Thread: Is homophobia a choice?

Originally Posted by bg85

yes. you're saying you'd trust your daughter with a scoutmaster of the same sexuality, but not one of the opposite, and you've given no reason for why this is so. my point is that there is, in fact, no reason why you couldn't trust a homosexual scout master any more than a heterosexual one, and your position regarding allowing your child to go to a sleepover chaperoned by one is completely irrational. it is, in other words, and example of homophobia.

Read his response #101 to my scenario. I wouldn't call that homophobic.

He just doesn't want his 14yo violated by whichever person has the highest chance of doing so. (homosexual woman or heterosexual man).

I think its a bit too cautious, but what do I know, I only have sons and they're not teenagers yet. I'm not really worried that their female babysitters and teachers are molesting them.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Read his response #101 to my scenario. I wouldn't call that homophobic.

i would say from his original position (specifically, that he would be afraid to let his daughter go on a camping trip with an "obviously butch" lesbian scoutmaster) he is indeed homophobic. i believe all these little scenarios that have been given are masking a perfectly simple case of homophobia.

call it whatever you want, though. it's still a stupid position based on nothing but paranoia.

Originally Posted by smurf

I have given the reason, numerous times, but you either aren't seeing, or understanding it. I will try again.

I have stated that I would not let my daughter go on an overnight camping trip with a heterosexual male scoutmaster.

I have stated that I would not let my daughter go on an overnight camping trip with a homosexual female (i.e. lesbian) scoutmaster.

My reasoning for not allowing my teenage daughter to be put into a potentially inappropriate sexual situation is the same in both above accounts.

Furthermore, I answered to Disillusioned_1 that I would allow my daughter to go on an overnight camping trip with a homosexual male scoutmaster.

My positions are completely rational and have nothing to do with homodisgust or homohate.

The word homophobia is blatantly disingenuous, and I refuse to partake in the furthering of that agenda.

I don't think that the common use of the term "homophobia" inasmuch as it has a correct usage applies to you. In general, I think the "phobia" describes not a particular fear of being accosted by some homosexual, but the comparably abstract fear of homosexuality as an institution.

For instance, you see a lot of people arguing that homosexuality is the harbinger of some sort of societal collapse or the elimination of all moral decency. Likewise, you see a lot of people who seem to think that institutionalized non-acceptance of homosexuals is the only thing standing between ordinary society and everyone "turning queer" in droves. This is an irrational and unsupportable belief and it is also unambiguously a fearful one.

My take, anyway, on what is generally meant by "homophobia". I think that people using the term to describe someone who is either repulsed by the thought of homosexual coupling or uncomfortable with the idea is hyperbole. I think it is more appropos as a label for people who are crusading or doing everything in their power to condemn homosexuality. These people are clearly fearful - not of homosexuals, per se, but of the ramifications of homosexuality as they perceive them.

Originally Posted by bg85

i would say from his original position (specifically, that he would be afraid to let his daughter go on a camping trip with an "obviously butch" lesbian scoutmaster) he is indeed homophobic. i believe all these little scenarios that have been given are masking a perfectly simple case of homophobia.

You are wrong, but it is your choice to be wrong.

Originally Posted by bg85

call it whatever you want, though. it's still a stupid position based on nothing but paranoia.

The safety and well being of my children means everything to me.

Your opinion on this position means nothing to me.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I don't think that the common use of the term "homophobia" inasmuch as it has a correct usage applies to you. In general, I think the "phobia" describes not a particular fear of being accosted by some homosexual, but the comparably abstract fear of homosexuality as an institution.

For instance, you see a lot of people arguing that homosexuality is the harbinger of some sort of societal collapse or the elimination of all moral decency. Likewise, you see a lot of people who seem to think that institutionalized non-acceptance of homosexuals is the only thing standing between ordinary society and everyone "turning queer" in droves. This is an irrational and unsupportable belief and it is also unambiguously a fearful one.

My take, anyway, on what is generally meant by "homophobia". I think that people using the term to describe someone who is either repulsed by the thought of homosexual coupling or uncomfortable with the idea is hyperbole. I think it is more appropos as a label for people who are crusading or doing everything in their power to condemn homosexuality. These people are clearly fearful - not of homosexuals, per se, but of the ramifications of homosexuality as they perceive them.

Interesting. I will ponder your post further when I have more time to do so.

Originally Posted by smurf

You are wrong, but it is your choice to be wrong.



The safety and well being of my children means everything to me.

Your opinion on this position means nothing to me.

