Are people born homophobic?

[getagrip]

Your posts are value laden and you link an editorial blog as some sort of source to study.

Obviously the Bible is "value laden" in here as well. The fact is, academia and the media have become so sympathetic towards sodomites these days, finding any source to satisfy this bunch in here is next to impossible.

The poster paschendale makes the broad statement: "There is no morality which dictates the sexual conduct of consenting adults." Yet this flies over the heads of all you fine folk and the burden of proof falls in my lap for such erroneous statements. Go figure?

Even providing stats from the US Centers for Disease Control fails to pass muster.

One last attempt ... and I'll let buggery rule in this thread

Let me introduce you to two experts on the selling of homosexuality to America; in fact, they wrote the book. Harvard-educated marketing professionals Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen authored the acknowledged PR bible of the gay-rights movement, "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s."
The sophisticated strategy Kirk and Madsen lay out for changing the way Americans think about homosexuality boasts three phases: "Desensitization," "Jamming" and "Conversion."

"Desensitization," these two gay marketing gurus tell us, consists of inundating the public in a "continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can't shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet."...

"Jamming," explains marketing expert Paul E. Rondeau of Regent University, in his comprehensive study "Selling Homosexuality to America," "is psychological terrorism meant to silence expression of or even support for dissenting opinion." Radio counselor and psychologist Dr. Laura Schlessinger experienced big-time jamming during the run-up to her planned television show. Outraged over a single comment critical of homosexuals she had made on her radio program, activists launched a massive intimidation campaign against the television program's advertisers. As a result, the new show was stillborn.

"After the Ball" tries to inspire potential jammers by providing a juicy list of negative associations with which opponents, usually Christians, are to be smeared. They include: "Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered or castrated," "hysterical backwoods preachers, drooling with hate," "menacing punks, thugs and convicts who speak coolly about the 'fags' they have bashed," and a "tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed."....

For the inside scoop on the meaning of conversion, let's check in with our gay brainwashing experts, Kirk and Madsen:

We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean "subverting" the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends – using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard – whether they like it or not

Homosexuality Statistics - Conservapedia

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Obviously the Bible is "value laden" in here as well. The fact is, academia and the media have become so sympathetic towards sodomites these days, finding any source to satisfy this bunch in here is next to impossible.

<snip>

Homosexuality Statistics - Conservapedia

Irony. You has it.

 

[Mach]

It could be partially innate. There are so many underlying behavioral predispositions we have that to our relatively young "consciousness", it's kind of scary. Don't believe for a minute that it's unlikely that behavior that trends towards sexually reproduction can't be innate.

But innate unfortunately, doesn't seem to be justification for behavior in our culture. So not much to do there but adopt a different culture if it's so critical to you. I feel like body-slamming customer service representatives sometimes, and I swear that's innate, but it wouldn't justify the actual behavior.

Men do seem to have the majority of the innate, unacceptable behaviors. There may come a time when that leaves things imbalanced, but right now we get a lot of perks in most cultures that sort of evens it out.

 

[CriticalThought]

This is not completely accurate. Homosexuality was publicly frowned upon by ancient Romans, though so-called "Greek Love" was quite popular and normal...in GREECE. Paul himself was a Roman citizen, and I actually think he may have been affected by the prevailing viewpoint in Roman society.

Tell it to Roman Emperor Elagabalus who married a man in the 2nd century. It wasn't until the adoption of Christianity in Rome that people really began to look down on it.

 

[CriticalThought]

Homosexuality Statistics - Conservapedia

I'm starting to think you are trolling. Either that or you are living in a permanent state of confirmation bias which would be considerably sadder.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

The roman emperors were a law unto themselves, but roman society up until after the first caesar was quite sexually conservative.

 

[Captain America]

Are people born homophobic?

Not sure if their born that way or just spent too many years in the Navy being embarassed about that Village People song.. :2razz:

 

[CriticalThought]

The roman emperors were a law unto themselves, but roman society up until after the first caesar was quite sexually conservative.

Unlikely. However, it is difficult to conclusively prove one way or the other. Socially conservative societies tend to censor their past, and eradicate old traces of open sexual expression. This is as true today as it was then. What survives today is mostly love letters and art which indicates a society with a double standard. The wealthy could engage in any degree of sexual perversity in their private affairs but were expected to behave otherwise in the public sphere.

What was clear is that homosexuality during Greek and Roman times was considerably different that it is today.

 

[Vincent]

Homophobic? As in, a deep-seated fear, phobia, a fear of gay people? I don't think such a thing exists. I've never met any straight person who was afraid of gay people. I've met some gay people who earned my fierce dislike, but I was never afraid of them.

