Homophobia, nature or nurture?

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I keep seeing comments from IntoSci et al mischaracterized this way, and am still puzzled.  

 I think people are especially sensitized to the real issues of homophobic oppression, so that even harmless distaste comes under the lens of what-must-be-fixed.  In a few years hopefully things will reach some normality where personal differences of taste and preference can be laughed about and not taken as a threat.

 

It's not a matter of mere taste, which can be changed with will and repetition.

[Phi for All]

20 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's not a matter of mere taste, which can be changed with will and repetition.

This is how I see it. My society conditioned me to react negatively when I see two men kissing, but since it's just two people showing affection it didn't take me long to change once I reasoned it out. Why would anyone continue to see it as disgusting or distasteful unless they also thought it was WRONG? I think that's the part of this that needs fixing.

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Why would anyone continue to see it as disgusting or distasteful unless they also thought it was WRONG?

Well, they might continue to find it distasteful only because they were conditioned to react negatively. Just because I find something distasteful does not mean I am making a judgement call. Perhaps I never bothered to "reason it out".

[iNow]

Disgust / distaste / repulsion... there are evolutionary reasons we respond this way. Those reasons are to avoid illness and stop the spread of parasites.

When those feelings apply to homosexual acts, it means we find those acts to be unclean, pathogenic, sick...

When the bonobo ignores the banana peel because it's too close to a pile of scat, they're feeling repulsion because it's unclean and likely to spread illness to them.

When kangaroos avoid patches of grass that are freckled with feces, they're feeling repulsion because it's unclean and likely to spread illness to them.

When antelope gather their poo in dunghills, they're feeling repulsion at the idea of it being left in their territories.

When bullfrog tadpoles flee the fungus infested ponds, or lobsters avoid crowded dens of crustaceans during viral outbreaks, or nematodes wriggle away from meals that seem to have bad bacteria... they're all doing so to guard against disease.

This all makes evolutionary sense. These reasons are all valid, and interestingly many of them involve feces, dung, poo, dookie, excrement, etc.

 

It's entirely possible these feelings against male heterosexual acts have similar deeply primal mostly unconscious tendencies, I grant you that.

However, it's hard to escape the conclusion that despite evidence to the contrary these feelings many of you have toward male gay sexual acts are themselves rooted in a belief or feeling that they are unclean, pathogenic, sick, likely to spread parasites, likely to lead to illness, likely to lead to death.

That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. Feeling that way even in the face of contrary evidence (safe sex practiced by hetero and homo couples are equally likely to lead to negative outcomes, there's nothing specifically about the gay version that makes the risk higher)… feeling that way is a type of bigotry. 

Why does this matter in context of our broader civilization? Why should we attempt to root out bigotry and bias in all of its many forms? Well, if you don't already know the answer to that question yourself without me spelling it out for you with construction paper and fat crayons, then I'm afraid you're likely too far gone for me to convince anyway. 

There's nothing unclean about safely practiced male gay sex. If you feel otherwise, then the problem is with you and the tens upon tens of millions of others who feel the same way. 

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

In a few years hopefully things will reach some normality where personal differences of taste and preference can be laughed about and not taken as a threat.

Indeed, couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, right now today in the actual present in the actual reality we share, my state ALONE has a staggering NINETEEN (19) bills targeting the LGBTQ community, and there are 340 (three hundred and forty) more being actively pursued in the other 49 state legislatures (an average of 7 each). 

We're a LONG effing way away from "normality" and lack of "threats." We must ask ourselves which side we're going to be on, because there is no middle ground on issues like this. Join or die. 

[zapatos]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

When those feelings apply to homosexual acts, it means we find those acts to be unclean, pathogenic, sick...

 

What does it mean when my feeling of distaste applies to fashion?

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

feeling that way is a type of bigotry. 

Maybe. But does it really matter if I keep it to myself? And if it doesn't apply to my feelings or actions regarding equal rights, etc.? We seem to be straying into 'thought police' discussions.

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What does it mean when my feeling of distaste applies to fashion?

If you're critiquing the fashion of others, then it's not altogether different.

