Are people born to dislike and fear homosexuals?

If a person can be born to a specific psychological trait entirely beyond their or society influence or control in terms of who they desire and who they do not, isn't it then possible that some people are born to dislike and fear homosexuals over which the person has no choice or control? Equally, it could be why so many gays are extremely defensive and aggressive towards heterosexuals who don't like them also could be pre-birth programmed fear and hatred of heterosexuals.

IF psychological traits established prior to birth can absolutely dictate a person's emotions and psychology in terms of attaction and repulsion for which societal influences can no change nor can the person change, then it is possible that heterosexuals and homosexuals are born to dislike, fear and be replused by each other - and there is not possible way to remove this as it is an innate psychological trait.

Once the "born to be ________________" door is opened in regards to emotions and psychology in relation to other people, it isn't limited to how a person wants that blank filled and not filled with. If someone claimed they always disliked gays and were born to dislike gays over which s/he has no choice, how is that automatically a false claim IF a person is correct in claiming s/he was born to be gay or born to be heterosexual?

 

Bigotry is not a "psychological trait". It is ignorance expressed.

 

How do you know that? Bigotry isn't "psychological?" Any proof? What organ of the human body do you claim it is then, if it is not psychological?

 

I did not say it was not psychological. I Asia it was not a "psychological trait".

Bigotry? Definitely the anus, from which anti gay bigotry comes forth on short, rapid bursts. Plus, there is the anti gay obsession with anal sex and such.

 

Interesting thought. Can a person be cursed by genetics to be a bigoted, close-minded twatwaffle? It would certainly explain the GOP...

 

Man... please go get educated.

 

Perhaps the OP would like to explain why fear necessarily attends antipathy.

 

Hate is learned, there have been numerous studies that have proven this in babies and children with and without prior conditioning. I think the anti-gay people (not sure if you fit this group) are confused, when someone says they did not choose to be homosexual it does not always mean they were born that way. Environmental and hormonal stressors are likely the cause.

Statements like this are why people question your motives; while I am sure some gay people dislike heterosexuals it is a very very tiny minority and it typically seen after repeated acts of hate toward the individuals. So it is also a learned view.

No one cares if there are bigots - what they care about is equal protection and representation in the eyes of the law. The anti-gay mentality is dying out, seeing the bulk of opposition comes from individuals over 65 this will not be an issue in 20 years.

The majority of the people parroting the born gay argument are opponents of gay rights - not homosexuals themselves. Most gay people simply argue they did not make the decision.

 

And the rest are arguing that if it was a decision, it was theirs to make, and homophobes should feck off and focus on their own damn sex lives (such as they may be).

Justifiably so, might I add...

 

It doesn't matter if homosexuality it genetic, environmental or a choice, it should still not be discriminated against any more than someone's choice of politics or religion should be discriminated against.

 

Candidly, my motives do not matter. Only the topic and reasoning does. However, personally I believe virtually everyone is both asexual with bisexual potential. After birth, a gzillion environmental, social, life events and interpersonal actions form a person's ethics, values, desires, dislikes and so forth. That does not mean certain birth traits can interact with this that may be part of that collective interaction.

In this, I do not believe most people either are "born" gay or hetero - but it also isn't a matter of conscious choice. Rather, it is an evolutionary process as a person develops emotionally and psychologically.

My point, so to speak, is that sexual desires are emotions and psychological. IF a person is born locked into desires, dislikes, emotions and psychologies regarding relationships, sex, and desires in such regards - then it is reasonable to suspect that people are born to a vast array of desires, emotions and psychologies both positive and negative in general - and certainly within those same topic areas.

Generally, I reject the "born to be __________" claims of virtually any kind. It reminds me of the Indian (Asian subcontinent) caste system in which everyone is born to their place and all the supposed studies claimed to prove that blacks are inherently inferior intellectually to whites. In short, I oppose eugenics and oppose studies trying to prove any eugenics theory.

 

Bigots, like homoseuxal bigots as an example, didn't just wake up one day and decide to be heterophobic bigots, so that 's proof they were born that way according to the gaystapo propaganda narrative.

 

Not aware of any "heterophobic" people. Imaginary concepts make for poor reasoning.

 

The argument of the OP is founded on a false equivalency.

 

Ummmmm...

