Society/Culture Are homosexuals more prejudicial than heterosexuals?

Taylor

Formerly 'Tayl0r'
Jul 16, 2009
37,941
38,571
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Homophobia is a near universal cultural trait, that has persisted throughout history. There must be something to it to have survived so long.
If we are going to try and make an argument for anti-homosexual... I'm very pro sex and sex before marriage but let's talk like it's three hundred years ago.

I think we first have to suggest that a lifestyle that chases pleasure and satiating an animal need isn't conducive to a functioning society, which progresses more when people sacrifice their own needs to work at growth for the community.

Heterosexual sex serves a purpose of making more people. So keeping that in marriage would keep the raging heteros from spending their lives engaged in the pursuit of sex, at least that is what I think the theory behind that is from the old school conservatives. That is where I think historical homophobia has come from.

I don't think that's an argument against gay marriage though, because keeping the purely pleasure sex in a union, although not producing more people, isn't a distraction as much as sex with anyone and as a union they would build their lives with a goal that is at least common to them, which I think builds the society by default anyway.

The association of gay sex being purely pleasurable, self serving behaviour is part of why I think HIV was so discounted. One of the most crippling things against HIV management is the association of the virus with a selfish, hedonistic lifestyle. Intravenous drug users, scores of sexual partners meant that unless you contracted the disease from blood transfusion or being unable to carry more than a few condoms without being arrested then you put that needle or man into you. Now, unless you share needles or have lots of unprotected sex, or someone criminally infects you, your chance of contracting HIV is practically zero.

I don't think it makes a huge amount of sense because the animal imperative to get your hump on is in almost everyone, pretending that a man on my business is different to a woman because he might knock me up and it not just being about having a good time is being intentionally blinkered. I'd argue that children from sex has never been a majority motivation in human sex in history.

But that is where I think it stems from. We can have a discussion about whether a society of individuals chasing a fix for a physical need is a detriment to society on the whole, of all people gay and straight, and that isn't restricted to sex either but short of us all pretending that sex isn't going to happen unless it's in a marriage if that were the social law is foolish.

Long story short. I think old school societies saw gay people having fun without the consequences of children being born, didn't like that, decided that those who could more freely have sex would spend more time enjoying themselves than those working to keep the farm growing etc - rightly or wrongly and that's where historical homophobia comes from. In a 'don't eat pigs because they carry disease humans can catch, we don't understand that, let's just say god said not to' sort of way.

I need to clarify here that I'm very pro sex, pro sex before marriage, pro gay and very pro gay sex, I have enjoyed a lot of it. If we are trying to understand historical perspectives we need to explore what would have them create a theory they see as rational and that is what I have done here.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

EasternTiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 15, 2007
5,130
4,956
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
While we are on the subject of homophobia as a cultural thing, I would like to share a discussion I had with my 'No spikka da english, 2 boys jiggy jiggy no gud fu**en' father.

Dad is, give or take, possibly the most undesirable human still living.

He explained that back in the village, every tradition and custom revolved around not starving to death.

Weddings were pretty, deliriously happy 3 day long affairs, designed to make marriage look as enticing a proposition as possible, thereby allowing you to unload any daughters you have on to other unsuspecting families to feed.

Any possibility you were somehow related to anyone with excess food must be exploited 'Yea nah, you see, me uncle spiro and your grandmother were both second cousins of george the butcher, so that makes us practically brothers' so you could get a feed out of them in the likely event your fields were flooded again.

The goal was to have as many sons as possible during the good times, have them working the fields, then marry and have 4 sons of their own. The mortality rate was 50%, so the missus had to give birth 8 times, and scrap like hell to keep 4 alive.

By the time you get old you have an army of workers you can call on to look after you. If you played your cards right, at least one of these offspring would be naive enough to take you in during subzero winter.

Any genetic defects or hereditary illness was covered up, because it would make your children less desirable to potential marriage partners. If you had to visit a doctor, you did so as a last resort, and under the cover of darkness.

If you became a burden to your family, the oldest son would take a shovel, and march you orf into yonder horizon. They'd sometimes allow you a last supper and a good serving of home made wine.

A gay man screwed up this entire system, because he could not mate with a female and produce offspring.

I asked dad if there was a moral to the story....

 

RobbieK

Club Legend
Aug 20, 2009
1,958
2,778
Berlin
AFL Club
Sydney
My experience is that heterosexuals overwhelmingly don't care if someone is a homosexual, but there's definitely a higher propensity amongst homosexuals to make a political issue out of their sexuality, and it usually doesn't have a sound basis.
Do you think maybe there is a higher propensity amongst homosexuals to make a political issue out of their sexuality due to all of the political repression homosexuals have faced on account of said sexuality?
 
Last edited:

RobbieK

Club Legend
Aug 20, 2009
1,958
2,778
Berlin
AFL Club
Sydney
I already answered this in post #5 of this thread.
So you are suggesting there is a "lingering generational neurosis" despite us having, for example, a highly public debate and vote about the validity and equality of homosexual relationships in Australia only 18 months ago? A debate and vote instigated by a bunch of heterosexuals with the intention of repressing homosexual rights, I might add.
 

