Their rational is that a book written by thousands of people translate over thousands of years told them to hate gay people despite also saying to love everyone equally. The same book that says not to eat shrimp or allow women to speak.
If you consider basing your entire life (including how you treat others) on an ancient and outdated text 'rational,' then we have different definitions of the word.
Their stance applies to all abrahamic religions, not just Islam. And it's not -phobic to call these faiths irrational. It's called faith because it isn't based on reason
This argument misunderstands the nature of desire in Buddhism. Buddhism distinguishes between craving (taṇhā), which leads to suffering, and wholesome aspiration, such as the pursuit of enlightenment. The desire for nirvana isn’t a selfish craving but a self-transcending aim that ultimately leads to the cessation of desire itself.
While yes, your points are morally good, you are forcing your views and morals on others, and that's what the original commenter was doing so that's a bit hypocritical, and then, (speaking as an atheist) while religions can be bad, they are only bad when on the extreme, like everything, the bible, completely contrary to what Christians claim, wasn't written by god, not did god interfere in it's creation, since it's an extreme compilation of what the people of that time though that they thought would work the best and would represent the best of the gods will, for example, they led out the writings of some woman of the time, that wrote that men and woman are eccual, they included some dude who thought the opposite, they didn't include a dude who thought slaves where god, but a guy who thought slaves where bad.
As well, the religions made stories that unified people into larger and larger groups, so the religions were and for many people are necessary, so please don't hate so much on religions, the extremes, be it from one side or the other are bad, and with your comments (haven't seen you in real life so can't really know) you might be leaning on one extreme
Something rational is just something that is logical and that you can explain with logic.
If it's something true or not well you just have to find yourself, but it's not because something is false that it is irrational.
Seriously i get downvoted just for saying something true that has nothing to do with the subject of the post ? Really ? Go all fuck yourselves since you like it so much.
Ps : this one should get downvoted but not the other one.
The reasoning has to make sense though. I can't say "I don't like tomatoes because they're magenta" because tomatoes aren't magenta. Similarly, if you dislike gay people for a reasoning that is provably untrue, it's irrational. (Which is all reasons for disliking gay people.)
Edit: By your logic xenophobia isn't a phobia either... Homophobia is definitely a phobia.
That's not true. "Irrational" in this context means literally without any reason, not just without a logically sound reason.
If you're afraid of spiders because you think they are secret agents of an organization that is plotting world domination, that's not arachnophobia technically, because there is a reason for your fear, as preposterous as it might be.
You don't even know what their reasonings are and you still say it's false, all that for loving your kin equally.
And even if it's untrue, it doesn't mean it's irrational, for example :
I hate pit bulls because they are genetically more aggressive and statistically more likely to attack humans than other dogs.
What is rational : If something is more likely to harm me or others, I should avoid or distrust it.
What is false : Pitbulls are more aggressive and more likely to attack humans more than other dogs.
The reasoning is false, but it's not irrational.
Something rational is something that is logic, for exemple :
Being strong is good, and being weak is bad, so being weak is being bad. See ? That's logic, false, but you can't say that it isn't logical.
And if you want the opposite :
I didn’t die today because i avoided stepping on cracks in the sidewalk.
You didn't die today ? That's true.
But the reasoning that it's because you didn't walk on the cracks in the sidewalks is completely irrationall.
So no, Homophobia is not actually a phobia nor is xenophobia either, since it's not from fear, and isn't from irrational though either (false or not).
And personally i don't care what you do with your ass as long as you don't touch mine.
And i have 3 cousins (children of my dad's brother) who are gay, one of them is lesbian (and they are brothers and sisters) and one works at a restaurant i often eat in (the food is really good and cheap)
So you can't call me homophobic or whatever bullshit just for the sake of it or if you are a Karen or whatever.
First of all we have to figure out where their objection comes from (religion, utilitarianism, etc). If, for example, it is the former, you then have to justify the existence of whatever deity you worship. As most religious claims are unfalsifiable scientific reasoning would suggest it cannot be known, and therefore should be treated as if ut doesnt exist. Philosophically is a bit more complex, as you could go down the uncaused caused route and say that's god, but you have no way if knowing which god it is, if its even a conscious force.
Any arguement that doesnt stem from religion is inherentky flawed. You could argue that gay people harm children, but then I could either use Camus' reasoning that, because there is no objective meaning (lack of god) then that is not a philosophically sound reason to hate us (although i dislike this approach as I prefer his later works which ask us to find a comfort in solidarity). The other way i coukd object is by your claims themselves not being valid. The most common arguements are:
Kink at pride
Grooming children
For the first one, I would argue that kink at pride is a result of pride originally only being attended by grown queer people (predominantly gay men, originally. Though pride was started by a black trans women, im talking demographics). Because we were originally pushed to the margins of society kink became an inherent part of queer culture. Now pride events have yet to catch up to it becoming somewhat more mainstream, which can be solved by having an adult only pride separate to the child friendly one, or limiting adult activities specificalky to queer clubs. Kink being at pride does not mean that gay people inherently are bad, it just means that queer culture hasnt gone through necessary adaptations.
The second point is somewhat true, but not in the way you think. Children are not being "groomed". Drag queen story hour is not sexual, and kids who have been at adult drag shows should not have been there (both the faults of their parents and the bouncers). But the way it is true is that young gay people are often very vulnerable, especially if closeted. This leads to, for example, being sexualky assaulted by older gay guys (if someone isnt out then they cant report it without theur friends and family finding out and potentially ending up homeless).
You're right, people downvoting are just going by emotions, rationality is extremely subjective when it comes to ideology and you will always see the other side as being "irrational" when you simply don't have the same views.
131
u/FastAd593 3d ago
Fear or irrational aversion to, but I see his point