Social Unacceptence

[iNow]

And now for something completely different. An on-topic post:

 

 

http://www.4therapy.com/consumer/conditions/article/6972/441/Homophobia

As is the case with racism, numerous and complex societal factors contribute to homophobia. And, as with racism, homophobia is based on prejudice towards those who are different. The primary source of homophobia in most Western nations seems to be the Judaeo-Christian religious tradition of opposition to homosexuality, justified by certain passages in Scripture (although in recent years certain “progressive” branches of Protestantism and Judaism are increasingly accepting of homosexuality). From its roots in religion, homophobia has institutionalized itself in the law (in many states one can be legally fired for being homosexual), psychology (until 1980, homosexuality was deemed a mental disorder by the official diagnostic manual of psychology, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), the military (unlike any other minority, avowed homosexuals may not enlist or serve in the armed forces) and popular culture (homosexuals until very recently were usually depicted in movies and on television as either depressed, diseased, deranged, or preying on children).

 

The evidence that homophobia is a culturally based aversion, rather than a "natural" one, is extensive. <

more at the link

>

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Here's another good one that was published in the New York Times back in 1990:

 

 

http://www.bibble.org/gay/phobia/roots_of_homophobia.html

In studying the virulence and tenacity of anti-gay feelings, psychologists are finding clues to the deeper sources of homophobia. The new findings confirm the theory that some men use hostility and violence to homosexuals to reassure themselves about their own sexuality. But the greatest portion of anti-homosexual bias, psychologists now say, arises from a combination of fear and self-righteousness in which homosexuals are perceived as contemptible threats to the moral universe. <

see link for more

>

 

 

In reference to Psychos posts to this thread, I find this portion of the above reference somewhat telling:

 

Defensiveness about their own sexuality is another common source of people's hostility toward homosexuals. In Dr. Herek's research, for instance, this was the second most common motive, accounting for about 40 percent of those hostile to homosexuals.

 

This explanation for homophobia is the oldest, dating back at least to a 1914 essay by Sandor Ferenczi, one of Freud's original followers who proposed that feelings of disgust toward gay men by heterosexual men are defensive, a reaction against their own similar attraction to other men. That view stems from Freud's theory that all people are originally bisexual in early childhood, and repress their attraction to the same sex as they grow.

 

"Homophobia has much to do with the stereotypic perception of gays as feminine: the more feminine a gay man appears, the more hostility he evokes in other men," said Dr. Richard Isay, a psychiatrist at Cornell Medical College and author of "Being Homosexual."

 

Dr. Peggy Hanley-Hackenbruck, a psychiatrist at Oregon Health Services University and president of the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, said, "In insecure heterosexual women, a lesbian can arouse fears of their own latent homosexual feelings, and so provoke hostility."

 

But Dr. Isay said, "Seeing a feminine man evokes a tremendous amount of anxiety in many men; it triggers an awareness of their own feminine qualities, such as passivity or sensitivity, which they see as being a sign of weakness. Women, or course, don't fear their femininity. That's partly why men are more homophobic than women, and why those biases are so strong in groups where men are selected for their masculine qualities, such as the army or sports."

 

Other psychoanalysts see the expression of anti-gay bias by men as being a way to reassure themselves that they are not homosexual.

Edited April 5, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[sobe]

thank you for bring us back on topic

 

well, with homosexuality being affected by law, id like to ask how it is that it has been alowed to get into law? its very clearly a breach of (possiblly) the first amendment (ill explain more in a sec), and of corse the phrase "life librty and the prusuit of happyness" in the decleration.

 

 

the first amendment: Would it change things if a religion were made that surrounded the homosexual way of life? it could be a loose fitting relgion so as to alow homosexuals to live the way they would want to live, and alow them to accept other religions in there life, as there doesnt need to technicly be a god, goddess, or other "hight being" and all those little acceptions that would be made to alow people of the religion to live there life, any ways, the point is, would this make acceptions for things such as gay marrage, on the grounds that it is part of religion? and if so, why is it neccicary that a religion be made to alow homosexuals to live happily, when the decleration is supposed to give us the presuit of happyness, and if loving the same gender as yourself is what make you happy, and doesnt harm any one in any way, then why is is still fought over so strongly?

