To my homosexual friends:
Posted by Allychristine on Nov 05, 2009 · Member since Dec 2007 · 15438 posts
1. Does it bother/annoy/etc. you when people use the term "gay" to mean "stupid"? It's always bothered me, since the very first time I heard it used!
2. Does it bother/annoy/etc. you when people use what they think to be gay voices and mannerisms..in a joking manner? I've noticed a lot of my co workers (straight males and females) do this. I'm just like... ???
Yeah, BOOO GAY PEOPLE, THEY'RE THE ONES NOT POPPING OUT TONS OF BABIES, BOOOOOOOO. GREEDY BASTARDS, MAKING HETEROS DO ALL THE WORK.
Yeah, BOOO GAY PEOPLE, THEY'RE THE ONES NOT POPPING OUT TONS OF BABIES, BOOOOOOOO. GREEDY BASTARDS, MAKING HETEROS DO ALL THE WORK.
Anything can be mocked. The fact that you resort to such a childish strategy is a sign that you cannot refute my points logically.
And I'm not against "gay rights", by which I mean the equality of negative Rights - I'm just explaining the economic basis of what makes homosexuality controversial in the first place. Just as Property Rights solve the freeloader problem in the realm of material exchange, stronger Parents' Rights could solve this problem with demographics.
How can you "logically" say that the world population is declining?? Yes, there is a large population of elderly people that may contribute to a decline, but I think the US more than makes up for those countries that have "restrictions" on how many kids you can have. But doesn't it seem that the ones that are having a lot of children are ones who CAN'T afford it?! (Not all of course) I also have to say that there is nothing stopping you from having as much sex as you want to, you don't have to "suppress" any sexual urges. Most people don't, hence the large number of babies being born!
How can you "logically" say that the world population is declining??
Please take a good look at the data (which, BTW, is lagging a few years behind in some indicators):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate
I didn't say it was sub-replacement already, but it's only a matter of a few decades. The fertility rates are falling all over the world, with USA just having passed into negative territory (2.05 children per woman on average, while about 2.2 is needed to keep the population stable, accounting for probability of early mortality). The world-wide average of ~2.5 is roughly at a break-even point, since most children are born in the very backward countries where infant mortality is very high and 3-4 children per woman may be needed to break even. In every part of the world and every cultural category there are examples of countries below the break-even point. As the world becomes more prosperous, secular, and urbanized, the fertility rate will continue to decrease.
And please don't lose the context of what I'm saying. I am not promoting homophobia, conservatism, backwardness, etc - and especially not violence. I am just answering the question posed by this thread about typical heterosexual persons' resentment of homosexuality, subtle and repressed through it may be.
Wow. Just.
Wow.
Well I have always found derogatory terms used as insults towards a person or group of people wrong. It starts at home. You have to teach your children to be respectful of the feelings of others. If we want to change we have to start teaching children that derogatory terms are not acceptable. I do have a lot of homosexual friends and family and the things that they've had to go through in our society repulse and sadden me. And whose to say sperm counts have anything to do with population decline? Many people I know choose not to have children regardless of their sexual orientation. How many others choose not to have any also?
And whose to say sperm counts have anything to do with population decline? Many people I know choose not to have children regardless of their sexual orientation. How many others choose not to have any also?
I never said anything about "sperm counts" in describing the economic basis of "homophobia" above, which for most people manifests subconsciously. It's true that homosexual people (and women who have abortions) get a disproportionately high amount of resentment for this demographic "free rider problem", while married heterosexual couples who practice birth control get disproportionately little. (Again, reminder: I'm not against reproductive and sexual freedom.)
People need to learn to understand the difference between legality and ethics. In a rational society all "victimless crimes" would be legal, but people who abuse drugs, act irresponsibly, or don't pull their demographic weight would have a very low reputation. Perhaps some added economic incentives for having children (ex. the Parents Tax idea) should exist as well. This would solve the issues of homophobia, anti-abortion prohibitionism, and other "sexual morality" preaching once and for all.
I'm just curious - what people are you talking to? I only ask because I've never met anyone who resents gays or women because (as you've put it) they're not contributing to the repopulation of our country.
You've never encountered homophobia?
Like I said, for most people those reasons are subconscious, or are communicated through religious dogma and other indirect mechanisms of encouraging social norms. Everything that major religions preach has an economic basis behind it, even if it is a bit out of date.
No, I've encountered plenty of homophobia...and still do. I've just never met anyone who resented gays and/or women because (as you put it) they're not contributing to the repopulation. The homophobia I've encountered in my lifetime has come from ultra-conservative/ultra-radical religious folks who can't accept it based on their interpretation of God's word.
eta: Also, people who can't accept change or something different than themselves.
You are confusing cause and effect. Religious dogma is mistranslated and self-contradictory enough to be interpreted to say anything. The reason why it was invented in the first place was to get people who don't understand rational philosophy to behave in a way that benefits the economy of the society as a whole, which includes giving birth to and raising the next generation. Homophobia came before religion, and it will exist for as long as it produces an economic benefit.
The argument I've heard is that the Bible (when written) wasn't necessarily against homosexuality. It was against people thinking/acting certain ways and/or for themselves. Things were written and interpreted as "god's message" and it was used to control people into being obedient with fear as the fuel. Constant fear of something or someone is a very controlling tool.
But, again, I've never heard of people resenting gays who can't have children or women who chose to have an abortion or refuse to have children. So now I ask you - is this for real? I'm willing to educate myself if you have resources that show people being resentful towards these groups.
To me, it just seems like a radical idea. Yes, I see what your saying when you say - gays can't have children and that means less children to repopulate our country. But resenting them? I've never heard that. Nor do I support it. You say these resenting thoughts are mostly subconscious and I could see that. I choose, however, not to fuel these resentful thoughts and see what alternatives we have. Have you tried that? To me, feeding these subconscious thoughts only contributes to in-fighting amongst each other and hate and that will ultimately be extremely detrimental to our society as a whole.
As a dyke who is currently pregnant I find the gay people not repopulating the world argument odd. Certainly in past this was more the case but not so today. I also am not entirely sure that a decrease in world population would be the worst thing ever and therefore a viable explanation of homophobia. As people discussed before, I believe that fear based on the misuse of religion to be a more likely cause.
That there is criticism for gay people not repopulating the world is certainly one that isn't widespread. I certainly haven't heard it in a while. A few radicals perhaps, but it's not one I hear that often. More often I hear "you're an abomination because the Bible says so" from people blindly following a dogma that some preacher tells them to without using their own brain.
It is interesting that in the Old Testament people were commanded to be fruitful and multiply, and not waste their seed, so homosexuality might have been condemned for this reason. Which might have been the reasoning for the "man shall not lay with man...blah blah blah" stuff. But Jesus came along and pretty much did away with a lot of those ideas, and it certainly isn't a valid point in 2011.
Pages