You're saying "their choices" which have ZERO impact on you or your family are somehow not good enough. You're saying THEIR choices don't surpass YOUR personal threshold of acceptance... your subjective arbitrary criteria regarding what is acceptable... Your "social mores" or rules or norms regarding what is and is not allowed in your tribe or group or social unit.

Who we love and become intimate with, however, seems far more central to who we are as humans IMO than specious concerns like "you shouldn't wear brown belts with black shoes."

 

33 minutes ago, zapatos said:

But does it really matter if I keep it to myself?

I think it does, yes. Perhaps it matters less than if you're vocal about it, but it matters more than zero. 

[zapatos]

I believe that much of what we have a distaste for is simply a vestige of our past. Some people won't eat peas because they remember them being gross when they were a kid. I about gag when I think about Wild Turkey because it gave me a two day hangover after my 21st birthday. Some people don't like thinking about gay sex because of how it was talked about when they were young. 

Unless you are outwardly displaying these distastes and causing issues for others I see no reason to be obliged to make an effort to reverse those distastes. They are like a singe mark on a piece of furniture from a long ago fire. I could certainly make the effort to erase it completely, but it doesn't mean much to me and I have other things occupying my time. I'm more concerned about people's actions than their thoughts.

I don't deny that everyone making an effort to eliminate such thoughts would have an overall positive impact on society due to the fact that some will otherwise let their feelings show through. Similarly we should probably all limit salt intake due to the fact that some of us will otherwise develop high blood pressure because of it. But it seems to me to be a relatively small issue and a small risk. After all, those who are truly bigots wouldn't try anyway.

[iNow]

Salt is yummy and helps us preserve scarce resources. Allowing vestiges of our learned past to cloud our judgements of persecuted others in the present isn’t so yummy. And it should be made scarcer as a general rule, IMO.

+1 for acknowledging “of course it would be better” if we rid ourselves of such things. That’s undergirded my stance here throughout. 

Edited February 22, 2023 by iNow

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

We're a LONG effing way away from "normality" and lack of "threats." We must ask ourselves which side we're going to be on, because there is no middle ground on issues like this. Join or die. 

Well, who would dispute that the present is far from complete acceptance and complete equality before the law?  Really, this present line of discussion seems to be turning on the degree to which personal reactions of distaste affect social progress for groups who are discriminated against.  Like @zapatos I can agree that it would be better for all to jetisson such distastes while also questioning if that should be the primary focus in a world where people try to take positive action.   Pulling on the levers of law and politics and grassroots solidarity would seem more fruitful (absolutely NPI) than rooting out all the bad turnips in our heads.  That direction, in my reading of history, seems to run the risk of thought policing.  (which seems to drive the real bigots even further into entrenchment and extremity)

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Pulling on the levers of law and politics and grassroots solidarity would seem more fruitful (absolutely NPI) than rooting out all the bad turnips in our heads. 

Rooting out the bad politics and laws would be far more fruitful still, and in my estimation that social movement which drives actual social change starts with each of never tiring from ridding these rotten turnips from as many potentially supportive heads as possible. 

The folks pushing these bad politics and bad laws and bad turnips into our schools and public spaces tend to be FAR louder than those who are against them / who support acceptance.

It’s well passed time more of us speak up as gladiating counterweights. The problem is worsening globally, and that trend needs to end. 

[naitche]

From a behavioral perspective of nature vs nurture.

We learn from patterns and are most receptive to their recognition early in life when they build the foundations  to interpret our reality and the responses that will 'favor' our existence within the reality to which we were born.

Deviation from the patterns  our reality is based on after the more formative years are not as readily received or integrated, unless the psych has also been primed to recognize that patterns vary with environment, and how to navigate and integrate the realities of alternate perspectives. Nurture.

If alternative foundational patterns are missing or not sufficiently re-enforced after the more formative period, and I am working with that animal, I can expect limited adaptation or acceptance to a new set of expectations I am trying to put in place. Thats Nature.

If I'm trying to alter the responses I'm being given (fear, frustration, anger and resistance, maybe disgust?) opposition is seldom my best option, more often re-enforcing the behavior. 