 

 

why should personal choices such as this be the grounds of persacuion and limatation?

[north]

why is it that people cant accept that there are people who find the same sex attractive? iv seen this more so in men than women, and i have no idea why, especialy when if a guy is gay, doesnt that mean more of a chance for a strait guy to get a girl? any one have any ideas on the matter?

 

I find that from my experience that ;

 

that a person is either gay or lesbian from genetics and/or from the enviroment in which they were brought up

 

which involves physical and emotional abuse

[Sayonara]

I find that from my experience that ;

that a person is either gay or lesbian from genetics and/or from the enviroment in which they were brought up

which involves physical and emotional abuse

 

Aside from being uncertain as to how exactly you would have experience of other people's genetics, I am having trouble seeing how this is related to the post you quoted. Can you explain?

 

Although it is certainly true that many gay men and women have suffered abuse, I think you will find that the same is also true of straight men and women, and I also think that you would struggle to show a significant causal link. If you have Athens access or similar I would suggest a search for relevant papers, as I am quite confident that you will find several.

[Ladeira]

At first, it's obvious that there is a history behind what happens today. I can barely say that the most important reason for all this against-homosexuality is based on religion. I can say that because I face it at home... "God hates Fags" has many names and it's not the only source of prejudging. There are still many false ideas like gays are more promiscuous or gays need to act like women, it's not true. Another very importante myth is that being gay is a choice. IT IS NOT TRUE. It's not something you choose, it's an organic condition. People just can't realize it or even try to understand since there is a big history beyond this discussion.

 

There is much about it that we can find on Web, specially on YouTube.

[Paralith]

thank you for bring us back on topic

 

well, with homosexuality being affected by law, id like to ask how it is that it has been alowed to get into law? its very clearly a breach of (possiblly) the first amendment (ill explain more in a sec), and of corse the phrase "life librty and the prusuit of happyness" in the decleration.

 

Many of these laws are very old, and if they're still on the books it's because no one has actually tried to enact them in recent years, and most have forgotten that they're there. If I remember right, some places also have laws about where in the street you can legally put livestock. These are laws from an older time and are more relics than they are actual laws, but they speak to this country's history. There was a time when farmers would regularly be bringing livestock in to town and could clog up the streets. There was a time when the religion of the majority of the citizens dictated many of the laws that were put on the books.

[iNow]

Sobe is correct that many of those laws are unconstitutional and should be stricken. The key reasons are the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment (which protects peoples rights to have different... or no... religious beliefs, but also mandates that all laws have a relevant secular constitutional purpose... such as preventing harm to others or their property... and not be based on religious ideologies alone), and also the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment (which ensures that all laws apply equally to all people, and that the laws themselves not be discriminatory unless the aforementioned measurable harm can be demonstrated... in other words, if the law is differentially applied or impacting, it be so to prevent some form of measurable harm to others or their property).

[sobe]

thanks Iknow

 

 

but not only that, but im having an idea that would force the leagalization of gay marrage in all states based on religion. what if a homosexual religion were made? the defonition of religion is simply the shared faith or belief system of a people, in this case homosexuals, and it would alow the practices of said religions to be practiced solong as they didnt cause harm to others or give them access to loopholes in goverment or state aid programs and the likes. now, i may be incorrect on these things, but i think i covered most of it.

[iNow]

That's a good thought, but it unfortunately would not work. Even if there were a religion based purely around homosexuality, the government should not/cannot legislate differently because of that.

 

The first amendment, the establishment clause especially, shows that laws cannot be made in favor of or against any religion, so even if homosexuality were a religion, laws could not be passed on that basis.

 

The troubling thing is, Sobe... laws against homosexuality, or laws preventing homosexuals from marrying are already unconstitutional. It's just that they have been allowed to remain on the books since so many people in our country (the vast majority) have wanted it that way.

 

There is some good progress being made right now. California is presently considering an attempt to ban same sex marriage and whether or not that is constitutional. Iowa just last week ruled that any bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional, so they will be allowed. You also have states like Massachusetts where same sex marriages are legal.

 

Where it gets interesting is when two same sex partners marry in one state (let's say Iowa or California), then move to another state (let's say Texas), then that other state does not need to recognize the marriage as valid. Here's the tricky part... That, too, is unconstitutional because of the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV of the constitution. That basically says that any laws or contracts which are valid in one state must also be valid and recognized by all other states in the union.