RobbieK

Club Legend
Aug 20, 2009
1,958
2,778
Berlin
AFL Club
Sydney
And if the homosexual community wasn't intergenerationally neurotic how would you expect their behaviour to differ in the face of real and current political threats?

Is there any politically engaged minority who isn't suffering from this neurosis?

edit: Actually, fu** it, it's not worth engaging with this s**t. Claiming a minority experiencing real and current political repression are being "reactive" and "generationally neurotic" for daring to actively protect their rights is nonsense. The real neurosis is to be found in the heterosexuals who continue to fight for the repression that demands homosexuals continue to organise politically.
 
Last edited:

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
5,594
7,100
AFL Club
Geelong
How "political" do you think gays would be today if religion and society had said it was okay in 1919? Keep in mind religion in 2019 still won't say it's okay.
You need to go back a little further than this. Homosexuality as a term describing a permanent and exclusive attraction to the same sex wasn't a thing until psychiatrists invented it in the late 19th century. Before that only the sexual acts were referred to - as depraved etc.

People wanting to identify as a gay person became a political movement. It was unrealistic for society to easily accept either what was previously thought of as 'depraved acts' or the new gay identity politics. Of course views have changed over the years but it's invalid and pointless to judge previous generations by current morality.

To answer the OP, I don't think many people really identify as heterosexual whereas some people positively identify as homosexual, which might lead them to have in-group prejudices.
 

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Apr 24, 2013
47,099
87,329
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
And if the homosexual community wasn't intergenerationally neurotic how would you expect their behaviour to differ in the face of real and current political threats?
I'm not interested in hypotheticals.

Is there any politically engaged minority who isn't suffering from this neurosis?
The fact that people utilise sexuality as a political vessel in contemporary Australia, IS proof of an historical residual neurosis.

edit: Actually, fu** it, it's not worth engaging with this s**t. Claiming a minority experiencing real and current political repression are being "reactive" and "generationally neurotic" for daring to actively protect their rights is nonsense. The real neurosis is to be found in the heterosexuals who continue to fight for the repression that demands homosexuals continue to organise politically.
Your dissonance is not my problem. Learn to come to terms with a more realistic view of the situation.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RobbieK

Club Legend
Aug 20, 2009
1,958
2,778
Berlin
AFL Club
Sydney
I'm not interested in hypotheticals.

The fact that people utilise sexuality as a political vessel in contemporary Australia, IS proof of an historical residual neurosis.

Your dissonance is not my problem. Learn to come to terms with a more realistic view of the situation.
A post completely devoid of any actual content. Unsurprising. You are a fraud.
 

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Apr 24, 2013
47,099
87,329
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
A post completely devoid of any actual content. Unsurprising. You are a fraud.
You attempt to manipulate my comments with hypothetical insertions of generic emotionally manipulative scenarios, and I am the fraud?

You have no intellectual credibility.
 
Last edited:

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Apr 24, 2013
47,099
87,329
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
the points being made on both sides of the debate make me sad.
Oh okay.

I figure we're adults, and some of us are reasonably intelligent, and I am providing academic research in regards to a dominant cultural phenomena.

Your "sadness" is noted, but I don't see how it impacts anything. How would the world be if people didn't discuss things based upon a person being "sad" about it?
 

RobbieK

Club Legend
Aug 20, 2009
1,958
2,778
Berlin
AFL Club
Sydney
You attempt to manipulate my comments with hypothetical insertions of generic emotionally manipulative scenarios, and I am the fraud?

You have no intellectual credibility.
I think the person mass diagnosing neurosis in a minority based on their preparedness to stand up to repression from the majority is the one who needs to check their intellectual credibility.
 

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Apr 24, 2013
47,099
87,329
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
I think the person mass diagnosing neurosis in a minority based on their preparedness to stand up to repression from the majority is the one who needs to check their intellectual credibility.
Your comments are literally drowning in mayonnaise.

I am done with your obvious attempts to derail the discussion.
 
Last edited:

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Apr 24, 2013
47,099
87,329
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
I don't look at which emojis people use. I treat all GG's sad faces as likes.
It's just odd, as I know the poster is capable of well reasoned responses, and I was trying to figure out what it meant in absence of any solid response.

Sarcasm? Disdain? Humor? Performance art? An expression related to unfortunate truths? Without much else, it's open to a myriad of interpretations.

Anyway, moving on.
 

GG.exe

Killer on the Road ™
Sep 6, 2005
99,103
52,738
in every girl's wet dream ℠
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Ravens-Dolphins Hurricanes-Terps
It's just odd, as I know the poster is capable of well reasoned responses, and I was trying to figure out what it meant in absence of any solid response.

Sarcasm? Disdain? Humor? Performance art? An expression related to unfortunate truths? Without much else, it's open to a myriad of interpretations.

Anyway, moving on.
I already stated my thoughts on the topic in the first page of the thread. no more needed to be said (by me)
 

Top Bottom