I'm validating opposition. I'm far better off and will proceed much faster by observing where the discomfort or opposition begins and what sets it off, then demonstrating an alternative response that by passes  the dis-ease. New behavioral patterns are more readily integrated once the benefits or reward is clear, but I  have to bring about its demonstration first,  before arousal to states of fear, anger etc because those are not receptive states.

I won't eliminate those states. They are caused by environment and foundations laid. I can alter perception of the environment, by laying down additional patterns and re-enforcing them, by which to determine its reality against its 'beliefs'. 

I am disgusted by the thought of eating escargot. For all the biological reasons one experiences disgust.  I don't transfer that disgust to people who eat it. Eating it disgusts me. I could likely learn to eat it, or at least moderate my disgust at the thought, but I'm not in a position where there is any clear benefit to try.  As long as there is no expectation I enjoy it too, theres nothing to oppose in those who do.

Extinguishing my disgust is not so simple as opposing it. There needs to be demonstration of the benefits to doing so, and familiarity with  .  I am not going to be receptive to those in any state of arousal to unjustified opposition. 

Opposition seldom results in integration, only  reduction. 

I have researched preparation of Escargot. Familiarity with the subject eases the disgust and and would likely over come it, if I saw the need to re-enforce my familiarity.

[Intoscience]

13 hours ago, iNow said:

Disgust / distaste / repulsion... there are evolutionary reasons we respond this way. Those reasons are to avoid illness and stop the spread of parasites.

When those feelings apply to homosexual acts, it means we find those acts to be unclean, pathogenic, sick...

When the bonobo ignores the banana peel because it's too close to a pile of scat, they're feeling repulsion because it's unclean and likely to spread illness to them.

When kangaroos avoid patches of grass that are freckled with feces, they're feeling repulsion because it's unclean and likely to spread illness to them.

When antelope gather their poo in dunghills, they're feeling repulsion at the idea of it being left in their territories.

When bullfrog tadpoles flee the fungus infested ponds, or lobsters avoid crowded dens of crustaceans during viral outbreaks, or nematodes wriggle away from meals that seem to have bad bacteria... they're all doing so to guard against disease.

This all makes evolutionary sense. These reasons are all valid, and interestingly many of them involve feces, dung, poo, dookie, excrement, etc

This all might be true, in which case you are arguing that sexual preferences are nature (genetic programming) due to an evolutionary survival mechanism, not nurture (learned behaviour). But you expect me to my change my preferences (genetic programming) to align with someone else's (genetic programming), but not vice versa. 

13 hours ago, iNow said:

If you're critiquing the fashion of others, then it's not altogether different.

You're saying "their choices" which have ZERO impact on you or your family are somehow not good enough. You're saying THEIR choices don't surpass YOUR personal threshold of acceptance... your subjective arbitrary criteria regarding what is acceptable... Your "social mores" or rules or norms regarding what is and is not allowed in your tribe or group or social unit.

Hang on, I mentioned I find coconut distasteful and the response I had was that its not the same as sexual preferences. Now you are saying that fashion tastes are similar to sexual tastes. So a person not liking a particular item of clothing makes them bigots.

This is all getting rather silly now.  

9 hours ago, iNow said:

Rooting out the bad politics and laws would be far more fruitful still, and in my estimation that social movement which drives actual social change starts with each of never tiring from ridding these rotten turnips from as many potentially supportive heads as possible.

Though I agree with you, changing peoples attitudes towards certain things can have and does have a social impact. There is though, in my opinion, a difference between a person liking/disliking something and a person accepting something. There is also a clear difference between a person liking/disliking an act that someone engages in and liking/disliking the person engaging in the act. 

It's when activists from either side conflate the two where problems occur. 

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

This all might be true, in which case you are arguing that sexual preferences are nature (genetic programming) due to an evolutionary survival mechanism, not nurture (learned behaviour). But you expect me to my change my preferences (genetic programming) to align with someone else's (genetic programming), but not vice versa. 

Hang on, I mentioned I find coconut distasteful and the response I had was that its not the same as sexual preferences. Now you are saying that fashion tastes are similar to sexual tastes. So a person not liking a particular item of clothing makes them bigots.