 

It's a really messed up situation, for sure, and there are no easy answers. We've had some good (and heated) discussions about exactly this at the following:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39096

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36548

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36247

 

 

Enjoy.

[sobe]

ok, hears what realy confuses me. why is the supream court ruling against gay marrage? what is the goverment and states using against it to say gay marrage cant be alowed? it doesnt make any sence to me, the only argument iv heard about it is the marrital definition, and definitions can change right? so whats the issue lol, make a quick revision, an bam, all better right? eather that or change how marrage effects things like how you choose to be payed (claiming married for your paycheck and all that good stuff) and what ever, because im not entirly sure, im about to go look, but "cival unions" dont give the same benifits or what ever, and a freind mentioned something about taxes, but yeah, please explain these things to me -checking cival union vs. marrage now-

[iNow]

The Supreme Court has not ruled against gay marriage.*

However, they have also not ruled for it.

They basically are ignoring the cases so they don't have to deal with it.

 

 

As per the differences between civil unions and marriages in our laws, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) notes there are 1,138 differences (impacting things like taxes, green cards, hospital visitation rights, the ability to deal with the death of the loved one, etc):

 

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5559&type=0

 

 

 

 

* Possible exception is Baker v. Nelson, however, they didn't officially rule "against it," they dismissed the case on the merits... Which means they didn't even think it worth deliberating over. Basically, the Minnesota Supreme Court said "it's a non-issue, nothing to see here, please go on about your day... A case like this is silly and not worth our time." That has served as precedent for other rulings since.

[sobe]

ok, i looked it up and found this http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

 

 

it had info on marrage, domestic partnership and civil unions. and now im just like wow lol...it seems like it would be SOOO much easyer to just tweek the definition a bit to alow gay marrage, instead of make these confusing as holy hell exeptions and roundabout terms that make it almost the same as marrage, but people dont want it to be the same, because its not a man and a woman, and if im not mistaken, both homosexual and heterosexual couples can get domestic partnership/civil unions, so i dont see how it can work one way and not both.

[iNow]

it had info on marrage, domestic partnership and civil unions. and now im just like wow lol...it seems like it would be SOOO much easyer to just tweek the definition a bit to alow gay marrage, instead of make these confusing as holy hell exeptions and roundabout terms that make it almost the same as marrage, but people dont want it to be the same, because its not a man and a woman, and if im not mistaken, both homosexual and heterosexual couples can get domestic partnership/civil unions, so i dont see how it can work one way and not both.

 

I tend to agree.

 

It seems that Webster's dictionary has said the same thing:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

[sobe]

such a confusing topic lol, though could you explain if the church is the reason, or one of the reasons, why marrage is limited to a man and woman?

[iNow]

such a confusing topic lol, though could you explain if the church is the reason, or one of the reasons, why marrage is limited to a man and woman?

 

Well, now you're asking about opinion, and that's a little more difficult. There are many reasons why marriage is restricted like they are, and (as the references I shared in previous posts amply support) the church is definitely one of the main reasons.

 

The teachings of the preachers, the references to some book of fairy tales written in the bronze age by barely literate tribal peoples... these lend support to the discriminatory mindset so common in our populace today.

 

However, it would not be fair (nor would it be accurate) to suggest it's ONLY that it's only religion which has caused this.

 

 

There are also issues of peoples own insecurity with their sexuality. For example, many males tend to feel the need to over-compensate and act out against homosexuals, such that they feel like their are demonstrating and exemplifying their own manliness.

 

There is also the issue of indoctrination, and learning from our parents. If our parents and grandparents found something to be wrong or immoral, then really so will we (at least, the vast majority of the time). This has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with how we learn from our elders and people in positions of authority over us.

 

It's this fear of "different" that tends to carry it forward, but religion has played a very definite role. In some religions, homosexuality is reason for execution... They can and do literally kill people for being gay. It's pathetic. Along similar lines, here, they prevent gay people from having equal rights and protections under the law, and harassment and discrimination are rampant.

