Bryan Caplan describes opposition to homosexuality as “unreasoning disgust.” But all disgust is “unreasoning.” When you see a cockroach and feel a sense of disgust, that’s an instinctive reaction, not a rational thought.
Or from the gypsy migrants squatting on Park Lane in Mayfair, London. Pooping in Hyde Park or the doorways of hugh end shops and hotels is an everyday occurrence.
For much of US history, the sight of interracial couples was disgusting to most people (and the even today it's disgusting to many people). Is that a valid objection to interracial marriage?
I don't believe that disgust was the primary motivator for most people. The main concern with interracial marriage was that it would decrease the percentage of the white population and thereby upset the social order. In a racially stratified society, interracial marriage also created a lot of difficulties for the children because they didn't fit in with either group.
There was nothing rational or defensible in Americans' disgust for interracial couples. The same applies to homosexuality. If your cited researchers had shown their test subjects photos of racially mixed couples (back in the day), their reactions of disgust would have been the same as watching two men kissing. Your science is totally skewed.
It was definitely disgust, similar in kind but not magnitude to observing bestiality. Longterm concerns were ad hoc rationales that happen to coincide with the actual evolutionary purpose.
Should it be illegal for people with deformities to leave their homes?
Public defecation is objectively obscene and unsanitary, so it's perfectly reasonable to ban it. Holding hands with a loved one simply isn't. If it disgusts you, look away.
I don’t see how it could be much more unsanitary than allowing a dog to poop in public, or touching your face after touching your cell phone, or many other things that are not socially forbidden.
I imagine human fecal matter poses a bigger health risk than dogs', which is why we evolved to be so revolted by it.
Bottom line, it's messy, it stinks, and it's a biological hazard. It's not comparable to a chaste display of affection, which you can simply look away from.
Doesn't have to be messy if they clean up after themselves with a plastic bag just like they would clean up after a dog. Your intuitions on these two cases are incompatible.
The reason we have bathrooms is because your solution was deemed impractical.
The fact is that asking people not to make disgusting, hazardous messes in public places is perfectly reasonable. Bullying a vulnerable minority to spare others some slight discomfort is not, and would cause a lot more suffering than it would prevent.
No it should not though I will admit certain kinds of deformities make me very uncomfortable. Where I live there's this girl who has anorexia so severe that you can be her skeleton. I'm not going to tell her what to do or publicly embarrass her but she does have a personal moral obligation to not wear shorts and tee shirts. Her appearance frightens children and I'm sure she knows that.
I saw a TV profile years ago about a woman born with no arms. She had actually learned to drive a specially modified car, write, fold laundry, wash dishes — all with her feet. I assume that this woman would be allowed to eat with her feet at a restaurant.
Now if as a parlor trick I mastered the art of dining with my feet, I think it would be fine to prohibit me from demonstrating this talent at the local Applebees.
“Far from demanding mere outward tolerance, mainstream left leaning people make claims about what you are obligated to do inside your own mind.”
Do you think we’re ever obligated to try not to think certain thoughts and suppress certain feelings, or do you think we’re just not so obligated in this case?
I’m not sure. I’m reflexively suspicious about claims that you’re obligated not to think certain thoughts; I think those claims are the favorite tools of brainwashers. On the other hand, it seems wrong to deeply indulge certain thoughts, e.g. feelings of hatred against your family. Maybe you have a moral obligation not to indulge certain thoughts of immoral actions, but you do NOT have a moral obligation to suppress fundamental instincts such as lust, desire for money, disgust at gross things etc? E.g. I think it’s very wrong to teach people that lust is a sin if “lust” just means sexual desire.
I don’t claim to have mainstream left-wing opinions. My point is that mainstream left-leaning people seem to be logically inconsistent on this issue. I have met many people who think you should be liberated to express your inner feelings publicly, but when it comes to “homophobia” and other right-wing coded feelings, they suddenly say “no not those feelings.”
There's an unfortunate tendency in (mostly) Protestant / nondenom Christianity to try to put every sexual act / thought into the "sinful" bin or the "allowed" bin, whereas the Catholic category of "disordered" would be better: it describes things that maybe aren't sinful in and of themselves but that aren't going to lead you anywhere good.
To give a couple of concrete examples: I'm married, and I'm also guilty of having fornicated and viewed porn before my marriage. If something reminds me of a past lover or a specific porn scene/story, I don't think I'm obliged as a Christian to confess a sin, since I didn't intend to think about that.