Do you have any evidence to support your insinuation that your children would be in any more danger with a homosexual supervisor than a heterosexual supervisor?

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Do you have any evidence to support your insinuation that your children would be in any more danger with a homosexual supervisor than a heterosexual supervisor?

Come on, pram, did you even read the thread? I never insinuated anything of the kind.

Your question screams of ignorance, because I know that you're not stupid.

Read post #106. You should then understand that your question has no basis.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I don't think that the common use of the term "homophobia" inasmuch as it has a correct usage applies to you. In general, I think the "phobia" describes not a particular fear of being accosted by some homosexual, but the comparably abstract fear of homosexuality as an institution.

For instance, you see a lot of people arguing that homosexuality is the harbinger of some sort of societal collapse or the elimination of all moral decency. Likewise, you see a lot of people who seem to think that institutionalized non-acceptance of homosexuals is the only thing standing between ordinary society and everyone "turning queer" in droves. This is an irrational and unsupportable belief and it is also unambiguously a fearful one.

My take, anyway, on what is generally meant by "homophobia". I think that people using the term to describe someone who is either repulsed by the thought of homosexual coupling or uncomfortable with the idea is hyperbole. I think it is more appropos as a label for people who are crusading or doing everything in their power to condemn homosexuality. These people are clearly fearful - not of homosexuals, per se, but of the ramifications of homosexuality as they perceive them.

You may be correct, but I am more inclined to believe that the word was coined by the homosexual rights agenda to try and paint the opposition as not only being fearful (fearful is never a positive attribute), but also irrationally fearful. Whether or not the opposition was actually fearful of anything at all may never have been a consideration. Branding the opponent with a negative moniker is a valid tactic in the age of soundbite news.

Originally Posted by smurf

I have given the reason, numerous times, but you either aren't seeing, or understanding it. I will try again.

I have stated that I would not let my daughter go on an overnight camping trip with a heterosexual male scoutmaster.

I have stated that I would not let my daughter go on an overnight camping trip with a homosexual female (i.e. lesbian) scoutmaster.

My reasoning for not allowing my teenage daughter to be put into a potentially inappropriate sexual situation is the same in both above accounts.

Furthermore, I answered to Disillusioned_1 that I would allow my daughter to go on an overnight camping trip with a homosexual male scoutmaster.

My positions are completely rational and have nothing to do with homodisgust or homohate.

The word homophobia is blatantly disingenuous, and I refuse to partake in the furthering of that agenda.

The only problem I have with you comments above is that you are essentially implying that every adult is a paedophile just waiting to have their way with your daughter ... which I believe to be false. Granted some scout masters as you describe (whether they be straight male or gay female) me be paedophiles, but the vast majority are not. You implication is that they all are.

Originally Posted by noahath

The only problem I have with you comments above is that you are essentially implying that every adult is a paedophile just waiting to have their way with your daughter ... which I believe to be false. Granted some scout masters as you describe (whether they be straight male or gay female) me be paedophiles, but the vast majority are not. You implication is that they all are.

I know that not all scoutmasters as so described would take advantage of young females given the chance (overnight camping trip being the perfect chance), but I also know that some would. How many that some would be, I don't know. With a straight female or gay male scoutmaster, that risk effectively falls to zero, though.

Originally Posted by Ace

I've heard the same said about homosexuality.

You heard wrong.

Originally Posted by Ace

I've heard the same thing said about homosexuals.

*Reaches into pocket and pulls out the same old comment I must have posted 200 times at the Forum in the last 5 years*

If you believe that, then I'd like you to share with us here you experiences about why you chose to be straight.

Sexuality is more than just having sex. You don't need to have sex to be a sexual being. One can be heterosexual, homosexual, etc whilst being celibate. Sexuality is how you feel, not who you feel. You can engage in a homosexual act and not consider yourself homosexual.

So I'd be interested in why you chose to be straight rather than choosing to be gay. Hey, if homosexuality is a choice then heterosexuality must be too right?

Originally Posted by noahath

*Reaches into pocket and pulls out the same old comment I must have posted 200 times at the Forum in the last 5 years*

If you believe that, then I'd like you to share with us here you experiences about why you chose to be straight.

Sexuality is more than just having sex. You don't need to have sex to be a sexual being. One can be heterosexual, homosexual, etc whilst being celibate. Sexuality is how you feel, not who you feel. You can engage in a homosexual act and not consider yourself homosexual.

So I'd be interested in why you chose to be straight rather than choosing to be gay. Hey, if homosexuality is a choice then heterosexuality must be too right?

I never said homosexuality was a choice.

Your inference module needs tuning.