@NWN_babaYaga: You know what? You're totally right. Most gay people (note: most) are still better off today than the people you mentioned in your post. Yet they dominate the media. It's the fault of both parties. The media have long since gotten bored of portraying little black children starving in the streets. Homosexualism is the next 'new' thing. And a lot of money's involved of course, especially when it comes to politics and the gathering of votes. Gay people should also realise that they're still luckier than a black family starving to death, or having to walk miles all day to get some water. What I mean to say is: it can always get worse. On the other hand, black lesbian women in Africa are being raped by men in an attempt to 'convert' them to heterosexualism, something which I also detest. I guess I'm a bit on the fence here when it comes to these kinds of topics.
Wow wow wow! Hold there Kitteh!
Gay people should also realise that they're still luckier than a black family starving to death, or having to walk miles all day to get some water
No one is luckier because his/her suffering isn't so hard as another suffering. This is the mother of fallacies when you level human rights from below.
Should a poor feel lucky and accept the economic system dominance over him because miserable people exist? Should this miserable person feel lucker cos bums exist and he's not one? Should Bums, completly ignored and forsaken by society, feel luck as other bums suffer more than them?
In "The Soul of Man under Socialism", is stated
"Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table?
There is much more to human laws than homosexuality, and the fact that homosexuality is still sensitive topic indicates that discussion might go wrong way. What I was saying before was more like a warning than anything else. I've seen discussion like these on few forums before, and I know exactly what can go wrong here.
I'm not a fan of the "precautionary principle." It's what justifies preemptive war, legislation of "thought crimes," arresting people because they "might" commit a crime, and shutting down forum threads because they might descend into flame wars.
I edited myself. I think there is no need to provcate anyone somehow!
I think that giving at least enough food and shelter to the poor people which we keep in poverty stays an issue because we made these peoples problems long ago during the period of conquest and colonisation.
@Mortianna If you are suggesting that my mindset is on the same level like people who "justifiles preempative war, legalisation of thought crimes etc.", then you have just insulted me like no one ever did here.
Can we agree to stop using the term "homo"? It seems unnecessarily pejorative.
Don't see why, hetero will not suffer the same standard, it's just a diminutive. Don't let politically correct talk influence what you think, next we will have to call black people of afrodescendant, fat people of person with large bones... and therefore on. There's more prejudice in politically correct than in be spontaneous about the issue.
Should the "white house" be labeled as racist in reason of it's name?
"homo" has been used as a pejorative way to refer to homosexuals for decades. It's not about being politically correct; it's about not using a term that has come to mean something derogatory.
Never heard of this, maybe it's an regionalism expression that doesn't exist from were i come from (Brazil). I hope then to state that if i ever use the term, i don't meant prejudice by it. After all prejudice exist in intention.
@Dee: Weird. In my mother tongue, which is Dutch, the term 'homo' is used to refer to male gay people. It's pretty much the standard neutral term. I don't see how this term could be offensive. O.o Also, agreed with @kamuizin. I'll be blunt: I'm getting sick of political correctness. And even sicker of seeing minorities using discrimination to their advantage whenever they see fit.
About "homo" term: whether the term is offensive or not depends on the particular culture in particular nation. In US, the term may be seen as disrespectful, but where I am from, the term is neutral. So...
"homo" has been used as a pejorative way to refer to homosexuals for decades. It's not about being politically correct; it's about not using a term that has come to mean something derogatory.
I'd say that's mainly an American thing, or, as kamuizin put it, as regional thing. In the UK when I was growing up, the word was "queer."* Which, I might add, is used in BG. On top of that, the very first time I heard it in BG I thought it meant that, and to this day I'm still not sure whether the game just means 'odd' or 'gay' in the context given. I usually cringe whenever I see or hear it. In an effort to think positively about it, I have adjusted my way of thinking; now, when I see that word in BG, I hear 'odd' in my head instead.
Also, that three letter word that means cigarette. Which is really annoying because some forum filters block that word, and in the UK (especially in Scotland) it is generally used to mean cigarette. So if someone else is saying something, you have absolutely no idea what they are saying in a sentence like "gunna get myself some **** later."
I don't think I've heard** "homo" used more than half a dozen times in my life.
* Queer has actually been quoted as having this meaning from as early as the 1920s, and perhaps earlier still. Interestingly, the word seems to have gained ground in the U.S. first, and then moved outwards to other countries.
** Literally heard - not saw. The internet would account for more than I would like to see with regards to derogatory comments. Although it is a little difficult to recall the exact number of times I have actually heard it.
Interesting how words can have such vastly different connotations depending on the country. It reminds me of this article on gestures. The one that got me was the left-handed one, since, well, I'm left-handed.
I'd say that's mainly an American thing, or, as kamuizin put it, as regional thing. In the UK when I was growing up, the word was "queer."* Which, I might add, is used in BG. On top of that, the very first time I heard it in BG I thought it meant that, and to this day I'm still not sure whether the game just means 'odd' or 'gay' in the context given.
I'd say that's mainly an American thing, or, as kamuizin put it, as regional thing. In the UK when I was growing up, the word was "queer."* Which, I might add, is used in BG. On top of that, the very first time I heard it in BG I thought it meant that, and to this day I'm still not sure whether the game just means 'odd' or 'gay' in the context given.
It means "odd" in BG.