I *do* think that prudence requires me to immediately redirect away from that thought, and I'd regard homosexual desire in the same way: it may not be inherently sinful but it's definitely not "rightly ordered".
Curiously, the Catholic religion and some other Christian sects prohibit certain thoughts - mainly those associated with sex - while their hierarchies are noteworthy for the predominance of homosexual males and lesbians (i.e., priests and nuns). Islam deals with this dichotomy differently through gender apartheid and the criminalization of homosexual acts, although the current mania for tossing gays off minarets owes much to Western prohibitions built into colonial legal codes that carried over.
Many thousands of years of language and massaging of the messages of Christianity have made it quite confusing especially when it comes to "sin", but I think...
"But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Is pretty simple. Watch yourself, your internal state. You know what lust is. You KNOW what's right and wrong (outside of social order shit). I have a good buddy that doesn't understand this. I'm single, and refuse to lust after married women. But I can still admire them, their beauty their grace. There's nuance to all of this, but you KNOW (inside, you know).
Thinking certain thoughts is fine, it's the acting, indulging, ruminating on them that has consequences - and you can also control your thoughts to some extent. This is partially why language and writing in particular are so powerful.
Worst Boyfriend Ever had a great post about this a few months ago - but from an alternative perspective, and it's one many younger men seem to be "forced" into these days (because of incentives, and the lack of control of older men who have indulged and moved in destructive directions):
Also, although this all is rather instinctively disgusting it's clear g-r--oom-in is real, but that, over time, people really believe "it's just how I am" (it's their personality, it's literally WHO they are - to them). so it is a psychological thing that can be pushed on the population at many levels. Ironically the whole ALLY thing just made sense to me, as these people think they're the saviors/protectors of the downtrodden (and in many ways they literally are), but more in like an alcoholic enabler sense.
> Do you think we’re ever obligated to try not to think certain thoughts and suppress certain feelings, or do you think we’re just not so obligated in this case?
I suspect that a lot of people believe that people should be obligated not to sexualize children even if they have no intention of ever raping or molesting any children or watching any actual (as opposed to cartoon) child porn. Would you agree with that?
Well, on some views it will be a harm, even if you intend no harm — on some views of wellbeing, you can do unfelt harm to people, including by having private thoughts. (E.g., if your partner was constantly thinking “shut up shut up I hate you” every time you talked but never disclosed that or let the emotions leak through, it’s plausible your life isn’t going as well as you think it’s going — i.e., she harms you.) It might also be wrong on virtue theoretic grounds, or maybe it’s just pro tanto wrong to think certain types of thoughts, even if those thought don’t harm their object. I don’t have an account, but it seems true in lots of cases that it’s wrong to think bad thoughts, and I’m hopeful that there’s some story about why that is. (For an argument on the other side, this is supposed to be good https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/A_Wild_West_of_the_Mind.html?id=8zkqEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&redir_esc=y)
Those who lean left have a one-sided tolerance. They demand people be free to act on their attraction but not their disgust. Essentially a true liberal response would be to allow homosexuality but also discrimination by private employers. They are not liberal but something else entirely.
There appears to be strong evidence that disgust _is_ attraction, or at least uses the exact same neurological pathway as attraction, just with a negative value. For instance, a Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader may be +20 attractive, whereas a bowl of maggots is -20 attractive.
I, as a homosexual, think public displays of Abrahamic religion, with their histories of bloodshed and reckless discard of rationality, are morally disgusting and I see nothing wrong with churches and mosques getting set on fire. Therefore, to avoid this just reaction towards these buildings, I demand them getting covered with curtains
Oh, and senior citizens showing affection towards one another is also blegh, so let’s ban that too. Who wants to see or even imagine 80 year olds getting at it?
You’re not a homosexual that’s a fact term. You’re a rational animal with an intellect and will and sodomy is an evil thing to do. Not saying this to be a jerk but it’s the truth
How am I not a homosexual when I, as a man, feel attraction towards men? And how does that make it mutually exclusive with being rational? Also, “sodomy”, really? What’s next, “heresy” and “blasphemy”?
Rational animals can't use their intellect to change their sexual orientation. They can use it in their moral judgements, which you're conspicuously failing to do.
This is the problem with thinking in words instead of thinking precisely about the concepts. Most bisexuals aren't 50-50, they have a distinct preference one way or the other. Anecdotally, most men who identify as bisexual are primarily homosexual, so, no, they don't actually have a choice.
