So being straight equals having negative feelings and a negative attitude (hatred, aversion, antipathy etc.) towards homosexuality?Every straight person is homophobic.
So being straight equals having negative feelings and a negative attitude (hatred, aversion, antipathy etc.) towards homosexuality?Every straight person is homophobic.
In the context of our society, every straight person is set up to be homophobic. Do you know what an analytic-synthetic distinction is? The claim that I did was a synthetic preposition ("we can infer from reality that straights are homophobic"), while your question of whether being straight "equals" being homophobic seems to be a analytic preposition ("straights are homophobic because thats the definition of heterosexuality"). So we are not debating the same claim.So being straight equals having negative feelings and a negative attitude (hatred, aversion, antipathy etc.) towards homosexuality?
You have made three different claims:So we are not debating the same claim.
You have made three different claims:
"Every straight person is homophobic"
"In the context of our society, every straight person is set up to be homophobic"
"We can infer from reality that straights are homophobic"
Which do you want to debate?
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I would only want to defend one of those 3 phrases and not the other 2, but in anyway I don't see them as independent claims. Afterall, I've said the 2nd and the 3rd explaining the first one. I just don't want to asnwear for mischaracterizations of what I've said, specially if what I've said is being distorted into ridicule.You have made three different claims:
"Every straight person is homophobic"
"In the context of our society, every straight person is set up to be homophobic"
"We can infer from reality that straights are homophobic"
Which do you want to debate?
I really think a better question would be: Is there really such a thing as straight?
I think most so called straight men are just bisexuals waiting for discovery.
I don't know where you get that idea either. I said 'debate' not 'defend'. And of course you can debate any or all of them, as long as you understand they are not the same thing and we know which you mean.I'm not sure where you got the idea that I would only want to defend one of those 3 phrases
In the context of our society, every straight person is set up to be homophobic. Do you know what an analytic-synthetic distinction is? The claim that I did was a synthetic preposition ("we can infer from reality that straights are homophobic"), while your question of whether being straight "equals" being homophobic seems to be a analytic preposition ("straights are homophobic because thats the definition of heterosexuality"). So we are not debating the same claim.
In the context of our society, every straight person is set up to be homophobic.
An increased potential makes sense. But what umdoistressilvaquatro said is utter nonsense since he redefines heterosexuality and homophobia so that it fits his opinion.This may not please umdoistressilvaquatro but I am in near agreement with him. If I can rework his basic statements just a bit, they do hit the target.
He said, “In the context of our society, every straight person is set up to be homophobic.”
Rewording:
In the context of our society over the past 100 years nearly all people, especially those who consider themselves as straight, have been heavily influenced (set up) to become homophobic
He said, “No one who identifies as straight has no homophobia.”
Rewording:
Anyone who identifies himself/herself as straight carries an increased potential for being homophobic
This is like the chorus in a Greek tragedy! I take heed of your warning. 'Exit, pursued by a bore'umdoistressilvaquatro just raised more fire in this thread which wasn't so tranquil after all...
lol
I would never dare write this... lol...
now... hunghorse seems ready to deliver more reflection concerning those statements...
....
and if we made a distinction between... homophobic... and... not gay friendly?...
wouldn't this nuance be a little less provocative... and a way to target some consensus concerning those sad endless polemical subjects about sexual orientation?...
...
saying that... umdoistressilvaquatro really impressed me this evening... I wouldn't just have expected to read this...
and I think you could have gone too far...
...
now I'm waiting for hunghorse my hero... lol...
but be careful hunghorse... because umdoistressilvaquatro's first answer to your rephrasing of his statements is valid to me...
the fire!...
lol
oh... congratulations to lee_m as her thread will soon reach 100 replies... in a relatively short period...
lee_m knows how to unchain the passions here at lpsg...
lol...