 

It's a complex topic, and there are no easy answers. However, the simple truth is that the world as a whole is slowly becoming more enlightened... letting go of their silly religions, their ignorant hatreds, and their distrust of those who are homosexual. People are becoming more comfortable with the idea of homosexuality, and realizing that many good people are gay, and that their preconceived notions are often wrong.

 

It just can't happen soon enough. In the meantime, just be yourself. Be authentic with your feelings and sincere with yourself and those close to you. It may not be easy, but that's the best way to proceed, without question.

[sobe]

ill never fully understand it i geuss, it just seems like basic rights to me, and kinda makes the basis of the hole country a big lie, pursuit of happyness my ass lol, but oh well, people will get over it eventualy, fight the good fight is all we can do at the moment. so is there any ideas related to the thread you wana bring up? (or any one else veiwing)

[iNow]

How about this...

 

 

What steps can everyone take to increase social acceptance of homosexuals, and to ensure homosexuals benefit from the equal protections of non-discriminatory laws in our nation?

[sobe]

accept the fact that gays are people too

[Sayonara]

If you called them "gay people" instead of "gays" that would be self-evident, wouldn't it?

[coke]

Well making fun of someone who's gay is like making fun of someont who's fat or uncool... It's not in essence racism or anything like that, but still it's not very good.

 

Although idk, where I live, I really don't see people who are obviously gay get made fun of... maybe it's cause I live in California, lol.

 

And ok, I'm sure there are a lot of manly gay people, in the sense that they are agressive or strong or whatever....

 

I meant it more in a masculine sort of way. And this applies more not to the 'bears' if im guessing what you mean correctly, but the other ones.

Edited April 7, 2009 by coke

[Sayonara]

Well making fun of someone who's gay is like making fun of someont who's fat or uncool... It's not in essence racism or anything like that, but still it's not very good.

I think you'll find that it is racist. Or rather, it is discriminatory to the same degree and by the same mechanism.

 

I meant it more in a masculine sort of way. And this applies more not to the 'bears' if im guessing what you mean correctly, but the other ones.

The reason you don't think that there are any "masculine" gay people (or, presumably, feminine lesbians) is because your preconception tells you that gay men are not masculine. You therefore rule out the possibility that a masculine man you have met or seen on television is in fact gay.

 

This is not a conscious process that you can be "blamed" for. It's a consequence of the fallacious stereotypes which society has programmed into you. Being aware of it is the key to overcoming it.

Edited April 8, 2009 by Sayonara³
Added emphasis for people who can't tell the difference between the words feminine and feminist.

[sobe]

saya is right, theres gay people that act like any other guy or girl you know, but happen to like the same gender.

[user]

Homosexuals can be just as strong and whatever, but they are definitely less masculine.

The whole concept of interest in man is more a woman's quality, which is more 'womanly'.

 

Plus, exclusive homosexuals have less than half the testosterone level of exclusive heterosexuals on average, which I'm sure contributes to a lack of masculine characteristics.

 

I'm not sure if homosexuals have lower testosterone because they're gay, or if they are gay because they have lower testosterone (and almost no homosexuals had higher testosterone levels than a heterosexual- "almost no overlap").

 

Second way would work of course, but,

It can work the first way too, because I read something about this in Ap Psych, dominating behaivor apparently causes testosterone to boost.

 

Preconceptions, tv portrayals, they are there like that for a reason. They are based on actual facts, even if they are exagerated.

 

I'm not racist against homosexuals in any way, if you know someone who happens to be gay, it's kind of hard.

 

Feminist lesbians- so true.

Edited April 8, 2009 by user

[sobe]

i beg to differ lol. im 17 in the peak of my life and im freakin filled with testosterone lol. that link isnt working for me, but to be blunt, it sounds like bs to me. and as for masculenity, gay men can be just as masulen as a strait man, im just like any other guy in my school, i just like guys. i play sports and all that, and im competative as can be, no dif.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Plus, exclusive homosexuals have less than half the testosterone level of exclusive heterosexuals on average, which I'm sure contributes to a lack of masculine characteristics.

Interesting. I think the authors of your own source disagree:

 

Testosterone level was not related to relative masculinity or femininity or to any other psychological variable measured.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Now I suggest that if you want to make bigoted remarks you at least find evidence that actually backs up your claims.