People don't like homosexuals because they violate gender roles. That's the reason.
Homosexuals are rebels against society. Deviants who don't conform. Outsiders who resist social pressure. Threats to tradition. (Don't conform to what? Gender roles.)
The group (society) disapproves of disobedience towards the group. Our culture offers certain roles in society for people to live. Society is unkind to people who don't choose and live one of these offered social roles. Other lifestyles are considered illegitimate and receive negative treatment. To be treated well, live in a way the collective approves of.
Disliking homosexuals is a small part of a much broader problem. Conformity – and the ways it's enforced – goes well beyond gender roles.
Messages (19)
The scene is not just gays, but bis and trans. LGBT scene.
LGBT doesn't violate gender roles, they re-write gender roles and want to enforce them for everyone.
Is being LGTB a moral lifestyle?
Don't people argue against LGBT for being immoral?
How the hell does being bisexual of trans follow traditional gender roles? It does violate them. Re-writing something is changing/violating it.
> Re-writing something is changing/violating it.
No.
Changing it works on the premise that it's good to have these rules on acceptable social behaviour. It's continuing the idea that there are "right" ways of behaving, and expanding the set of "right" ways (and cutting out some old ones).
Violating it defies the concept of there being an acceptable set of social behaviour. It doesn't try to increase the number of acceptable behaviours, it defies the idea that people need to be told what acceptable behaviour is.
you're stupid. if you follow tradition X instead of tradition Y, and they contradict, you're violating tradition Y even though you accept a tradition-following life.
you're super arrogantly overreaching. trying to say abstract stuff but with no clue what it means, no ability to check it against simple well known aspects of life.
> you're stupid. you're super arrogantly overreaching.
It would help if you quoted what you consider stupid and arrogantly overreaching.
it would help if you didn't falsify quotes and ignore the explanation part
> it would help if you didn't falsify quotes and ignore the explanation part
the explanation part doesn't explain what is it a crit of
why are you worth helping?
> why are you worth helping?
Who you? Again, what is this in reference to? Quote. It's not the matter of helping, but of the conversation making sense. Of knowing what IDEA you are criticizing.
It's ideas that matter to criticize.
> you're stupid.
What do you think this adds to the discussion?
> why are you worth helping?
Why are you posting anything at all if you're not interested in it making sense?
> Why are you posting anything at all if you're not interested in it making sense?
Why are you assuming that he thinks he's not making sense?
>> Why are you posting anything at all if you're not interested in it making sense?
> Why are you assuming that he thinks he's not making sense?
I didn't. But I did fail to explain my reasoning adequately.
> It would help if you quoted what you consider stupid and arrogantly overreaching.
The was that they were unclear with their previous posts and didn't explain what they were criticising. They responded with:
> why are you worth helping?
They made no attempt to refute the idea that they had not explained themselves properly. The criticism wasn't asking for help at all. I should have made it clear that I thought their question was wrong before going into my response.
> you're stupid. if you follow tradition X instead of tradition Y, and they contradict, you're violating tradition Y even though you accept a tradition-following life.
A tradition is a current thing.
If you *change* tradition from X to Y, then X is no longer a tradition. Then if you follow tradition Y you are not *doing* X, but there is no tradition X to be violated.
If you added tradition Y which contradicted tradition X, and only followed tradition Y, *then* you would be violating tradition X.
Good example of how meta kills discussion right here. Skimming through people making ad hominem to try to find on-topic discuss is boring.
Only got back to content at the end, because someone (else?) quoted an earlier on-topic post. Did any of that meta help anyone?
---
On-topic:
> Don't people argue against LGBT for being immoral?
Why do they think it's immoral, though?
> Good example of how meta kills discussion right here.
that's not necessarily a bad thing. gotta look at the goals and motivations of people.
did you consider that meta was initiated after the initiator no longer cared about the original discussion? that it was a plan B after plan A didn't have value? (in particular, "why are you worth helping?" was an alternative to ignoring the person)
> boring
you can't have interesting on topic discussion with people who have nothing interesting to say. the guy here thinks trans is tradition following and if stop following tradition X (say, the one not to use profanity) and do something else (say, use profanity), that isn't a violation of tradition X.
> Why do they think it's immoral, though?
because it violates gender role traditions. this is what the original post was answering. but the guy arguing doesn't understand concepts like "tradition" or "violate", so he isn't able to productively discuss this. (he could, if rational, first have tangential discussions to e.g. find out what a tradition is, then return to this. he isn't rational though.)
>> Don't people argue against LGBT for being immoral?
>
> Why do they think it's immoral, though?
i don't know. but they have arguments for it and are not persuaded otherwise.
they have things they claim are arguments.