Philosophy Discussion Forums

The conservative objections to homosexuality aren't necessarily about views but actions, specifically about social and cultural taboos on specific sexual activities. 'Being gay' is generally talked about in terms of a cultural and political identity. When viewed in those terms, dissapproval of homosexual activities is then depicted as discrimination against a political or cultural identity, rather than disapproval of specific kinds of sexual acts.

Spiral Out,

The person who is prejudiced might not have any more choice in the matter than the sexual preferences of the person they're prejudiced against. Is it OK to hate the hater, or to dislike the disliker?

For arguments sake, let's say that I am prejudice against untidy people. However, they might have valid reason for being untidy; but I don't like them simply because of the fact that they are untidy. Even though it might not be directly their fault that they are untidy. Therefore, it is wrong for me to hate them, because there might be a reasonable cause for their untidiness - their choice in the matter is limited. Now, is it ok to hate me because I hate untidy people? Well, I think that is a matter of choice and requires an examination of the reasons why that person hates me. Do they hate me because they think my prejudice towards untidy people in unfair? If that is the case, it is their natural sense of fairness which has been offended and causes them to hate me; but in the same way as the untidy person, it may not be entirely my fault for hating untidy people - so it might also be unfair of my hater to hate me, on those grounds. If the person who hates me is prejudice against people who are prejudice against people who are untidy, then the three of us are involved in a cycle of prejudicial hate with no end in sight, until prejudicial parties accept that they are wrong and open their minds.

Ultimately, I believe its fine to hate anyone you want, but active expression of hatred based upon prejudice is wrong, no matter who it is directed at.

Further to which, I have noticed that it is not possible to express any dissent about the legitimization of gay sexuality in the media, without being categorized as 'homophobic'. The way the subject is discussed on CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Post, and the various other mainstream websites is very carefully managed. Specific terms, such as LGBT, are always used, and used in a very specific way. If you read the entries on the subject in Wikipedia, you notice a similar 'editorial style', the import of which is that dissent is homophobic, prejudicial, and akin to racism.

The net effect of this is that any opposition to gay rights is automatically parsed as: 's/he hates gays'. Even this thread is an example. So, speaking for myself, I have never 'hated gays' or even thought much about it, *until* it became a multi-national, multi-billion dollar juggernaut intent on redefining marriage and sexuality. In the circles in which I move, it is impossible to speak out against the idea. You're looked at like you're promoting apartheid.

So - thanks for letting me sound off!

Just a note for clarity Spiral Out. Are you saying you don't like gays but respect their right to live their own lives as they choose on this matter> Or, is it that you think they should just keep quiet and put up with laws that prohibit what they want to do, like getting married to each other?

-- Updated June 30th, 2013, 9:10 pm to add the following --

Further to which, I have noticed that it is not possible to express any dissent about the legitimization of gay sexuality in the media, without being categorized as 'homophobic'.

Interesting to note Quotidian. Political correctness is soaring high in liberal circles on the matter of gays. It's part of a social adjustment that takes time. History has been so unkind to gays, blacks, women, minorities, that in order to make real change we have to look for a new vocabulary. A great deal of prejudice lies in the words and their self prophesy; that is, the saying of a thing repeatedly acquires the status of truth through shear familiarity. Hard to change and it's certainly awkward at first.

But why not cut to the chase: Do you think gays should marry? Walk about the streets hand in hand freely? SHould we evolve into a nation where (and this could come to pass) bisexuality becomes more common than anything else? (And this same nation is headed for radical changes in the homeland. Imagine a time when it is not at all uncommon to have neighbors in homeland states like Iowa that are gay Back and Vietnamese coulpes with children; of course, polygamy is coming soon. And why not???)

Your OP asks a very good question, in my opinion, Spiral Out.

It's quite a thought-provoking topic, and one of my favourite thinkers, Slavoj Zizek discusses this idea (but in terms of race/religion) in his book, Living In The End Times.

Zizek argues almost the exact same idea that you have posted, that the word "tolerance" implies that rather than accepting difference in others, society "puts up with", almost begrudgingly, those who are different.

I wish I had the time to give you a response that your OP deserves, but I don't, unfortunately. Would like to see the end-point of this discussion!

Cheers, mate.

Hereandnow wrote:But why not cut to the chase: Do you think gays should marry?