"Morally disgusting" isn't the same thing as "disgusting" in this particular discussion. The latter is a base instinct whereas the former is operating at a higher level of reasoning.
I didn't say anything about legitimacy. Only that I don't believe morals come "out of the box" in the way instincts do. All humans share the same instincts but moral codes have varied widely over time.
Excellent job distinguishing yourself from the tedious and bland Cato/Reason sphere. There is something of the homosexual artistic sense like Jack the Perfume nationalist I do see of value though
I kind of like the take but then at the same time I think it’s possible that it’s a moral weakness to feel disgust at other people.
Admittedly, I feel panicked when I see disabled or old people, because I get selfishly concerned with what it would be for me to be in their position. I don’t think this is good, and is due to my own spiritual immaturity. As a Christian should to see the imago dei in everyone. This is true for the gays as well.
Idk. Taken to its logical end point I don’t think it’s a good take.
It’s probably better if equal public indecency standards (legal and implicit) apply to everyone.
Sure, but the feeling of disgust is probably still wrong. I don’t think God is disgusted by disabled people or the old, most likely not even the gays — because he sees them as individuals, who he loves and wants to repent. We are meant to love others as God loves us. Not just intellectually know everyone possesses the image of god.
So idk on a Christian stand point it just doesn’t feel like unequal standards towards the gays for public indecency is very loving. Nor do I think it would actually help them or society even if most people are less disgusted.
It's not true people believe in a prohibition on public pooping; millions of people have their dogs poo in public everyday in plain sight. The objection to public pooing is the litter, not a necessary feature of it.
It's worth noting that dog pooping is already banned in most places (everywhere except parks and wild areas) and landowners can put signs on their lawns stating that dogs may not poop there.
Private businessowners do not have the right to forbid expressions of homosexuality in their workplaces.
Dog pooping may be disgusting but it’s not on the same level as an adult human pooping. We tolerate it because they’re animals and they lack the theory of mind required to understand that their actions are disgusting towards others. It’s also why we’re more tolerant of infants pooping. I think intentionality makes a disgusting act more disgusting.
I was being sarcastic about the suggestion as I do not believe an article like that would be acceptable there. I approve of the article but I do not think they will.
I used to write for Counter-Currents. Now, we are in opposition.
Even my gay friends have had enough of the perversion on TV. They abhor that every series has some token gay or lesbian as a matter of fact. It’s fake and gay they say, no pun intended.
It wasn't long ago that there were laws against not only public displays of male homosexuality but also male homosexual acts themselves. Pragmatically, it can make sense to draw the line earlier—such as by being against banning public displays—to make more severe restrictions, like banning homosexual acts, less likely.
I suspect this debate is more about societal acceptance of male homosexuality than about whether public displays should be allowed in principle. Judging by the poor responses in this thread, people don't seem to have a principled stance against banning such displays. Conversly, I also doubt public displays of male homosexuality are common enough for you to genuinely care about them in and of themselves.
I often wondered if there was such a thing as homoaversion. It’s a strange state of mental being-one doesn’t hate or fear the people who practice homosexuality, but that same person is averse to displays of it. In our society today it’s seen as bigotry even though the homo-averse person will not distance themselves from homosexual people or treat them badly in any way. They’ll even befriend the lover of a homosexual relative or friend. But they simply can’t stomach actual homosexual behavior. This article explains quite a lot in that regard
"Mainstream left-leaning people generally accept the prohibition on public pooping." Well, at least outside of the Bay Area.
Good point. Maybe the San Francisco lefties are more logically consistent.
Or from the gypsy migrants squatting on Park Lane in Mayfair, London. Pooping in Hyde Park or the doorways of hugh end shops and hotels is an everyday occurrence.
For much of US history, the sight of interracial couples was disgusting to most people (and the even today it's disgusting to many people). Is that a valid objection to interracial marriage?
I don't believe that disgust was the primary motivator for most people. The main concern with interracial marriage was that it would decrease the percentage of the white population and thereby upset the social order. In a racially stratified society, interracial marriage also created a lot of difficulties for the children because they didn't fit in with either group.
There was nothing rational or defensible in Americans' disgust for interracial couples. The same applies to homosexuality. If your cited researchers had shown their test subjects photos of racially mixed couples (back in the day), their reactions of disgust would have been the same as watching two men kissing. Your science is totally skewed.
You have no evidence for that.
Drink the Kool-Aid...