[video=youtube;DTc--4jz0GQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTc--4jz0GQ[/video]

 

How is that? If a person's likes and disliked, desires and repulsions, romantic and sexual interests and non-interests are all set prior to birth, why would that be limited to a person on born in such regards to being gay or heterosexual?

There are increasing messages and even a thread started of gay men attacking female feminists and arguing for a partriach society. Gay men - which many gay activities claim are born gay - inherently do not like women romantically, sexually or for relationship. Why would their dislike of women - to those who claim the were born to dislike women - be limited psychologically? Why then wouldn't heterosexuals - if born to be heterosexuals - be limited to their disliking gay men for reasons beyond for relationship and sexuality?

Once the claim is made that people are born with psychological traits in regards to relationships, desires, likes and disliked, and sexualty - then that door is open otherwise as well.

 

Most homosexuals say they did not choose to be gay, it is the inference of you and others wanting to use this line of reasoning against homosexuals that have turned it into most homosexuals saying they born gay. No one can remember how they were born so both sides of the argument are equally absurd.

If homosexuals are born gay your argument fails on the basis of equal accomidation, rights and protections; if homosexuals choose to be gay your argument fails on basic freedoms and the pursuit of happiness.

 

I made NO argument about equal accomodation, rights and protections - about basic freedoms or the pursuit of happiness. In fact, I have always argued on behalf of such equality.

It also is a fact, many gay members of this forum vehemently claim that a person who is gay is born gay due to pre-birth hormones - and some go hysterical at merely questioning what they claim is scientific fact, when it is not.

To the extent I am making a point, it is the dangers of claiming people are born predestined to specific emotions and psychologies, as I overall oppose any theories of eugenics.

 

Well current science suggests that it's due to prebirth hormones. Nobody goes hysterical, at any suggestion otherwise. It's just the other suggestions are just that where scientific theory uses evidence to formulate a claim. Basically there is a scientific theory and then there is personal beliefs.

Opposition to eugenics is fine. But pretending that an alternative belief is equivalent to a scientific theory is not very wise.

Facts are facts

 

I do not assume to know what causes homosexuality, I am sure we will have definitive evidence at one point but even science cannot really explain its occurrence. And while there are many scientific theories (hormonal imbalances, stressors while in the womb, brain structure, environmental and societal influences) all we know is that it occurs in nature with infrequency and attraction is not chosen at whim. Until valid testable reasoning is presented it cannot be pushed (honestly) by either side.

I feel people that assert they are born gay do so on the life experience of never making a decision to become homosexual (homosexual attraction is typically realized congruency with heterosexuals becoming attracted to the opposite sex); while people that are arguing born gay is a lie, are typically attempting to to use this determination for justifying discrimination with no rational behind the belief.

The real question is:
Why does it matter to you why someone would believe something about themselves which you cannot disprove?

 

The false equivalency contained in the OP is that sexual orientation and dislike/hate/bigotry are equivalents, and likewise that they would be inborn in the same way. There's nothing the least bit scientific about such a ridiculous argument.

Moreover, we don't know with unequivocal certainty how orientation is determined. The research to date is interesting, but not conclusive. But I don't think it matters, one way or the other how a person becomes gay. Nothing excuses irrational hatred and bigotry.

Utter BS. You started the thread and when people disagreed with your nonsense, you made unfounded accusations that they wanted to erase women, hated women, wanted to return to previous legal restriction of women's lives, etc. Not one of those claims had even a whiff of truth about them. Trying to perpetuate your obvious lies here isn't fooling anyone but yourself. Your dishonesty has been well-established.

This is not only a repetition of the false equivalency, but it's one built on a distortion as well. Gay men, as a group, don't "dislike" women. The only thing that gay men have universally in common is their attraction to members of their own sex. Nothing about that requires them to "dislike" women. Their disinterest in women as sexual or romantic partners isn't the same thing as dislike.

No, it isn't. Claims concerning one thing (inborn sexuality) aren't proof of another thing (inborn dislike of gay people).

You're failing Logic 101 with this nonsense.

 

1. It is an argument that is used in court. 2. It is demeaning of human individuality and freedom. 3. It is declaring that being gay is a birth defect.

