Why do people say bigotry is natural?

I disagree. I actually think the need to judge other people's natural reactions is more of the problem. Too many people can't accept what is and feel a need to wag a finger to try to coerce others into what they believe should be.

For instance, I admitted in a thread here awhile back that my initial physiological reaction to homosexuality when I was a teenager was a physical sensation of nausea that I had no control over. It was just how my body naturally reacted. I had no more control over it than gay people have over their attractions. And yet so many people judged me for this. As if it made me a bad person. It just seemed incredibly hypocritical. Out of one side of their mouths they're claiming that we should accept people for who they naturally are, and then out of the other they're insisting that I need to change something that I didn't choose either.

You realize this is a rather contradictory and bigoted statement, right? Condemning others for alleged prejudice while not only expressing your own prejudice but using slurs to do it.

 

Bottom line is, it exists in nature, therefore it's 'natural' by definition

 

Well, I think it is time for you and others who use the term "human nature", to define what you believe it to be.

It is a fairly broad term within the context you are applying it.

And we are back to what freedoms we have. Are there some things which some find to be "natural" and not others... which could/would truncate their individual rights, liberties or freedoms? If so, what are those things and how should the law apply.

Granted, that is at the core of most of these arguments and discussions concerning human behavior and sexuality. Even so, I don't see how we would arbitrarily limit someone's rights (nature or not), unless that person's freedoms somehow infringed upon the rights of another human beings.

After all, what if (for example) some guy likes to masturbate while playing a certain video game? Or some woman pleasures herself while reading a romance novel? Those things while perhaps 'odd' in the minds of some... are also "unnatural"; but must there be some law against that behavior?

I think its the same thing with homosexuality. What harm is done to anyone (legally consenting), by having sexual relations with a person of the same sex? Why would there be any law against two people of the same sex marrying, if they agree to enter into that institution together?

Why would there be any restriction of freedom applied?

I can guarantee you, that anything as oppressive as trying to deny homosexual people their rights... will NOT with HUMAN BEINGS be accepted for all time. It WILL be a contentious thing, that will ultimately be fought over time in different ways.

Human nature? I understand the term in-general... but I don't see where it can necessarily be used to determine a set of freedoms to be granted. And certainly, I am one who believes that we SHOULD default on the side of greater freedoms and liberties whenever or wherever that is possible.

 

You are correct. (A little info on the term "naturalistic fallacy".)

Yes. What truly matters (especially as most read and understand our Constitution) is that we grant people the rights which can be granted. I mean, am I to be arbitrarily excluded or declined rights because I wear 'glasses', eat 'Skittles' or 'run' for fun?

People SHOULD understand, that anyone could look at various things and ascribe certain values to them (as they might relate to being 'natural')... but to make some determination from that (alone) what a person is worth or the freedoms they are entitled to, is mostly arbitrary.

To err on the side of allowing individuals greater freedoms/liberties (where possible) is a more just policy overall. And I think the U.S. Constitution tends to reflect that 'spirit'.

 

You answered none of my questions. Give it a try.

BTW- homosexuality exists throughout nature, therefore, it is natural by definition.

 

And when you admit that you have nausea when thinking of certain groups of people, those groups of people are naturally going to react with disgust at you. I'm sorry, but if somebody said "when I think of black people, I get nauseated" I would be offended. The same reaction is true when someone says "when I think of homosexuality, I get nauseated." Its simply a rude thing to say, and if the reaction is real there are some serious issues with whoever is having them.

 

Then aren't you proving the point that bigotry is natural since you can't seem to control your reaction to me either? Look at how you've judged me for something I had no voluntary physical control over.

"Its simply a rude thing to say, and if the reaction is real there are some serious issues with whoever is having them."

 

Umm...what? Liberalis was never saying that bigotry was natural.

 

No, but he's illustrating the argument that it could be. Because if not, then that means he had to learn to judge people like me for things we can't control. Which doesn't bode well for someone who preaches tolerance.

 

Unfortunately we live in a by in large conservative Christian society where homosexuality goes against the social norm. But normal is subject as is a normal reaction. My normal reaction to seeing a spider on the wall is to not care at all... the normal reaction of my wife on the other hand is very different.

I have known a fair number of gay men in my lifetime and found it very easy to interact with them so long as they respected that I am not gay, which most did. But I have never known a transgender man, nor have I seen many in public... so I hate to admit that even I would be taken a back for a moment if a transgender man were to approach me. But one of my greatest strengths is that I look past the facade to see the person within and know my discomfort would be short lived.

Normal seems a contrasting philosophy when compared to freedom. I'm more into embracing freedom and rejecting the norm.... much to the ire of my old man lol.

 

This is a dishonest and politically-loaded post.

First of all, the use of radical homosexual activist terminology: "Transphobia." Most people that disagree with the LGBT crowd are doing so for religious reasons, and to call them "phobics" is a dishonest distortion of the disagreement, and I believe an intentional one.

