Homophobia associated with higher rates of psychoticism

[Kyriakos]

I guess my edit didn't make it in time, then.

Yes.

Or i conveniently chose to disregard it

(but it did not show on time, and we know that means it is not deemed as part of the discussion now ).

 

[Sommerswerd]

You brought up the tangent of exposing children to sexual matters and I thought it interesting to explore the tangent that you offered.

Only indirectly given the initial subject (an association between homobphobia and defense mechanisms or attachment styles) of the thread and homosexuality being a flavor of sexuality.

I'm addressing this first, since all your other questions lose their relevance (to me anyway) if I understand you on this point. My understanding from your above point is that you are not really interested in discussing homophobia and you just think that I "brought up the tangent of exposing children to sexual matters." This is false. Kyriakos brought it up, specifically in an attempt to argue that young children should not be exposed to gays, because that would be exposing them to "sexual matters." I found that argument erroneous and homophobic, so I am arguing against it.

So now that I have clarified that it is not a "tangent that I offered" but instead a response directly to an argument I found homophobic, there doesn't seem to be as much of a point (from my perspective) for me to address the other stuff.

 

[Rashiminos]

My understanding from your above point is that you are not really interested in discussing homophobia and you just think that I "brought up the tangent of exposing children to sexual matters."

I'm not currently aware if the tangent will reconnect yet, so homophobia may or may not be related.

This is false. Kyriakos brought it up, specifically in an attempt to argue that young children should not be exposed to gays, because that would be exposing them to "sexual matters." I found that argument erroneous and homophobic, so I am arguing against it.

Avoiding the temptation to nitpick a bit, I'll concede that Kyriakos started the tangent. In that case you're both on the tangent and are exploring it. That would mean I have joined both of you in that exploration.

I'm addressing this first, since all your other questions lose their relevance (to me anyway) if I understand you on this point. .. So now that I have clarified that it is not a "tangent that I offered" but instead a response directly to an argument I found homophobic, there doesn't seem to be as much of a point (from my perspective) for me to address the other stuff.

Bolded: not all that different.

Since you seem to be tiring (swinging at strawmen will do that), let me offer a conjecture. You find his argument to be homophobic since you a) Think fully exposing young children to sexuality is normal (or at least should be, subtracting 'irrelevant' biases), and b) That to deny a homosexual young child a normalized full exposure to sexuality on the basis of orientation is discriminatory and encourages maladjustment in that child and those who associate with the child in any capacity.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Since you seem to be tiring (swinging at strawmen will do that)

Excellent, exactly correct. You put that very well. I will add that I have been watching a riveting razor-close Sunday Night Football game... which just ended... so "tiring" yes... doubly so... also, its bedtime, in addition to the game (my reason for still being awake) is over.

You find his argument to be homophobic since you a) Think fully exposing young children to sexuality is normal (or at least should be, subtracting 'irrelevant' biases), and b) That to deny a homosexual young child a normalized full exposure to sexuality on the basis of orientation is discriminatory and encourages maladjustment in that child and those who associate with the child in any capacity.

a.) wrong. - To repeat myself (which is also "tiring")

I do approve of teaching 4 year olds about some basic things about sexuality, such as human sex organs, how babies are created etc.

also, to hopefully save a step (tiring myself even more *sigh*... I am an old guy afterall ) I will also repeat:

When I asked my mother (at the age of 4) how she became pregnant with my baby brother, she went right to the store and got me this book entitled How Babies are Made... It's fine.

b.) wrong - See answer to a.

I will add that despite you adding the words "homophobic" and "homosexual" to your questions, they had nothing to do with the topic of homophobia. But you got me to answer you anyway... Nicely done

 

[Rashiminos]

a.) wrong. - To repeat myself (which is also "tiring") also, to hopefully save a step (tiring myself even more *sigh*... I am an old guy afterall ) I will also repeat: b.) wrong - See answer to a.

Aside from a matter of extent*, where's the disagreement between what I said (in the conjecture) and what you just said?

*(A question about which you declined to answer)

When I asked my mother (at the age of 4) how she became pregnant with my baby brother, she went right to the store and got me this book entitled How Babies are Made... It's fine.

I'd hardly call that an "understanding."

 

[Sommerswerd]

Aside from a matter of extent*, where's the disagreement between what I said (in the conjecture) and what you just said?

If you're interested Post #695 in this thread will give you some context.

*(A question about which you declined to answer)

After politely explaining that we were not talking about the same thing.

I'd hardly call that an "understanding."