This is all getting rather silly now.  

Though I agree with you, changing peoples attitudes towards certain things can have and does have a social impact. There is though, in my opinion, a difference between a person liking/disliking something and a person accepting something. There is also a clear difference between a person liking/disliking an act that someone engages in and liking/disliking the person engaging in the act. 

It's when activists from either side conflate the two where problems occur. 

I think the comparison with fashion taste is unfortunate because one can change it on a whim, but not who one is attracted to. Fashion, by definition, is ephemeral in nature.

Edited February 23, 2023 by StringJunky

[naitche]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

 

It's when activists from either side conflate the two where problems occur. 

 

[StringJunky]

17 minutes ago, naitche said:

 

You mean like this: conflating  sexual preference with his preference to be disgusted with it as genetically programmed? The latter is not innate, I've changed my own opinion on it over time, and my disgust has changed to acceptance. I suppose that answers the OP...it is nurtured by negative messaging/exposure in some way.

Edited February 23, 2023 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

It's when activists from either side conflate the two where problems occur. 

If the playing fields are level then I would agree with you, but they're not; so the problem occurs when we're on the down slope; in comedic term's it's punching down, and in this fora it's a valid discussion because we all get the joke.

The problem is, not everyone gets the joke; so, just saying "I don't <insert dislike>" in public just keeps the ball rolling towards their goal; we need a better defence...

 

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I mentioned I find coconut distasteful and the response I had was that its not the same as sexual preferences

Correct, and neither are "fashion preferences." I never said they're the same. I said they're not altogether different in this regard: 

Quote

You're saying "their choices" which have ZERO impact on you or your family are somehow not good enough. You're saying THEIR choices don't surpass YOUR personal threshold of acceptance... your subjective arbitrary criteria regarding what is acceptable... Your "social mores" or rules or norms regarding what is and is not allowed in your tribe or group or social unit.

And nobody here is talking about your distaste of coconut. The better comparison would be if you found others enjoyment of coconut distasteful.

It's obviously and self-evidently silly for any thinking human to do that (great! you like coconut, so what? not my cuppa tea, but you do you), so why pray tell would it be different for male gay sex that similarly has zero impact on you, your family, your health, your community, or anything else really?

 

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

you expect me to my change my preferences (genetic programming)

Sorry, what? Did we not already and repeatedly establish that your preferences are NOT genetic? I'll answer for you: Yes, we did repeatedly establish that. 

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Now you are saying that fashion tastes are similar to sexual tastes.

In this context, there are similarities. Nobody is arguing they are equivalent. Perhaps unintentionally, but you appear to be resorting to strawmen now to make your weak case. 

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

changing peoples attitudes towards certain things can have and does have a social impact.

Precisely, and yet here we are 8-pages in with you continuing to defend persistence in your distaste instead of working to extinguish it. 

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

There is also a clear difference between a person liking/disliking an act that someone engages in and liking/disliking the person engaging in the act. 

I'd be far more empathetic to this stance were we discussing something which brought harm to others, but since we're clearly not I find this to be little more than continued rationalization for holding on to outdated judgmental views.

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

It's when activists from either side conflate the two where problems occur. 

Not a huge fan of the subtle way you're trying to dismiss me as an activist, or some sort of extremist. Perhaps next you'll call me a social justice warrior, as if that's somehow a bad thing?

Edited February 23, 2023 by iNow

[MigL]

22 hours ago, iNow said:

Indeed, couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, right now today in the actual present in the actual reality we share, my state ALONE has a staggering NINETEEN (19) bills targeting the LGBTQ community, and there are 340 (three hundred and forty) more being actively pursued in the other 49 state legislatures (an average of 7 each). 

Maybe that is why you are so jaded, and calling people ( borderline ) bigots.
It's due to your 'environment'.
Most of us get along perfectly well with gay people, and we have good laws that protect their rights, while protecting my rights to not like the same practices they do.
Differences are what makes the world go around.

I will bow out of this discussion because I feel it has come full circle and INow is discussing evolutionary fears for our dislikes, completely forgetting, again, the large toll the AIDS epidemic toook on the gay community starting in the 80s, and, although now controllable, still no cure.