Secondly, "bigotry" is something you engage in when you slander people who disagree on religious grounds as "phobics." So what exactly is this thread about?

big·ot·ry
[big-uh-tree]

noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

 

The few transgendered that I have come across tend to be obviously dysfunctional. Indeed, DSM-IV categorizes it as "Genetic Identity Disorder," assuming one is not a hermaphrodite or whatever. I work in a hospital and have come across a few of them. They seem lost in a pretend world in which in the imaginary world they're really another gender when in reality they are not. I observed one on a public bus which was oddly obsessed with non-stop primping of himself, playing with his dredlocks, and looking at his reflection in the window while he primped for a good 20 minutes solid until he got off the bus. I had one in a grocery store years ago out of the blue look at me and snort as if I was a homely POS. This was a male crossdresser who looked very poorly and had no apparent idea of his appearance, apparently thinking he was a prettier girl than I.

How one can deny what they are born as and blame others when they don't go along and think it odd that they do not accept what they are is amusing. Does it hurt me? No, but at the same time the clear message from the LGBT lobby is that they do not accept dissent or disagreement. The discussion on this subject has gotten to the point of that people on one side equate disagreement and personal slights with oppression and persecution. I'm sorry but when you chemically or surgically mutilate your genitals, there's something wrong. This is no more normal than people with Body Integrity Identity Disorder begging doctors to amputate healthy limbs because they "feel" like they shouldn't have a limb there.

Let's put the PC aside and address this for what it is. We are getting into the dangerous territory of normalizing mental disturbances as healthy. I for one am not going to play along and pretend people who want to saw off their body parts are healthy folks. Sorry.

As far as your embracing freedom and upsetting your father, I can hope it's actually freedom and not free dumb. Post-modern rejection of traditional morals has a destructive leftist origin to much of it, and society is reaping the rewards with social decay.

 

Are you a professional Psychologist?

 

No more than those who claim wanting to mutilate their parts are.

 

So how does one "accept" dissent or disagreement? Acquiescence?

No, they are oppressed (prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control) and persecuted (hostility and ill-treatment) by some. I doubt they are bothered too much by opinions, its when those opinions cross the line to insults and personal attacks that they may feel oppressed or persecuted.

Normal is just an baseline average and I bet the average person would probably meet the criteria for having at least one mental disorder in the DSM. Psychology is in its infancy... go back a few decades and psychology was almost barbaric by comparison to today. Are the examples you gave representative of all or just based upon your observations and interactions?

No, modern morality is just much more honest and out of the closet. The Leave It To Beaver world of the 50's never existed outside of a set in Burbank California. Back in the 50's it was better to "appear" moral than to actually "be" moral... today that is much less the case and we are just more real and less hypocritical.

 

Apparently "tolerance" is something only for the other side.

Being called names it not oppression nor persecution. It's being called names.

That certainly justifies the idea of it being normal, healthy behavior to want to slice off your body parts. This is an off the cuff rationalization, and little else. Why not normalize suicide? "I feel I should be dead."

Modern pop culture morality is a manufacture of the political left, and is generally little more than a rebellion against traditional morality which often takes tradition and turns it on its head. Modern permissive sexual mores have produced skyrocketing out of wedlock birth rates as well as increased child poverty due to single parenthood, and the gamut of delinquency issues in young men missing fathers.

It's really too bad that young people for several generations running follow the political herd and ignore their elders and take moral cues from political radicals.

I'm confused as to why you see "50s morality" as "hypocritical." It was merely a healthier standard presented on television, as opposed to now where every type of poor behavior is presented as non-controversial and thus legitimate.

 

So why do you pretend to know why a person would want to be with someone of the same sex?

And why do you pretend to be able to read people's minds? You seem to be able to hear people judging you just when they look at you, and you apparently can deduce everything about a person solely on seeing them play with their hair one time.

I mean have you ever actually talked to these people and asked them why they feel the way they do? Or asked why that man scoffed at you instead of just assuming what was going through his mind? How can you really know without actually talking to them?

Sorry, but you really do leave a lot of questions begging to be asked.

 

Deflection noted.

And its a form of persecution (hostility and ill-treatment). Name calling is not an effective way to influence change in another, but it is often the tool of a bigot.

What does have to do with the price of tea in China?

Is the right so feeble that they cannot stand against it?

By in large I have ignored my elders... because few of my elders walk the talk.

Like Sean Hannity... Rush Limbaugh... Rick Santorum... Sarah Palin... etc?

 

You preach tolerance but do not see name calling as a form of persecution. You have a funny view of tolerance.

 

I preach moral consistency and I find those who preach tolerance don't practice it. If one wishes to consider verbal slights as persecution, then very likely those who cry persecution are persecutors as well. Indeed, among the LGBT crowd I have been called names and demonized out the yin-yang simply for explaining they don't have the right to not be disagreed with.

 

I was pointing the inconsistency in your response. If you cannot accept disagreement for what it is, suffice it to say, you shouldn't be preaching tolerance. If homosexuals cannot accept being disagreed with, then why should those who disagree with them accept their disagreement? This works both ways.

