What's worse, creationism or homophobia?

[Daecon]

Or are they just as bad as each other?

[Pangloss]

What's worse, ideological prejudgement about social groups, or cross-association of seemingly unrelated subjects?

[iNow]

You are asking also, what's worse...

 

Hating someone for what they are, or

Hating someone for what they think and/or have been taught?

 

 

Both are silly, frankly, and I think Pangloss touched on this above rather poignantly.

[Daecon]

You are asking also, what's worse...

 

Hating someone for what they are, or

Hating someone for what they think and/or have been taught?

 

 

Both are silly, frankly, and I think Pangloss touched on this above rather poignantly.

 

Is there any difference between the two in this situation?

[Sisyphus]

I don't really understand the comparison...

[iNow]

Is there any difference between the two in this situation?

 

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a choice? If not, can you clarify your question, because implies I must be missing something.

[Sisyphus]

Ok, do you mean which is worse for a society, or which is a more deeply flawed argument? And why are these particular things being compared?

[Daecon]

"Hating someone for what they are, or

Hating someone for what they think and/or have been taught?"

 

Creationists are creationists because that's what they've been taught to think, the same goes for homophobic attitudes, too. Nobody is born homophobic anymore than they're born a creationist.

 

Also, could homophobia be considered a type of racism?

[ParanoiA]

Nobody is born homophobic anymore than they're born a creationist.

 

Oh, so how did you get taught to like the opposite sex? Personally, I don't remember anyone teaching me to like girls...I just did...like I was born that way.

 

Also, could homophobia be considered a type of racism?

 

Well not racism, for obvious reasons, but wussism yeah. Homophobia would be an irrational, unreasonable fear or contempt for gay people. Don't know why anyone should fear them, but...

[iNow]

Creationists are creationists because that's what they've been taught to think, the same goes for homophobic attitudes, too. Nobody is born homophobic anymore than they're born a creationist.

 

Also, could homophobia be considered a type of racism?

 

Ah... thank you for clarifying. Nobody is born hating. I agree. Perhaps we'd do well to suggest that creationism serves as a disappointment to many of us. I mean, why would somebody consciously give up their attempt to accurately understand the wonder which is the universe for some spoon-fed falsehoods? I, personally, do not *hate* creationists, but I disgust what they stand for and what their belief set represents.

 

As for homosexuality, people are not born hating that either. However, I definitely feel that people are born homosexual... I'm of the school of thought that they did not choose it. Since being born into a certain condition, in my book, is different from making a poor decision, and is very much like hating someone for the color of their skin or country of birth, I find that clear bigotry. I'd suggest that when someone hates people who are homosexual, it is simply a representation of their own insecurities and need to pigeon-hole others... despising people simply for being different from themselves.

 

While I don't pigeon-hole creationists for being different from me, I do pigeon-hole them for ignoring the mountains of evidence which stand contrary to their belief.

 

...but I'm not sure I've addressed your question.

[Pangloss]

It never ceases to amaze me some of the nonsense that people who ostensibly claim to believe in science and logic are willing to spout. It is one of the most interesting (and entertaining) things I've learned in my years here at SFN.

[Daecon]

Oh, so how did you get taught to like the opposite sex? Personally, I don't remember anyone teaching me to like girls...I just did...like I was born that way.

 

I said "not born homophobic", not "not born homosexual".

[YT2095]

ok, NOW can I ask who prefers Chocolate or Vanilla icecream?

 

I`de also like a qualification of what "Worse" actually means in real terms here too.

[Daecon]

ok, NOW can I ask who prefers Chocolate or Vanilla icecream?

 

I`de also like a qualification of what "Worse" actually means in real terms here too.

 

Ugh. Duude, seriously. STRAWBERRY! Duh!

 

Worse = More harmful to society in the way it influences attitudes.

 

Oh, and iNow, I agree. I'm pretty sure I was born gay, I made no conscious

choice about it - I used to prefer looking at naked men to naked women even when I was 4 years old...

[YT2095]

in that case I`de look at like a Venn diagram, since homophobia fits within the remit of certain types of creationists and is considered a Sin and deplorable act a "Worse", then you have whatever else they stand for that`s "worse" as well added to that.

 

whereas someone that`s Just Homophobic has only One "Worse" trait.

 

an ordinary person may just be homophobic and scores 1 point.

a creationist type is Taught to be homophobic + Other incorrect things and scores 1 point for sure, and probably Others.

 

(using your definition of "Worse")

[iNow]

Worse = More harmful to society in the way it influences attitudes.

Try to remember, worse according to whom?

 

 

What's worse - A lion eating a zebra or a lion not eating a zebra?

 

Well, to to the zebra, the lion eating him is worse, but to the lion, not eating the zebra is worse.

 

Yet both the lion and the zebra are part of the same society. The definition of worse is subjective, relative to the interpreter.

 

 

However, a bit more back on the thread's topic, I'd suggest that hating others is really bad. But then, I'd lose significant portions of my definition of love were hate to disappear. What is positive without negative?

 

 

Now, who eats the lion?

[lucaspa]

What's worse, ideological prejudgement about social groups, or cross-association of seemingly unrelated subjects?