I think you’re assuming disgust was Americans’ reactions. How do you know that?
Do you have evidence or are you making an assumption?
It was definitely disgust, similar in kind but not magnitude to observing bestiality. Longterm concerns were ad hoc rationales that happen to coincide with the actual evolutionary purpose.
I mean at least think about this response in regard to your take over there. There are glaring similarities.
Most people are disgusted by a relationship between a 30 year old man and a 7 year old girl. I guess that's our fault?
Disgust is genetic adaptation, you may come to your own conclusions based on that fact.
Should it be illegal for people with deformities to leave their homes?
Public defecation is objectively obscene and unsanitary, so it's perfectly reasonable to ban it. Holding hands with a loved one simply isn't. If it disgusts you, look away.
How is it objectively obscene and unsanitary?
I don’t see how it could be much more unsanitary than allowing a dog to poop in public, or touching your face after touching your cell phone, or many other things that are not socially forbidden.
I imagine human fecal matter poses a bigger health risk than dogs', which is why we evolved to be so revolted by it.
Bottom line, it's messy, it stinks, and it's a biological hazard. It's not comparable to a chaste display of affection, which you can simply look away from.
Doesn't have to be messy if they clean up after themselves with a plastic bag just like they would clean up after a dog. Your intuitions on these two cases are incompatible.
The reason we have bathrooms is because your solution was deemed impractical.
The fact is that asking people not to make disgusting, hazardous messes in public places is perfectly reasonable. Bullying a vulnerable minority to spare others some slight discomfort is not, and would cause a lot more suffering than it would prevent.
No it should not though I will admit certain kinds of deformities make me very uncomfortable. Where I live there's this girl who has anorexia so severe that you can be her skeleton. I'm not going to tell her what to do or publicly embarrass her but she does have a personal moral obligation to not wear shorts and tee shirts. Her appearance frightens children and I'm sure she knows that.
I saw a TV profile years ago about a woman born with no arms. She had actually learned to drive a specially modified car, write, fold laundry, wash dishes — all with her feet. I assume that this woman would be allowed to eat with her feet at a restaurant.
Now if as a parlor trick I mastered the art of dining with my feet, I think it would be fine to prohibit me from demonstrating this talent at the local Applebees.
“Far from demanding mere outward tolerance, mainstream left leaning people make claims about what you are obligated to do inside your own mind.”
Do you think we’re ever obligated to try not to think certain thoughts and suppress certain feelings, or do you think we’re just not so obligated in this case?
I’m not sure. I’m reflexively suspicious about claims that you’re obligated not to think certain thoughts; I think those claims are the favorite tools of brainwashers. On the other hand, it seems wrong to deeply indulge certain thoughts, e.g. feelings of hatred against your family. Maybe you have a moral obligation not to indulge certain thoughts of immoral actions, but you do NOT have a moral obligation to suppress fundamental instincts such as lust, desire for money, disgust at gross things etc? E.g. I think it’s very wrong to teach people that lust is a sin if “lust” just means sexual desire.
I don’t claim to have mainstream left-wing opinions. My point is that mainstream left-leaning people seem to be logically inconsistent on this issue. I have met many people who think you should be liberated to express your inner feelings publicly, but when it comes to “homophobia” and other right-wing coded feelings, they suddenly say “no not those feelings.”
There's an unfortunate tendency in (mostly) Protestant / nondenom Christianity to try to put every sexual act / thought into the "sinful" bin or the "allowed" bin, whereas the Catholic category of "disordered" would be better: it describes things that maybe aren't sinful in and of themselves but that aren't going to lead you anywhere good.
To give a couple of concrete examples: I'm married, and I'm also guilty of having fornicated and viewed porn before my marriage. If something reminds me of a past lover or a specific porn scene/story, I don't think I'm obliged as a Christian to confess a sin, since I didn't intend to think about that.
I *do* think that prudence requires me to immediately redirect away from that thought, and I'd regard homosexual desire in the same way: it may not be inherently sinful but it's definitely not "rightly ordered".
Curiously, the Catholic religion and some other Christian sects prohibit certain thoughts - mainly those associated with sex - while their hierarchies are noteworthy for the predominance of homosexual males and lesbians (i.e., priests and nuns). Islam deals with this dichotomy differently through gender apartheid and the criminalization of homosexual acts, although the current mania for tossing gays off minarets owes much to Western prohibitions built into colonial legal codes that carried over.