To me, the question of "why is someone gay?" looking for scientific reasons or looking for blame (or cure) is as legitimate as looking for a scientific reason or blame (or cure) to someone being attracted to blondes, Asians or big butts. It is neither a birth trait - though birth traits may be a factor like anything and everything else MAY be a factor - nor is a conscious choice a person can alter.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you want selective logic to reach the goal you want to reach. To claim desire can be inborn but that repulsion cannot is not only nonsense, it is fundamentally a contradiction. Actually, a stronger case could be made that repulsion of different people is more likely inborn as fear of outsiders (other packs, clans, herds etc) is well founded in nature. Most animals that form societies tend to reject the same species out of another group or society.

There is little actual logical discussion on these topics. Rather, a person tends to be hardcore one way or the other. As a result, both sides then to just throw sneers and insults at each other, with there being little actual discussion that is at real levels.

 

I was unaware that a factor that is not proven was allowed in recent court rulings, I had always believe that was reserved for religious faiths,; I would love to read case law, care to post some that was not overturned by or ignored by a higher court?

How do? Would being born homosexual be affront to your freedom?

I disagree, what would a simple variation of a broad range of physical, emotional and psychological traits.

The issue with this is you have no evidance to the contrary while they have life experience to come to their reasoning.

Unfortunately this is true, homosexuals feel attacked and often come across hostile and defensive (because you would be too if you were called an abomination destined to hell for all eternity on a daily basis, verbally and sometimes physically assaulted) while anti-gay proponents believe the very moral soul is dying because homosexuals are allowed in broad daylight.

 

I'm not going to look up links as it is always a waste of time and never changes anyone's mind anyway. People ignore what they don't like.

It is degrading as it is a contradiction of personal freedom. Many studies were claimed proved that blacks are inherently of lesser intellectual ability. In your reasoning, that would just be a "simple variation of a broad range of physical, emotional and psychological traits." But, in fact, nothing but harm comes from it. How many - including you - claim all the harms and dangers gays face - so therefore is a negative birth trait if it really is a birth trait.

Homosexuals have not come under the attacks that many, many other groups of people defined GENETICALLY or by their "birth traits" have suffered. For example, I'm NA. Do you claim that homosexuals have suffered more than Native Americans did? Or what about now? NAs have the highest imprisonment, suicide, rape and violent death rates in the USA. I could go into lists of groups and identities that have suffered vastly greater than gays have.

On the other side, the overwhelming majority of people on earth now and across all known human history are and have been religious - and those religions have rules restricting behavior including restraints against desires. The level of hatred against such people, particularly some Christians, goes off the chart. The hate and condemnations goes both ways. Highly religious people who follow strict rules of personal conduct are often highly ridiculed as well. Which side suffers more? Does that even matter?

As soon as there is any discuss either way the discussion collapses to name calling. The stance of most of religion that condemns homosexuality is of the position that homosexual sex is prohibited in the Bible, therefore a person should self restrain from doing so because it is prohibited in their religion. That is not personal hatred or some form of bigotry - but those accusations will be thrown at them ignoring what they are saying.

On the other side, the response of gays that it doesn't matter if other people don't like what they do can be furious condemnations of how they are destroying society and stealing their word "marriage" - which also is sidestepping actual discussion on the question of how does a person being gay harm anyone else?

As for a person claiming their "life experience" is their proof that were born gay is actually nonsensical on its face. No person is even sexual until they reach puberty. "I believe" is never proof of anything.

 

I agree, but those cases don't exist. Any attorney would have that reasoning thrown out for insufficient clinical evidence.

Not at all, I think the treatment of Native Americans are one of the worst experiences by any group of peoples.

So homosexuals should accept discrimination because other groups have been treated worse?

Yes religious affiliated people face many challenges that come from their faith. It is most unfortunate. Unfortunately a few professing religious ideology turned their belief into a sword against others.

Mt 5:10-12 (NKJV): "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

The problem is some religious people use an unproven belief to create law for other to abide by baised on their own reading and acceptance of the passage.

Gays have existed for eons, same sex unions have existed throughout human existence and has been a secular institution a multitude of times. Homosexuals attempted to leave the word "marriage" alone as the hurdle seemed too high, when religious groups had all unions that resembled marriage banned their was only one option. Also, marriage is a secular term but I personally would be fine as civil unions being available to all and marriage being a convenient between God with no legal definition.

I have already said that, in the end we have no 100% definitive answer behind orientation. Are you as upset at the many heterosexuals that claim to be born heterosexual?