fun and treat them as they deserve, with dignity, but I am a homophobe? Now, let's go back to the functionality. What did you achieve by classifying me as a homophobe? Go a head and answer this question.

The definition I used, the simple, accurate and probably a well-known one, does a crucial differentiation. It differentiates people who mistreat gays and those who not. Let's not commit to stupid definitions, and prefer those who have a fucking functionality.

- - - Updated - - -

You're free to feel that way.

It's just an expression of homophobia. Don't like the label? Try not being homophobic. It seems pretty damn silly to argue that it's unfair to be labelled correctly.

I could come up with personal definition for homophobia, here is one: Those who do not enjoy gay porn are homophobes. Do you enjoy gay porn, Endus?

[Dreknar20]

"Normal" is irrelevant here at all.

seems pretty relevant in describing what is irrational and thus a phobia.

Otherwise a dislike of anything is phobic behavior, making the label pretty useless.

[Dug]

Definitions must have a functionality. How it is achieved? The criteria used in a certain definition must serve a purpose, it must be meaningful, it must achieve something in real life. That's the sole reason of making a definition; to make a useful classification.

Let's use your "simple" criteria. What does it classifies? According the stupid criteria that you so eagerly support, I am a homophobe, yet I do not hate homosexuals, I support their rights and vote accordingly, befriend them, have fun and treat them as they deserve, with dignity, but I am a homophobe? Now, let's go back to the functionality. What did you achieve by classifying me as a homophobe? Go a head and answer this question.

The definition I used, the simple, accurate and probably a well-known one, does a crucial differentiation. It differentiates people who mistreat gays and those who not. Let's not waste commit to stupid definitions, and prefer those who have a fucking functionality.

The purpose of the label is that you have an ingrained homophobia you don't even know about. You think the irrational act of having to look away at two men kissing is completely normal means you haven't a clue about yourself. I'm not advocating that you change your ways but as stated earlier I was like you before, now I'm not. I would have been a homophobe about 4 years ago. If you don't want to change that's fine. I have no problem with homophobes if they're not actively trying to take away homosexuals rights. You're just upset because you don't want to be labeled for something you think is completely normal.

[Kuntantee]

The purpose of the label is that you have an ingrained homophobia you don't even know about. You think the irrational act of having to look away at two men kissing is completely normal means you haven't a clue about yourself. I'm not advocating that you change your ways but as stated earlier I was like you before, now I'm not. I would have been a homophobe about 4 years ago. If you don't want to change that's fine. I have no problem with homophobes if they're not actively trying to take away homosexuals rights. You're just upset because you don't want to be labeled for something you think is completely normal.

Do you enjoy gay porn?

[Dug]

Yes, you can reverse it, but it takes conscious effort, and being exposed to it more often. Which for most people is not really a priority.

The real thing that should concern people is how they treat others in society, in law, etc... not if they personally have some emotions that are negative... intent, and action is more important than subconscious workings of the mind and novelty.

And that's essentially my argument. Just because I label you a homophobe or that you fit the criteria doesn't mean you're scum of the earth. The lawmakers who want to take away their rights are the true scum but everyone else that minds their own business but still has a dislike for it are A OK in my book.