Many thousands of years of language and massaging of the messages of Christianity have made it quite confusing especially when it comes to "sin", but I think...
"But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Is pretty simple. Watch yourself, your internal state. You know what lust is. You KNOW what's right and wrong (outside of social order shit). I have a good buddy that doesn't understand this. I'm single, and refuse to lust after married women. But I can still admire them, their beauty their grace. There's nuance to all of this, but you KNOW (inside, you know).
Thinking certain thoughts is fine, it's the acting, indulging, ruminating on them that has consequences - and you can also control your thoughts to some extent. This is partially why language and writing in particular are so powerful.
Worst Boyfriend Ever had a great post about this a few months ago - but from an alternative perspective, and it's one many younger men seem to be "forced" into these days (because of incentives, and the lack of control of older men who have indulged and moved in destructive directions):
https://jamesguilty.substack.com/p/being-gay-is-a-choice/
Similar comment I made:
https://jamesguilty.substack.com/p/being-gay-is-a-choice/comment/106115841
Also, although this all is rather instinctively disgusting it's clear g-r--oom-in is real, but that, over time, people really believe "it's just how I am" (it's their personality, it's literally WHO they are - to them). so it is a psychological thing that can be pushed on the population at many levels. Ironically the whole ALLY thing just made sense to me, as these people think they're the saviors/protectors of the downtrodden (and in many ways they literally are), but more in like an alcoholic enabler sense.
> Do you think we’re ever obligated to try not to think certain thoughts and suppress certain feelings, or do you think we’re just not so obligated in this case?
I suspect that a lot of people believe that people should be obligated not to sexualize children even if they have no intention of ever raping or molesting any children or watching any actual (as opposed to cartoon) child porn. Would you agree with that?
i agree with that
Well, on some views it will be a harm, even if you intend no harm — on some views of wellbeing, you can do unfelt harm to people, including by having private thoughts. (E.g., if your partner was constantly thinking “shut up shut up I hate you” every time you talked but never disclosed that or let the emotions leak through, it’s plausible your life isn’t going as well as you think it’s going — i.e., she harms you.) It might also be wrong on virtue theoretic grounds, or maybe it’s just pro tanto wrong to think certain types of thoughts, even if those thought don’t harm their object. I don’t have an account, but it seems true in lots of cases that it’s wrong to think bad thoughts, and I’m hopeful that there’s some story about why that is. (For an argument on the other side, this is supposed to be good https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/A_Wild_West_of_the_Mind.html?id=8zkqEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&redir_esc=y)
Those who lean left have a one-sided tolerance. They demand people be free to act on their attraction but not their disgust. Essentially a true liberal response would be to allow homosexuality but also discrimination by private employers. They are not liberal but something else entirely.
There appears to be strong evidence that disgust _is_ attraction, or at least uses the exact same neurological pathway as attraction, just with a negative value. For instance, a Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader may be +20 attractive, whereas a bowl of maggots is -20 attractive.
I, as a homosexual, think public displays of Abrahamic religion, with their histories of bloodshed and reckless discard of rationality, are morally disgusting and I see nothing wrong with churches and mosques getting set on fire. Therefore, to avoid this just reaction towards these buildings, I demand them getting covered with curtains
Oh, and senior citizens showing affection towards one another is also blegh, so let’s ban that too. Who wants to see or even imagine 80 year olds getting at it?
I don't believe that you find them disgusting. I believe that you hate them, but hate and disgust are different emotions.
You’re not a homosexual that’s a fact term. You’re a rational animal with an intellect and will and sodomy is an evil thing to do. Not saying this to be a jerk but it’s the truth
How am I not a homosexual when I, as a man, feel attraction towards men? And how does that make it mutually exclusive with being rational? Also, “sodomy”, really? What’s next, “heresy” and “blasphemy”?
Rational animals can't use their intellect to change their sexual orientation. They can use it in their moral judgements, which you're conspicuously failing to do.
Most LGBT people are "bisexual", meaning that most LGBT people actually can choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle.
This is the problem with thinking in words instead of thinking precisely about the concepts. Most bisexuals aren't 50-50, they have a distinct preference one way or the other. Anecdotally, most men who identify as bisexual are primarily homosexual, so, no, they don't actually have a choice.
Again, that’s a lie. Im not attracted to women. At all.
"Morally disgusting" isn't the same thing as "disgusting" in this particular discussion. The latter is a base instinct whereas the former is operating at a higher level of reasoning.