Every single straight person have been taught that gayness is either ridiculous, funny, pathetic, unnatural, sinful, suboptimal, forbidden, threatening, mistaken, distorted, wrong, perverted, inferior, abnormal or grotesque. No straight person have ever been taught that being gay is no different from being straight.Just out of curiosity i googled how many people there are on the planet. 7.125 billion. Lets say only half that number is heterosexuals. For your statements to be true that would mean that over 3 billion people had to have been taught to be homophobic. 3 billion. With absolutely no errors what so ever. An error meaning one of those people were taught that being gay wasn't a big deal. So to prove your statement wrong...we would only need one person to not have been taught to be homophobic. One.
Had you presented your argument differently it would be a different story. You said...
In the context of our society, every straight person is set up to be homophobic. - You
And just for understandings sake...
Yeah i don't see all the above being a thing all heterosexual people were set up for. Because once again, you said....
- irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
- It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear, and is often related to religious beliefs.[4][5]
- is the hatred or fear of homosexuals - that is, lesbians and gay men - sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility.
In the context of our society, every straight person is set up to be homophobic. - You
Thats an absolute judgment about every last straight person's upbringing in existence. Meaning...well you're wrong from the start.
What does gay friendly even means? I have found several stablishments that proudly declare themselves gay friendly meaning they use their supposed lack of homophobia as a marketing feature. Besides marketing, I have never seen the term before. So I fail to see the nuance you are trying to point up. What do you mean?umdoistressilvaquatro just raised more fire in this thread which wasn't so tranquil after all...
lol
I would never dare write this... lol...
now... hunghorse seems ready to deliver more reflection concerning those statements...
....
and if we made a distinction between... homophobic... and... not gay friendly?...
wouldn't this nuance be a little less provocative... and a way to target some consensus concerning those sad endless polemical subjects about sexual orientation?...
...
saying that... umdoistressilvaquatro really impressed me this evening... I wouldn't just have expected to read this...
and I think you could have gone too far...
...
now I'm waiting for hunghorse my hero... lol...
but be careful hunghorse... because umdoistressilvaquatro's first answer to your rephrasing of his statements is valid to me...
the fire!...
lol
oh... congratulations to lee_m as her thread will soon reach 100 replies... in a relatively short period...
lee_m knows how to unchain the passions here at lpsg...
lol...
I didn't made the argument you are implying I did. In fact, I wrote 3 posts explaining that I did not said "straight people are homophobic because that's what being straight is". You are accusing me of saying that if straight men does not make themselves sexually available to gay men, they are being homophobic. I have repeatedly explained that I did not said that, yet you still try to ridicule me by implying a predatorial-gay-man trope.An increased potential makes sense. But what umdoistressilvaquatro said is utter nonsense since he redefines heterosexuality and homophobia so that it fits his opinion.
I highly doubt a sane person would label a man who was raised without prejudice against gays, who is comfortable around gays kissing each other, who has gay friends and treats them like every other person as homophobic just because he wouldn't be attracted to other men and wouldn't kiss/have sex with them. I mean then we would have to label every single gay guy as misogynic, right?
An increased potential makes sense. But what umdoistressilvaquatro said is utter nonsense since he redefines heterosexuality and homophobia so that it fits his opinion.
I highly doubt a sane person would label a man who was raised without prejudice against gays, who is comfortable around gays kissing each other, who has gay friends and treats them like every other person as homophobic just because he wouldn't be attracted to other men and wouldn't kiss/have sex with them. I mean then we would have to label every single gay guy as misogynic, right?
This may not please umdoistressilvaquatro but I am in near agreement with him. If I can rework his basic statements just a bit, they do hit the target.
He said, “In the context of our society, every straight person is set up to be homophobic.”
Rewording:
In the context of our society over the past 100 years nearly all people, especially those who consider themselves as straight, have been heavily influenced (set up) to become homophobic
He said, “No one who identifies as straight has no homophobia.”
Rewording:
Anyone who identifies himself/herself as straight carries an increased potential for being homophobic