I find name calling to be one of the main tactics of the political left, yet they don't fashion themselves as bigots in the least. Bigot is a meaningless term; it simply means someone not open to the views of others. The LGBT activist core tend to demonize their opponents in the extreme, going well beyond name calling. I don't see anyone calling them bigots, persecutors, or oppressors as a result.

Do you consider self-mutilation acceptable or not?

I'm explaining where the liberalized ideals you accept come from. Those with traditional morals no longer control the media, thus their voices are marginalized and social revolutionaries predominate.

Yes, I see that. Unfortunate that you throw out the baby with the bath water simply due to human faults. With that attitude, you can't have respect for anything. Why do you see rebellion against your elders as a sign of non-hypocrisy? Where did you learn such disrespect for your roots? "They're just hypocrites" sounds like something I read from Alinsky; a standard anthem of the rebellion of youth.

I was referring to the New Left who disseminate the views you seem to embrace. Why are you taking those with more traditional views as "political radicals"? Only very recently were such people considered "radicals."

 

Do you actually read peoples' posts before responding to them or just type responses packed with thinly-veiled anger? This is a straw man argument.

You seem to be holding me to a standard that you are not willing to hold homosexuals to, namely this:

I mean have you ever actually talked to these people and asked them why they feel the way they do? Or asked why that man scoffed at you instead of just assuming what was going through his mind? How can you really know without actually talking to them?

As far as the specific transsexual goes, no. I was minding my business shopping and he was looking at me like I was a POS, with a combination of arrogance and disgust. You would approach someone that looked at you like that out of the blue and tried to have a lovely dialogue?

I didn't think so.

Clearly since I wasn't doing anything to him and scarcely noticed him, whatever issue he had was his own and had nothing to do with me. The guy was looking me up and down, sizing me up, out of the blue. The dude had issues.

 

The reaction to 'different' is natural and basic to human survival.

 

Liberals hold no monopoly on name calling as it is a human trait shared by all. From my perspective Conservatives are pretty good at it to.

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

Our definitions of bigotry are different... this explains a lot.

I bet some do, and they are wrong to attack just as the other side is wrong to attack. Demonizing is a human trait and not limited to any one group.

You really want me to attack that straw man don't ya. As a sex change is not "self-mutilation" your question is moot.

No, that's only your opinion. How I actually come by my liberal ideas is that after four decades of being a conservative I finally got tired of being told what to think and I decided to start thinking for myself... thus my now being a liberal.

And I say thank God for that!

No, that's only your opinion. I love how you create your own reality then try to apply it to me.

Are you an author of fiction? Because you are really good at writing it. I love how you assume that I am rebelling when in reality I am just living my own life in a free country... that is allowed you know. The label you give me of "rebellion" is just the moniker of those who feel the need to control others.

From the pizz poor example of the Christian conservative hypocrites who raised me. Do you think all roots are worthy of respect?

Sounds like a projection to me.

Because what we define as radical is subjective and wide open to opinion. To one Sean Hannity is a radical while to another Rachel Maddow is a radical... its all relative.

 

My point is that people in the LGBT activist core attack others and accuse them of what they're doing, including name-calling and not tolerating differences.

"Our" who? It says what I said it said. The word is meaningless because it includes anyone that has a strong stance toward any view that doesn't accept outside opinions. In other words, someone that's made up his mind.

Yes, and? Did I say otherwise somewhere?

How is it not? Are we not chopping off sex organs? How is that NOT mutilation? It's not less self-mutilation than asking a doctor to cut off your arm.

From what I've seen of you is a lot of party-line liberal ideals which come from the New Left originally. Since when do liberals not tell people what to think? Indeed - they proclaim those politically different are the epitome of evil. I've yet to see why you have rejected your elders and traditions of your people and nation on account of some "hypocrisy." You put the baby out with the bath water.

"Thank God" for what goes along with it --- higher out of wedlock birth rates and accompanying rates of poverty. Higher dependency on welfare due to concepts of free love and shacking up in unserious relationships where people "don't bother" to wait for marriage before getting knocked up. Why would you celebrate this cultural decay? Surely not because it makes a small minority sector of society happy?

Well, you've admitted that you've tossed in its entirety traditional morality and the values of your elders based on "hypocrisy," no?

The radical Left have sent decades of messages intending to delegitimize everything about Western traditional values and to encourage people to reject them all in part due to "hypocrisy." You celebrate traditional morals being removed from the media, and that is indeed supporting a social rebellion that's been ongoing for decades.

Yes roots are worthy of respect. Always. Why would you defecate on them due to parental hostility? Must parents be perfect lest you again - throw out the baby with the bath water and trash it all in the anger you obviously display?

By your own account above, you sound like an angry youth in rebellion against your parents, going so far as to have rejected traditional morality and your heritage in their entirety due to your beef with your parents. That's not a reason to behave this way.

No - what is NOW defined as radical is that which was traditional before the 1970s. That former radicalism has now moved to the mainstream in popular culture for the most part.

Hannity is no radical. He's not even that right-wing.