 

[Captain America]

Homophobic? As in, a deep-seated fear, phobia, a fear of gay people? I don't think such a thing exists. I've never met any straight person who was afraid of gay people. I've met some gay people who earned my fierce dislike, but I was never afraid of them.

Not so sure if it means the actual fear of the person or the fear of the ideology and lifestyle. People have long rediculed those who were different. Is it a phobia? I'm not so sure. I think it's more of an ignorance than a phobia. But I ain't no shrink.

 

[CriticalThought]

Homophobic? As in, a deep-seated fear, phobia, a fear of gay people? I don't think such a thing exists. I've never met any straight person who was afraid of gay people. I've met some gay people who earned my fierce dislike, but I was never afraid of them.

As has been said before, the term "homophobia" refers to a deep seated and irrational animosity towards gays and that it how it has been defined since 1971. The term was initially used to refer to the fear some straight men have that their friends think they are gay, but some members of the psychological community took it over to describe what they felt was a pathological prejudice towards gay people.

This little game of word play that you conservatives like to use to avoid discussing the issue is nothing but semantics.

If you need the question expressed a different way, "Are some people born with a pathological prejudice towards gays?"

 

[Vincent]

Not so sure if it means the actual fear of the person or the fear of the ideology and lifestyle. People have long rediculed those who were different. Is it a phobia? I'm not so sure. I think it's more of an ignorance than a phobia. But I ain't no shrink.

Of course, it's phrased so that it sounds like the person has a mental problem... I have a fear of communism. Millions and millions have been starved or kiled under that system. Does that mean I have some phobia that I need help to get over? I also have a fierce dislike of glock handguns. They're ugly, single action only while claiming to be double action, and everyone who owns them seems to believe they're the one firearm created by God himself. Does that mean I have some phobia I need to get over?

What my point is, who are you are or me to say that if some person harbors a dislike of homosexuality or gay people, that that person has some mental problem? (Which is what people are trying to claim, by using the label of 'homophobia'.) According to the American Psychological Association, there is no proof that homosexuality is caused by any gene, genes, hormones, or any factors or factor. So who is anyone to tell people what they must like and what they must not dislike, that if they feel negatively towards something, they have some mental problem? Isn't that trying to remove the freedom of thought?

 

[CriticalThought]

According to the American Psychological Association, there is no proof that homosexuality is caused by any gene, genes, hormones, or any factors or factor.

That is an outright lie.

Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality

Do you care to withdraw your statement?

 

[Captain America]

CT, dude, you're like a brainiac or something. You're kinda freakin' me out. LOL!

Where did you get all those smarts?

 

[CriticalThought]

CT, dude, you're like a genous or something. You're kinda freakin' me out. LOL!

Where did you get all those smarts?

It's this thing called "Google".

 

[Captain America]

It's this thing called "Google".

Hey, I heard of that before.

 

[CriticalThought]

Hey, I heard of that before.

Impossible. It's the best kept secret on the internet.

 

[Vincent]

That is an outright lie.



Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality

Do you care to withdraw your statement?

It seems the APA is conflicting itself now, then.

Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality

Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.

Anyway, now you see the source for my earlier statement. Hardly a lie, I daresay.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

What survives today is mostly love letters and art which indicates a society with a double standard. The wealthy could engage in any degree of sexual perversity in their private affairs but were expected to behave otherwise in the public sphere.

This is exactly as I stated. Open homosexuality was not part of Ancient Rome in the same way that it was in Ancient Greece, and was socially ruinous to people who practiced it. What they did covertly, however, was very different.

The earliest formal record of legislation is Lex Scantinia, enacted in either 225 or 149 BC which regulated sexual behavior, including pederasty, adultery and passivity, and legislated the death penalty for same-sex behavior among free-born men[15] and there is evidence of punishments in earlier times. Above all, pederasty was condemned in the Republican era and dismissed as a sign of an effeminate Greek lifestyle.

In the mid Republic homosexual acts were widely accepted, if the active partner was a Roman, and the passive partner a slave or other non-roman. Deviations from this pattern were morally condemned, but apparently had few legal consequences. Martial and Plautus describe a wide range of homosexual behaviors, in part to poke fun at them like other minor standard deviations, but without too much moralizing. On the other hand, there is also from the year 108 an indictment against C. Vibius Maximus, a Roman officer in Egypt who had a sexual relationship with a young nobleman.