 

Creationists are creationists because that's what they've been taught to think, the same goes for homophobic attitudes, too. Nobody is born homophobic anymore than they're born a creationist.

 

Pangloss touched on it; it's a silly comparison. And you didn't define what you meant by "worse".

 

The rank and file creationists are simply people who have made a tragic logical mistake and ended up facing a spiritual crisis. Therefore they have rejected the science that led them to the spiritual crisis. I can't get too upset at them for this; scientists have been doing the same thing. In fact, scientists have a very similar emotional response when the creationist arguments get down to saying science is a faulty method of knowing.

 

The professional creationists are another matter. I put them in the same moral category that I put especially viscious con men; the ones that con the elderly out of their entire life savings, for instance.

 

Homophobia is more about feelings of inadequacy in the homophobe and power manipulation.

 

Also, could homophobia be considered a type of racism?

 

Interesting you should look on it that way. Look how homophobia is being used: to discriminate against people. As Western society matured and discrimination against other races and women became unacceptable, we see the shift to discrimination against homosexuals. It appears that there are people who have a pschological need to feel superior to some group. Now homosexuals and illegal immigrants are the groups.

 

[quote

 

Worse = More harmful to society in the way it influences attitudes.

 

If you are going there, I suggest you focus on the common denominator to both creationism and homophobia in the West: Fundamentalism. This is a new religion that identifies itself as "Christian" but is not. It is sneaking into Christianity and taking it over from the inside unless the Christians opposing it manage to stop it. One of Fundamentalism's main creeds is an inerrant, literal Bible. It is this creed that fuels the sexism, creationism, and homophobia within the religion.

 

Oh, and iNow, I agree. I'm pretty sure I was born gay, I made no conscious

choice about it - I used to prefer looking at naked men to naked women even when I was 4 years old...

 

I've heard this from every other homosexual I've known. And it is consistent with my experience of never making a conscious choice to be heterosexual. I had my first crush on a girl in 1st grade and it was NOT a conscious choice. The genetic data are very strong that sexual orientation is determined by your alleles. In fruit flies, change the alleles on one of at least 3 genes and you convert heterosexuals to homosexuals.

[YT2095]

"It appears that there are people who have a pschological need to feel superior to some group. Now homosexuals and illegal immigrants are the groups."

 

and Smokers in the UK now.

[lucaspa]

"It appears that there are people who have a pschological need to feel superior to some group. Now homosexuals and illegal immigrants are the groups."

 

and Smokers in the UK now.

 

I'm not in England and haven't heard much news about it, so cannot vouch for the accuracy of the statement. Second-hand smoke is a health problem for others. Going by the "your freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose" principle, I can see forbidding smoking in enclosed public areas. I would also think smokers would be considerate of the harm to others and not smoke outdoors when someone else is going to get a good dose of cigarette smoke.

 

However, if they want to poison themselves in private, who am I to say otherwise?

[YT2095]

not to derail the thread, but to elucidate, I have an allotment garden it has a potting shed, I rent this land from the local council (as do the other 71 plot holders there).

 

since I don`t own the shed, the Council own it, there`s talk about banning smoking in you own potting shed now!

 

for no other reason than they CAN and the ones pushing for it are Known assholes!

[lucaspa]

not to derail the thread, but to elucidate, I have an allotment garden it has a potting shed, I rent this land from the local council (as do the other 71 plot holders there).

 

since I don`t own the shed, the Council own it, there`s talk about banning smoking in you own potting shed now!

 

for no other reason than they CAN and the ones pushing for it are Known assholes!

 

I can think of a reason. It is known the cigarette smoke permeates fabric and wood, leaving a smell behind. Smokers don't notice because you are used to the smell. To non-smokers, it is as bad as if you didn't bathe. The owner can have as a reason that they don't want the property devalued by being permeated with the smell of cigarette smoke. The same argument would be used against your urinating, defecating, or spraying skunk scent in there.

 

And remember, it's not YOUR potting shed. You are only renting. Owners do have the right to impose restrictions on the use of rental property. After all, if you lend your car, part of the unspoken agreement is that the lendee isn't going to do anything to damage it.

 

Now, if you owned your house and the city council banned smoking there, they would be in the wrong.

 

Now, can we get back to the thread? I have sympathy for smokers, since nicotine is as addictive as heroin and we have made tobacco use legal. However, I think it silly to try to say smokers are "discriminated" against in the same way homosexuals are. Apples and oranges.

[Pangloss]

ok, NOW can I ask who prefers Chocolate or Vanilla icecream?

 

Racist pig!

[ParanoiA]

I said "not born homophobic", not "not born homosexual".

 

I apologize, you're right, I totally missed it. And I agree too, that you're not born homophobic.

[YT2095]

Racist pig!

 

only if I`de put Vanilla 1`st

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pistachio Supremist

[ParanoiA]

However, a bit more back on the thread's topic, I'd suggest that hating others is really bad.

 

Also hating those who hate. I always laugh when I hear someone overcompensate their supposed lack of prejudice by hating the KKK, or homophobes and etc...