There are too many inconsistencies in the arguments being made. CharonY has posted some excellent material indicating the mostly learned response ( nurture ) for our likes, dislikes and attractions, and quite a few others concur. 
Yet there are those who still argue that for homosexuals, likes and dislikes as well as who you are attracted to, are not learned, but innate ( nature )
The former member Cosmologist did so, as well as Stringy continuing to

On 2/22/2023 at 11:53 AM, StringJunky said:

It's not a matter of mere taste, which can be changed with will and repetition.

I just wnder.
If a lab rat can be made to enjoy eating poison by stimulating the 'pleasure'centers in its brain, could a 'straight' human be made to enjoy homosexual sex by doing the same ?
And would that eventually change that person's sexual orientation ?
( the germans probably performed such experiments in WW2; I saw it on Else: She-Wolf of the SS )

[CharonY]

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yet there are those who still argue that for homosexuals, likes and dislikes as well as who you are attracted to, are not learned, but innate ( nature )

And I would like to point out again, that here we do an asymmetric conflation. Remember OP started with asking a step ahead, and asking about potential benefits of homophobia. 

And I think we have pointed out sufficiently that we cannot put all likes/dislikes into the same bin. Sexual orientation has a deep rooted developmental part (but likely not that innate as some might think, just basically immutable at some point). 

However, feeling uncomfortable to any sexual behaviour is much learned, as we know that there are plenty of folks uncomfortable around public displays of affection (that is why there are or were morality laws in place). So we are basically already talking about very different sets of behaviour, despite the fact that we kind of go in circles every few posts.

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

I just wnder.
If a lab rat can be made to enjoy eating poison by stimulating the 'pleasure'centers in its brain, could a 'straight' human be made to enjoy homosexual sex by doing the same ?
And would that eventually change that person's sexual orientation ?
( the germans probably performed such experiments in WW2; I saw it on Else: She-Wolf of the SS )

And this goes to what I mentioned earlier that behaviour is almost always developed in conjunction with environment. That can actually be internal development. The brain and humoral system and whatever is involved does not develop in a fixed program, a lot of things during development influence how it is executed and therefore how things end up. In this case if you basically magically change the brain, you are likely to change the outcome. Which is why the innate discussion never made much sense.

The point however, is that barring magical brain changes, there is a very common way to change the brain and that is exposure and learning. As cultural norms change, and e.g. showing affection becomes acceptable, magically more folks are less bothered by it.

[iNow]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

I will bow out of this discussion because I feel it has come full circle and INow is discussing evolutionary fears for our dislikes, completely forgetting, again, the large toll the AIDS epidemic toook on the gay community starting in the 80s, and, although now controllable, still no cure

Yep.  If by “iNow is completely forgetting” you mean “already addressed this point more than once several times in this very thread.”

If THAT’s what you mean then you are, of course, absolutely 100% correct. 

I first “completely forgot about it” 20 days ago:

 

On 2/4/2023 at 7:24 PM, iNow said:

Are you saying that heterosexual individuals are incapable of having butt sex?

Because if not, your suggestion is moot. The disgust should surround the lack of adequate protection, not the fact that a penis sometimes enters an anus (which as I said is hardly limited to homosexuals). 

And then here again last week:

 

On 2/16/2023 at 2:14 PM, iNow said:

It's not the act you find distasteful since it's fine when its opposite sex couples engage in it. It's the same sex couple, specifically the males, that you just can't bring yourselves to accept.

And then here yet again more explicitly just yesterday:

 

On 2/22/2023 at 12:17 PM, iNow said:

That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. Feeling that way even in the face of contrary evidence (safe sex practiced by hetero and homo couples are equally likely to lead to negative outcomes, there's nothing specifically about the gay version that makes the risk higher)… feeling that way is a type of bigotry. 