You are expressing your opinion about what I understood from the communications that my mother had with me when I was a kid? OK, thanks

 

[Rashiminos]

If you're interested Post #695 in this thread will give you some context.
After politely explaining that we were not talking about the same thing.
You are expressing your opinion about what I understood from the communications that my mother had with me when I was a kid? OK, thanks

Checking the post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13910913&postcount=695). My opinion is on the book (sorry for not being clear about that).

Edit: Thanks for the context. I can see where the suspicion is coming from.

 

[Hygro]

Thread got stupid too quick so someone slap me if this has been said:

1) This study takes place in Italy. Cultural differences matter and trying to infer a universal truth is stupid.
2) Among very homophobic people is a high incidence of being gay. Could that hateful self-denial be the driver, or driven from, psychosis?

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

My 5 year old son has little girls trying to hold his hand and asking to be his "girlfriend" at school, so Kyriakos argument is just utterly false. Children are interested in, and can understand romantic relationships from the time they are old enough to see Cinderella marry the handsome prince.

Wait for boys to do the same to your son. Maybe he'll agree!

Or, get this, you better sit down because this will rock your world, simply tell your children to treat everyone with a common level of respect and compassion, and that other humans aren't inferior or deserving of misfortune simply due to them being different than you.

It's a pretty crazy idea, I know, but somehow it's recommended in society and doesn't get you thrown into a mental health facility. It's really weird! There must be something behind it, one of those "don't knock it 'till you try it" sort of deals.

Like if someone kills a bird for fun, defecates publicly or seriously talks of marrying his right hand... they are just different from you, treat them all with respect and compassion, my boy!

 

[Syno]

Like if someone kills a bird for fun, defecates publicly or seriously talks of marrying his right hand... they are just different from you, treat them all with respect and compassion, my boy!

I mean... yeah? Besides the fact that you're comparing homosexuality to baseless murder, public indecency, and mental illness, I do think everyone in those situations should be treated with compassion and respect. I have this silly notion in my head that everyone, regardless of how they may act, deserves a basic level of compassion. It's difficult to claim moral superiority if you cherry pick who gets to enjoy your good graces.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Very nice way for a society to degenerate! Because appropriate collective censure on an individual makes him develop good qualities, discard bad ones and remain compatible with a society. No censure is bad.

Except that you can't have no censure in a society. If it is not gays to censure, then it is "homophobes" for a start and all the adequate people for being straight later.

Liberalism is the most hypocritical and stupid way of thinking. First, you propose tolerance of multi-everything. Then you force everyone to follow it in a very specific perverted way persecuting those who do not care about multi-everything, or too concentrated on single-something, or are against something specific of the most precious chosen subset of multi-everything. And the things and people left out of multi-everything, they just do not exist in the liberal picture of the world.

 

[Syno]

Very nice way for a society to degenerate! Because appropriate collective censure on an individual makes him develop good qualities, discard bad ones and remain compatible with a society. No censure is bad.

Except that you can't have no censure in a society. If it is not gays to censure, then it is "homophobes" for a start and all the adequate people for being straight later.

Liberalism is the most hypocritical and stupid way of thinking. First, you propose tolerance of multi-everything. Then you force everyone to follow it in a very specific perverted way persecuting those who do not care about multi-everything, or too concentrated on single-something, or are against something specific of the most precious chosen subset of multi-everything. And the things and people left out of multi-everything, they just do not exist in the liberal picture of the world.

You misunderstand me. A basic level of respect and compassion does not equate to total acceptance and approval. There are better ways to alter a person's behaviour than murder, isolation, and torture.

Nobody who abides by this mantra supports the argument that homophobes are invalid or less deserving of love or respect than any other human being. The difference comes when you consider both sides: homosexuals want to be able to love freely without risk of being murdered for it or isolated from society, homophobes want to quell that freedom. There's been enough scientific studies at this point that confirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and marriage has been sufficiently separated from being a religious-only concept, so the arguments against homosexuals enjoying a sense of safe freedom amount to little more than a deep-seated personal discomfort or hatred.

You are allowed to have the opinions you do (really!). That's completely okay. You're just not allowed to sow misfortune in the lives of others because of it. Your life is unchanged if homosexuals can marry or publicly embrace that orientation. Their lives are changed if you are permitted to deny them these opportunities.

Edit: You also can't claim that Russia has the right idea (this is an assumption off of your anti-liberalism schpiel at the end, so feel free to ignore if that isn't your claim) given that your beloved nation has a bad reputation of falling apart, alienating entire cultures, and committing atrocities in the name of nationalism and ethnic dominance up until this very day.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

There are better ways to alter a person's behaviour than murder, isolation, and torture.