I believe that marriage ought to be between complementary genders, male and female, for reasons that are both biological and social. Of course I understand that same-sex people don't see it that way. I respect their right to disagree with me, but I don't respect their right to enforce my agreement. I don't accept that my definition of normality has to be changed to accomodate theirs. This doesn't mean that I want to vilify them. I accept their right to live as they wish, but now I am being told that I have to line the streets and applaud. And that, I refuse to do.

Essentially I regard it as a matter of privacy: adults have the right to privacy, and that right is sancrosact. But that doesn't mean sanctification of everything they do. Sex acts between persons of the same gender are not the same as sexual acts between those of complementary gender. If you ask 'why are they not the same', it gets rather embarrasing, actually. It ought to be obvious, and the fact that it isn't, is a source of complete bafflement to me.

I understand my views are politically incorrect. I know the politically correct answer is that you are not allowed to distinguish those acts, because to make that distinction is to engage in discrimination. But I don't accept that - not because I am homophobic, although doubtlessly this is the way it will be taken - but because of respect for the reality. It confuses two meanings of the word 'discrimination'.

Should we evolve into a nation where (and this could come to pass) bisexuality becomes more common than anything else?

No. Basically all of this is a complete waste of energy. My advice for all those seeking fulfilment in gay relationships is that ultimately none of us is gay or straight or anything else

Spiral Out wrote:If I went about stating that I didn't care for gays, their displays of selfishness or what they were doing to society in the unnecessary trouble and conflict that they are creating then I would be promptly labelled a homophobe by most people that I expressed that opinion to.

So then along would come other people to quickly condemn me for my views and they would probably say they didn't like me, my display of selfishness or what I was doing to society in the unnecessary trouble and conflict that I was creating.

So it just becomes an intolerance of intolerance and a homophobophobia of a homophobia, and it just gets passed down in turn.

It can be said that both sides are just trying to maintain the rights of people to be happy and live their lives in a way that satisfies their basic Human needs.

What is the moral difference between those who dislike someone for their views, and those who dislike those who dislike someone for their views?

The easiest "escape plan" from this presumed dilemma is to just dislike certain views. I don't like general Christian views, however, some Christians I have met are sometimes likable for other reasons.

Basically all of this is a complete waste of energy. My advice for all those seeking fulfilment in gay relationships is that ultimately none of us is gay or straight or anything else

Gotta respect your honesty, though it's a little confusing. None of us are gay or straight or anything else? I presume your mean by nature. Well, then, anything goes.


It's a pleasure that nature's evolution is comfortable explaining: survival and reproduction. But, obviously we don't take our cues from nature. Very little of modern society has anything to do with nature's limits. It's all about surpassing them. So, as with food, why not allow sex to evolve into a culture of indulgence? Any and all sex, it's just a mater of "taste". After all, our distaste for sexual extravagance is not inborn or even part of the natural order. It comes from years of Christendom telling us, as Rimbaud put it, "The true life is absent." And if you want to discover the true life, turn away from the animal insincts. Well, then, no more rare prime rib for me! Nor Belgian chocolate.


Why not let the taste find its way and to he*l with two thousand years of a tradition of hating and denegrating sex. (The Japanese are closer to enlightenment than Americans are on this issue.) Sex houses should be as plentiful as restaurants. Dangerous? AIDS and other STD's got us imagining all sorts of things. But again, obesity never stopped us from producing a massive food culture, did it?

I think it's gone from one extreme to the other. I have my own struggles, although same-sex attractions are not among them. But I do have a traditionalist interpretation of philosophy, and I understand the traditional prohibitions. Basically sex is a treadmill, it's almost a textbook definition of what constitutes 'the round of birth and death'. It is all fun and games when you're young and biologically healthy, but things fall apart in time. Sexual satisfaction never lasts, all it does is produce cravings for more. Why not let 'the taste' find it's way? Because ultimately it consumes you, all the while convincing you that it is something that it is not. There is nothing lasting to be found there.

I understand people can be neurotically averse to sex. Actually I think that is the problem that drives a lot of terrorists. They're terrified of their own latent sensuality. It is one of the reasons they hate Western civilisation ('The great Satan'). But the West has gone far too far in the other direction. There is massive confusion around this whole notion of 'sexual identity'. it is just another way to plug the gnawing sense of our own nothingness. That is why I study philosophy - I do believe there are higher states of being and they can be realized. That is the real motivation for not getting entangled in pursuit of sensory pleasures. But as I said, I have my own struggles. Nothing worthwhile is easy.

Nothing worthwhile is easy.

Ouch! You cut me to the quick. I happen to be among those who believe Rimbaud was right and the true life is absent. The hedonist's life is not for me. But then, this has to be freely discovered, not enforced through a law.