And:

On 2/22/2023 at 12:17 PM, iNow said:

There's nothing unclean about safely practiced male gay sex. If you feel otherwise, then the problem is with you

Sorry I’m so forgetful, though. That’s on me. I just can’t be trusted, obviously. Not engaging in good faith. Yep. That’s totally me. /sarcasm

Edited February 23, 2023 by iNow

[MigL]

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

That’s on me. I just can’t be trusted, obviously. Not engaging in good faith. Yep. That’s totally me. /sarcasm

Oh my.
You do take it badly when someone points out possible defects.
Imagine if I had called you a ( borderline ) bigot.
You'd be taking one of your guns and coming to look for me.
Now imagine how Intoscience feels ...

You keep being you,INow.
I don't participate in most all the threads you are active in because I dislike you.
On the contrary, I rather enjoy our 'repartee'.
It is an aquired taste that no amount of conversion therapy can get rid of.

[iNow]

I firmly debunked your claim about me personally and in reply you have done the equivalent of patting me on the head and told me “bless your heart.” 

If you enjoy our repartee so much, then show some respect. Hopefully by now I’ve earned it. 

I didn’t completely forget a damned thing. 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

You do take it badly when someone points out possible defects.

You misspelled “when someone completely misrepresents you.”

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Now imagine how Intoscience feels

And I gave him credit and positive rep for even acknowledging he has these thoughts. Wish more people would question their own feelings on these topics 

On 2/15/2023 at 8:32 AM, iNow said:

+1 for this. That's not often an easy thing to do... to look inward in an attempt to understand why we think or feel what we do.

I'm not a fan of simplistic, monolithic, one-dimensional labels and caricatures like "homophobe," or even "liberal" and "conservative" or "democrat" or "republican" etc., BUT... If we continue being honest with ourselves here on THIS topic... 

Well... then yeah. There is at least a modicum of homophobia in caring at all who other people prefer to love and engage with in intimate acts. 

You're already farther along than most IMO, though, with the fact that you're trying to understand and likely minimize those feelings which are sadly today still rather common. I wish MORE people would have the courage to consider these thoughts and feelings like you are, so good on ya!

 

But I am feeling kinda salty. I’ll stipulate that. 

[naitche]

On 2/23/2023 at 9:49 AM, TheVat said:

 rooting out all the bad turnips in our heads.  That direction, in my reading of history, seems to run the risk of thought policing.  (which seems to drive the real bigots even further into entrenchment and extremity)

Yes. Those you  speak for, while  un-representative of, are seen as the source of opposition to the legitimacy of individual perspectives. In pursuit of a perfect 'state' of Humanity, Where all peoples are valued equally.   You will not accept the value or validity of any who don't recognize the superior position of your own state, until all are subject to the same. That is bigotry and a gross misunderstanding of what diversity is. It is subjective, as are all experience and relationships,  to the unique perspectives that have been accorded the individual.

About time we re-corrected the language of bigotry as redefined by CRT adherents to better reflect its reality, instead of promoting its bias as a legitimate virtue for the extermination of peoples who are the result of their own subjective realities. 

Look to the causes of bigotry, not the results for your cure.

Change and elimination are not the same.

Totally agree we all want to see more acceptance of our Human environment. I figure a good place to start is by putting it out there.

You assume relationships where none are a given to define your objective, and show bigotry under every other bed.

I agree we all want to see more acceptance of our Human environment. I figure the best place to start is by putting it out there. Subjectively. Not taking it away with misplaced objectives. C.T. catches us up into a double negative.

Edited February 24, 2023 by naitche

[MigL]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

I first “completely forgot about it” 20 days ago:

 

On 2/4/2023 at 8:24 PM, iNow said:

Are you saying that heterosexual individuals are incapable of having butt sex?

Because if not, your suggestion is moot. The disgust should surround the lack of adequate protection, not the fact that a penis sometimes enters an anus (which as I said is hardly limited to homosexuals). 

And then here again last week:

 

On 2/16/2023 at 3:14 PM, iNow said:

It's not the act you find distasteful since it's fine when its opposite sex couples engage in it. It's the same sex couple, specifically the males, that you just can't bring yourselves to accept.

And then here yet again more explicitly just yesterday:

 

On 2/22/2023 at 1:17 PM, iNow said:

That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. Feeling that way even in the face of contrary evidence (safe sex practiced by hetero and homo couples are equally likely to lead to negative outcomes, there's nothing specifically about the gay version that makes the risk higher)… feeling that way is a type of bigotry. 