Yes, like criticizing, mocking or ignoring.

Edit: You also can't claim that Russia has the right idea (this is an assumption off of your anti-liberalism schpiel at the end, so feel free to ignore if that isn't your claim) given that your beloved nation has a bad reputation of falling apart, alienating entire cultures, and committing atrocities in the name of nationalism and ethnic dominance up until this very day.

There's a difference between the biased image spread among/by the rivals and the true reality. Really good guys do the right things regardless of words about them. Self-proclaimed false good guys care about words and their image more than about the morality of their deeds. A nice way to whiten yourself is by blacken someone else.

Btw, my "beloved nation" is still the biggest compound of nations on the planet. Which cutely refutes this kind of bias.

 

[Syno]

Yes, like criticizing, mocking or ignoring.

You mean like you're doing? I've responded to everything you have said.

There's a difference between the biased image spread among/by the rivals and the true reality. Really good guys do the right things regardless of words about them. Self-proclaimed false good guys care about words and their image more than about the morality of their deeds. A nice way to whiten yourself is by blacken someone else.

Btw, my "beloved nation" is still the biggest compound of nations on the planet. Which cutely refutes this kind of bias.

Ah yes. Just like how those Russian soldiers were on vacation in Ukraine. The innocent Russian state is the victim of some brutal propaganda. I admire the really good guys in Russia who advocate for homosexuals to be jailed, for land to be annexed, and for the land they take to be forcefully reseeded with ethnic Russians to ensure loyalty in the next generations.

 

[Borachio]

this book entitled How Babies are Made

Wait. What?

Nooooooooooo!!!!!

Hang on.

Spoiler :

Phew!

 

[Kyriakos]

Flowers -and even animals- do not really have sex, though. You might as well mention in a sentence (as that book does) that some beings are hermaphoriditic, cause the child must know all general info. Then another page could have a neat drawing of homosexual animals, and then humans.

And if you think you can safely guess how a 4-year old will react to such a hypothetical book, you have just not been paying attention (as Ramsey Bolton would say ).
Children of such age have more than a just individual manner of thinking/imagining. Anyway, they aren't my own so it is not like i would make anyone do as i think is safer, yet i thought we were having a discussion and not a draft for a law to be passed

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

You mean like you're doing?

Yes, I mean the healthy attitude to gays and about the topic of LGBTs.

Ah yes. Just like how those Russian soldiers were on vacation in Ukraine. The innocent Russian state is the victim of some brutal propaganda. I admire the really good guys in Russia who advocate for homosexuals to be jailed, for land to be annexed, and for the land they take to be forcefully reseeded with ethnic Russians to ensure loyalty in the next generations.

I am sorry for my intolerance, but you are brainwashed to the point of stupidity!


Link to video.

 

[Hygro]

That comment section was almost more entertaining than that video.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Wait for boys to do the same to your son. Maybe he'll agree!

Thats fine . First, I can't change my sons' sexuality, so there is no point in worrying too much about it.

Second, I won't be allowing him to have sex with anyone (boys or girls) because he's too young.

My focus is on the very difficult balance of giving him a happy, privileged childhood, while simultaneously instilling a sound work ethic, focus and emotional/physical - strength/health, all tempered with compassion and finally a hint of defensive cynicism, defensive respect for authority (especially the police) and a questioning nature. "Making sure he's straight" is a futile, ignorant, pointless triviality that doesen't rate on my parental priority list.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Kyriakos brought it up, specifically in an attempt to argue that young children should not be exposed to gays, because that would be exposing them to "sexual matters." I found that argument erroneous and homophobic, so I am arguing against it.

Only he apparently stated nothing of the sort. Quote him.

Thread got stupid too quick so someone slap me if this has been said:

1) This study takes place in Italy. Cultural differences matter and trying to infer a universal truth is stupid.

Are you claiming that scientific studies such as this have an inherent cultural bias and most be repeated for each and every ethnic group in order to be considered to be valid?

Don't you think you should actually write a peer-reviewed paper on the matter and submit it to an appropriate journal, since it apparently isn't even mentioned in this paper that this is indeed even a factor?

2) Among very homophobic people is a high incidence of being gay. Could that hateful self-denial be the driver, or driven from, psychosis?

Yet even more topics of research for you to properly investigate.

Glad you came to rescue this thread from being so "stupid". Let us know how these research efforts go.