Juvenal condemned many forms of male homosexuality, and especially laments Roman men of high birth who show a moral front but secretly took the passive role, even if this was extremely rare. He found men who openly played the passive role pitiful but at least honest, and praised true love found by a man for a boy.[16] Public speeches usually condemned all forms of homosexuality. When Julius Caesar was ambassador to Nicomedes IV of Bithynia, he was rumoured to have had a relationship with the king and played the passive role but, though this damaged his reputation, it apparently had no legal consequences.[17] The emperor Hadrian had a relationship with the younger Antinous, although this was also criticized but not significant enough to prevent him plunging the empire into mourning following Antinous' apparent death by drowning in 130.

Negative attitudes towards same-sex relations continued following the adoption of Christianity and in 390, laws were re-enacted, making such relations punishable by death.[18]

 

[CriticalThought]

It seems the APA is conflicting itself now, then.

Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality

That isn't what you said at all. You argued that there was no evidence indicating that homosexuality is influenced by genes, hormones, etc. To the contrary, they say that it is inconclusive as to what factors or factor cause homosexuality. There is lots of evidence indicating that genes, hormones, and the such influence sexuality but they are not the sole factors that cause sexual orientation.

Arguing tihs...

According to the American Psychological Association, there is no proof that homosexuality is caused by any gene, genes, hormones, or any factors or factor.

...is different than arguing this...

Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.

 

[Vincent]

That isn't what you said at all. You argued that there was no evidence indicating that homosexuality is influenced by genes, hormones, etc. To the contrary, they say that it is inconclusive as to what factors or factor cause homosexuality. There is lots of evidence indicating that genes, hormones, and the such influence sexuality but they are not the sole factors that cause sexual orientation.

Arguing tihs...



...is different than arguing this...

You're confusing evidence and proof, which are not the same. Go back and look at my earlier post. I said

According to the American Psychological Association, there is no proof that homosexuality is caused by any gene, genes, hormones, or any factors or factor.

Proof proves something. If there was proof that "that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors" that would mean they've proven that homosexuality is specifically caused by something or a combination of things.

Evidence is a lot different. If you were an FBI agent and you arrested someone for a bank robbery, then found a ski mask in his car, then that's evidence in the case, but it's not proof. If you find a video tape of the person committing the robbery, then find the rifle used in the crime stashed under his bed and match it to a bullet left in a victim, that's solid proof.

I'm sure there's tons of evidence either way in the 'are people are born gay or do they choose to be homosexual' debate, but I don't argue that. I argue proofs, since I'm not a scientist.

My statement stands. The experts at the APA say that:

Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.

So according to that statement, no one has found proof that homosexuality is caused by any particular factor or factors.

 

[CriticalThought]

So according to that statement, no one has found proof that homosexuality is caused by any particular factor or factors.

I often have to interpret behavioral research and there is nothing proven about the cause of any behavior. Human behavior can be influenced by so many variables, biological, developmental, social, cultural, etc. that there is no delineating factor that can conclusively differentiate between the behavior of two individuals. It is perfectly conceivable that homosexuality is 100% genetically caused in one person and 100% environmentally caused in another. Behavioral scientists even continue to argue whether instinct exists and whether human behaviors that are exhibited before birth, like sucking, are caused by biological factors or are the result of early learning.

The only way you can intelligently discuss behavior is in terms of what evidence suggests. And currently the evidence suggests that a number of factors influence sexuality.

The evidence also suggests that prejudicial attitudes towards homosexuals most closely correlate with high religiosity.

 

[Kali]

No! It is a learned behavior same as racism.

 

[Goshin]

I think people are born with an innate tendency to:

1. Look around and mentally establish "this is the norm."
2. Notice anything that departs from that established "norm".
3. Be wary and suspicious of anything that is not part of their mental map of "normal."

It is a survival instinct. It makes most of us wary of anything unfamiliar, and in many situations that is a good thing.

It also operates tribally, and make no mistake about it, we all have tribalism wired into our brains. We establish social norms in our own minds based on what we're used to, and have an instinctive distrust of societal "aberrations".

The unfamiliar can become familiar, through repeated exposure and establishing that the unfamilar thing is not harmful.

Now it depends on how you're defining "homophobia". Really, it means "an unreasonable fear of homosexuals". These days, however, it is commonly used to mean "anyone who dares voice the slightest reservation against any smallest portion of the homosexual political agenda". :roll:

In short, kids who grow up seeing almost exclusively straight behavior are going to be wary of overt homosexuals until they get used to them. No one has to teach them this, it is a function of early environment and instinct.

 

[CriticalThought]

These days, however, it is commonly used to mean "anyone who dares voice the slightest reservation against any smallest portion of the homosexual political agenda". :roll:

Just as anyone who dares voice the slightest reservation against any smallest portion of the Christian political agenda is out to strip people of religious liberties and impose secular values?

Yeah, I can play partisan too.