And:

On 2/22/2023 at 1:17 PM, iNow said:

There's nothing unclean about safely practiced male gay sex. If you feel otherwise, then the problem is with you

You don't seem to realize that a lot of people have an aversion to anal sex.
First off, it can lead to scatological incidents, and requires some sort of covering on your bed.
Second, it can be extremely painful for the receiver, especially if you're as well endowed as I am 😁 .
And third, some people consider it an exit, not an entry.

None of this has anything to do with whether the butt is hairy or not, so it makes no difference whether homosexual or heterosexual anal sex.
Capish ?

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I firmly debunked your claim about me personally and in reply you have done the equivalent of patting me on the head and told me “bless your heart.” 

There ... There ...
( pat, - pat )

[Intoscience]

14 hours ago, iNow said:

And nobody here is talking about your distaste of coconut. The better comparison would be if you found others enjoyment of coconut distasteful.

It's obviously and self-evidently silly for any thinking human to do that (great! you like coconut, so what? not my cuppa tea, but you do you), so why pray tell would it be different for male gay sex that similarly has zero impact on you, your family, your health, your community, or anything else really?

Why would I find others enjoyment of gay sex distasteful? Again you are conflating my personal dislike with the persons engaging in such. Provided they did not insist that I engage with them then I have no feeling or judgment on what they enjoy in their private lives.  

14 hours ago, iNow said:

Sorry, what? Did we not already and repeatedly establish that your preferences are NOT genetic? I'll answer for you: Yes, we did repeatedly establish that.

So you are saying that my sexual orientation is learned not genetic so I can learn to become gay? Hmmm.... yet gay people historically and even still today, were victimised for not learning to be heterosexual. 

14 hours ago, iNow said:

In this context, there are similarities. Nobody is arguing they are equivalent. Perhaps unintentionally, but you appear to be resorting to strawmen now to make your weak case. 

So my coconut analogy is a strawman thus rendering my arguments weak. But your fashion analogy is fine because in the context we are discussing it has similarities. I would argue that the coconut analogy is a better analogy than fashion since it could be that my coconut distaste has deeper rooted origins. Fashion tends change rapidly with trends, my coconut distaste persists even after numerous attempts to change this. 

15 hours ago, iNow said:

Precisely, and yet here we are 8-pages in with you continuing to defend persistence in your distaste instead of working to extinguish it

I keep asking, yet nobody has come up with a god reason why I should change my personal tastes. In the context of social acceptance I agree that if I was protesting my view towards the people who engage in gay sex and insisting that its disgusting and they should not engage in such then yeah sure. All I'm arguing is that its not my cuppa tea so if you enjoy it, no problem crack on, but I'm not interested in participating thanks.

So I will ask again why should I change my personal tastes inline with others, yet those others are free to maintain theirs?     

15 hours ago, iNow said:

Not a huge fan of the subtle way you're trying to dismiss me as an activist, or some sort of extremist. Perhaps next you'll call me a social justice warrior, as if that's somehow a bad thing?

Hmm... not nice when the shoe is on the other foot now is it.

I never mentioned anyone was an activist on this forum. If you read my statement I said problems occur when things get conflated especially so by activists from either side. If you feel you fall under into this category and don't like it, then maybe you should change your attitude a bit. 

I'm more than happy to explore the origins of my dislikes, I'm more than happy to change my attitude towards certain things if those things are unjustifiably offensive towards others. 

I'm not a fan of the way you insinuated I was a bigot, even though you attempted to detune it by saying "borderline". 

18 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I think the comparison with fashion taste is unfortunate because one can change it on a whim, but not who one is attracted to. Fashion, by definition, is ephemeral in nature

I agree, though my comparison was about coconuts a taste I still dislike and currently unable to change even after many attempts to do so. 

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The problem is, not everyone gets the joke; so, just saying "I don't <insert dislike>" in public just keeps the ball rolling towards their goal; we need a better defence...

This is very true but stems from things getting conflated, as I keep arguing.