Okay. Why do you hate gays, Spiral? Why do you have that prejudice?

If you started a thread called "I Hate Gays" is it because you want someone to ask you why you hate gays?

Theophane wrote:Okay. Why do you hate gays, Spiral? Why do you have that prejudice?

I don't hate gays. It's a thread title. The content of the OP is what is to be considered.

Theophane wrote:If you started a thread called "I Hate Gays" is it because you want someone to ask you why you hate gays?

The thread title is to get people to read the OP. It's a bit strong but I figured someone was going to accuse me of it anyway.

Someguy1 wrote:You regard "I hate gays" as a great topic for a philosophy discussion forum?

Read past the title to discover the idea of the thread and the philosophical question posed. Basically, you have shown a prejudice against this thread, which is essentially what this thread is about. It's not about hating gays but about who seemingly has a self-determined right to prejudice based on a sense of righteousness.

Fanman wrote:Ultimately, I believe its fine to hate anyone you want, but active expression of hatred based upon prejudice is wrong, no matter who it is directed at.

What do you consider an "active expression"? If I were to simply ignore any gay person who attempts to interact with me, would that be considered an active expression of my dislike?

Quotidian wrote:The net effect of this is that any opposition to gay rights is automatically parsed as: 's/he hates gays'. Even this thread is an example. So, speaking for myself, I have never 'hated gays' or even thought much about it, *until* it became a multi-national, multi-billion dollar juggernaut intent on redefining marriage and sexuality. In the circles in which I move, it is impossible to speak out against the idea. You're looked at like you're promoting apartheid.

Thank you for noting the true purpose and meaning of this thread.

Hereandnow wrote:Just a note for clarity Spiral Out. Are you saying you don't like gays but respect their right to live their own lives as they choose on this matter> Or, is it that you think they should just keep quiet and put up with laws that prohibit what they want to do, like getting married to each other?

For clarity, I don't really care what gays do except when they make a spectacle of themselves or if they're given undue attention for the purposes of the politically opportunistic. I would help them gain equality if for nothing more than to take the issue off the boards and focus on other more important issues. My other thread "Does My Motive Really Matter?" addresses this thought.

The Quirkster wrote:Your OP asks a very good question, in my opinion, Spiral Out.

Thank you Quirkster. I think some people are missing the point completely. I'm glad you've realized the true nature of the thread.

Quotidian wrote:I respect their right to disagree with me, but I don't respect their right to enforce my agreement. I don't accept that my definition of normality has to be changed to accomodate theirs. This doesn't mean that I want to vilify them. I accept their right to live as they wish, but now I am being told that I have to line the streets and applaud. And that, I refuse to do.

Because ultimately it consumes you, all the while convincing you that it is something that it is not. There is nothing lasting to be found there.

My thoughts exactly.

Anyway, doesn't everyone prejudge, and don't they especially prejudge the prejudiced? Does anyone really take the time to seek to know why the prejudiced person has these prejudices before they judge them? I don't think so. That's the fundamental thought of this thread.

Many of you would show disdain for these prejudiced people yet have prejudged me and this thread based on a lack of taking the effort to gain all of the pertinent information. I think some have read the title and have thus "judged a book by it's cover". As the discussion progresses I anticipate the rhetoric to get even deeper into prejudice, which will mirror the real-life conditions of any social issue.

I would urge any poster who is new to the thread to read the OP before posting, and not base their thoughts on the title alone.

The title of the thread, while serving a specific function and key to the topic, is to fundamentally demonstrate the point of the topic.

I don't really care what gays do except when they make a spectacle of themselves or if they're given undue attention for the purposes of the politically opportunistic

Then I guess I am among those who don't understand the thread very well. Sorry. The way I see it, they make a fuss because they are trying to change the laws. No fuss, no change. Americans had to make a fuss two hundred years ago or so ago. They had to have a war to get what they wanted.

Hereandnow wrote:The way I see it, they make a fuss because they are trying to change the laws. No fuss, no change.

There are more effective ways to "make a fuss" other than making a fuss. I just think they're utilizing counterproductive methods. But that's not the focus of this thread.

The question I asked was, "What is the moral difference between those who dislike someone for their views, and those who dislike those who dislike someone for their views?"

Spiral Out wrote:
There are more effective ways to "make a fuss" other than making a fuss. I just think they're utilizing counterproductive methods.
(Nested quote removed.)

What methods do you think would be more productive?