What is a "base instinct"?
Something reflexive that you don't consciously activate, like drawing your hand away from a hot stove.
I think that the moral disgust at incest, pedophilia and homosexuality is a base instinct. I don't see why that makes it illegitimate.
I didn't say anything about legitimacy. Only that I don't believe morals come "out of the box" in the way instincts do. All humans share the same instincts but moral codes have varied widely over time.
Excellent job distinguishing yourself from the tedious and bland Cato/Reason sphere. There is something of the homosexual artistic sense like Jack the Perfume nationalist I do see of value though
I kind of like the take but then at the same time I think it’s possible that it’s a moral weakness to feel disgust at other people.
Admittedly, I feel panicked when I see disabled or old people, because I get selfishly concerned with what it would be for me to be in their position. I don’t think this is good, and is due to my own spiritual immaturity. As a Christian should to see the imago dei in everyone. This is true for the gays as well.
Idk. Taken to its logical end point I don’t think it’s a good take.
It’s probably better if equal public indecency standards (legal and implicit) apply to everyone.
I think it’s possible to feel disgust in some circumstances and also recognize everyone as a human being created in the image of God.
Sure, but the feeling of disgust is probably still wrong. I don’t think God is disgusted by disabled people or the old, most likely not even the gays — because he sees them as individuals, who he loves and wants to repent. We are meant to love others as God loves us. Not just intellectually know everyone possesses the image of god.
So idk on a Christian stand point it just doesn’t feel like unequal standards towards the gays for public indecency is very loving. Nor do I think it would actually help them or society even if most people are less disgusted.
It's not true people believe in a prohibition on public pooping; millions of people have their dogs poo in public everyday in plain sight. The objection to public pooing is the litter, not a necessary feature of it.
As a human, you are not allowed to poop in public, even if you pick it up with a litter bag.
Are you going to say dog pooing should in public be banned?
I'm not sure.
Are you really saying there's no important difference between a dog pooping in public and a person pooping in public?
Both are disgusting though the human more so. But that might just be because of its rarity.
It's worth noting that dog pooping is already banned in most places (everywhere except parks and wild areas) and landowners can put signs on their lawns stating that dogs may not poop there.
Private businessowners do not have the right to forbid expressions of homosexuality in their workplaces.
Sure. Your argument concerned public spaces though. Also: Reckon there's advertising for maggots in public spaces.
Rarity? Not in my neighbourhood.
Dogs can’t use public restrooms, so they need accommodation. This is not the case with humans!
Dog pooping may be disgusting but it’s not on the same level as an adult human pooping. We tolerate it because they’re animals and they lack the theory of mind required to understand that their actions are disgusting towards others. It’s also why we’re more tolerant of infants pooping. I think intentionality makes a disgusting act more disgusting.
This conversation is becoming anal.
I really appreciate it when someone makes a truly good-faith attempt at creating a public policy designed to maximize the good of all!
I was being sarcastic about the suggestion as I do not believe an article like that would be acceptable there. I approve of the article but I do not think they will.
I used to write for Counter-Currents. Now, we are in opposition.
Even my gay friends have had enough of the perversion on TV. They abhor that every series has some token gay or lesbian as a matter of fact. It’s fake and gay they say, no pun intended.
It wasn't long ago that there were laws against not only public displays of male homosexuality but also male homosexual acts themselves. Pragmatically, it can make sense to draw the line earlier—such as by being against banning public displays—to make more severe restrictions, like banning homosexual acts, less likely.
I suspect this debate is more about societal acceptance of male homosexuality than about whether public displays should be allowed in principle. Judging by the poor responses in this thread, people don't seem to have a principled stance against banning such displays. Conversly, I also doubt public displays of male homosexuality are common enough for you to genuinely care about them in and of themselves.
Displays in public are uncommon. Displays in media are much more common.
I often wondered if there was such a thing as homoaversion. It’s a strange state of mental being-one doesn’t hate or fear the people who practice homosexuality, but that same person is averse to displays of it. In our society today it’s seen as bigotry even though the homo-averse person will not distance themselves from homosexual people or treat them badly in any way. They’ll even befriend the lover of a homosexual relative or friend. But they simply can’t stomach actual homosexual behavior. This article explains quite a lot in that regard
Disgust at (male) homosexuality is wired into our DNA. It is a product of sixty-plus million years of evolution.
Evolution selects for successful reproduction. It does not select for evolutionary dead ends.
That is all.