Ahh yes, the ever-present thorn in the side of the historian; evolving usage of words. CURSE YOU LINGUAL DRIFT!!! *shakes fist*
@Mortianna If you are suggesting that my mindset is on the same level like people who "justifiles preempative war, legalisation of thought crimes etc.", then you have just insulted me like no one ever did here.
I'm not sure why you interpreted what I wrote as having anything to do with you or as some sort of attack against you. If you re-read my post, you'll notice that I was referring to the precautionary principle and gave some examples of how it has been employed to justify a wide range of what I think are poor decisions. Suggesting to close down this thread because it might erupt into a flame war is an appeal to the precautionary principle to justify that action. I didn't suggest that you endorse any of the other actions that have been justified under that principle.
@Tresset, I think It was about to die. You just bumped it yesterday, and I just bumped it to accuse you of bumping it. LOL. Let's both be quiet now, and maybe it'll go away. Down, down, down, forgotten.
I'm getting sick of political correctness. And even sicker of seeing minorities using discrimination to their advantage whenever they see fit.
Yes, persecuted minorities have it so easy and us members of the majorities (whose other members and ancestors have been doing the persecution for centuries) have to occasionally feel the need to censor ourselves so as not to offend those that have been persecuted, for fear of being labeled as hateful or insensitive.
I'll take off my hat and play the world's smallest violin for the slave-owners' children of the era in which slavery was finally legally and socially scorned in America. That they had to occasionally censor the racially pejorative terminology with which they had grown up so as not to be seen as evil or hateful is such a shame, and it isn't in any way completely outweighed by the real problems of the oppressed. It's so sickening to see minorities using discrimination to their advantage by speaking out when they are discriminated against.
/sarcasm
Do people sometimes take advantage of systems in immoral ways? Obviously they do, but this is in no way confined to minorities.
I personally detest the system of affirmative action in America as I believe that it promotes racism by suggesting to minority youths that they need help to get into jobs and schools that white people don't need help to get into; and also because it attempts to repay a past harm by creating a new one (depriving a qualified person of a position). However, I don't blame the people that get the positions or consider them evil, it is the policymakers and those in charge that are accountable for the immorality of the system, not those that may or may not have benefited from it.
Similarly, I have noticed more and more people that take issue with minorities blaming these minorities for their own guilt and their own self-censorship. Blaming minorities at large for one's confused feelings of guilt, or defensiveness, or a need to censor oneself, is not placing blame appropriately. If speaking out against a group of people makes a person a social pariah, and said person can't handle that, then it is the fault of that person for deciding not to speak out, and the fault of the social conventions in place that cause the effect in this person's social circles; it is not in any way the fault of the group that the person wishes to speak out against.
Furthermore, to add to what was said above, a few cases of homosexual people taking advantage of the situation of homosexuals at large does not invalidate the struggle of or in any way vilify homosexual people at large. A homosexual person that cries "hate crime" after being assaulted when he knows that the assault was not motivated by a hatred of homosexuals is doing something ethically wrong; he is abusing a system put in place to protect people from violence motivated by hate, but his decision doesn't invalidate the actual persecution that has been suffered by so many homosexuals over the centuries. Suggesting that the cases of individuals using the system to their advantage is worthy of blaming the homosexual community at large or of invalidating their legitimate outrage at being persecuted is tantamount to suggesting that because women sometimes "cry rape" and put men away when they weren't actually raped, that all supposed rape victims are just attention seekers and that their entire desire to see justice served is invalidated by the acts of a few individuals.
Once again, you are applying generalizations to homosexuals that you refuse to apply to other groups. I have no doubt that you detest rapists and that you also detest women that degrade the legitimate cause by lying about being raped; and yet I'm also willing to bet (correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't allow the actions of these few women to invalidate the legitimate cases in your mind... Why do all of these double standards exist do you think? Every generalization that you make about homosexuals, you refuse to make about any other group.
While I am hetero-sexual and have been all of my life, many people have viewed me as "in the closet" even from an early age and many still do consider me gay. To be gay, you are sexually attracted to members of the same sex, and all I ever think about are women. A lot. And my GF will confirm this.
I am blessed/cursed (can't decide) with the experience that many gay people go through, from being outcasted to physically abused. It's brutal to think that many gay people have been shunned by their own family. I live in Pittsburgh, and I pray this city is 100 years behind the rest of the world because if it's not, then there is no hope for humanity.
I don't get why this topic needs to be brought up in this venue. I think RPGers enjoy exploring all aspects of humanity from a more open stance and variety is actually celebrated here, not feared. So I don't think there's a enough of a cleansing cause here to get excited about. It's kinda like priests preaching to the choir, or atheists circle jerking over some commonly agreed disbelief, etc.
Try to get away from the internet and the TV shit feed for a while and talk to the people on the streets. Ask them about their opinion on gay rights, and you might be surprised to see how few people actually think that gays are less deserving than heterosexuals. It's blown completely out of proportions by the means of mass media pulling nutters out of the bushes and displaying their bigotry on national television as a proof to how significant portion of people think. And somehow it's always the most important topic to discuss about when different elections draw closer.
I don't get why this topic needs to be brought up in this venue. I think RPGers enjoy exploring all aspects of humanity from a more open stance and variety is actually celebrated here, not feared. So I don't think there's a enough of a cleansing cause here to get excited about. It's kinda like priests preaching to the choir, or atheists circle jerking over some commonly agreed disbelief, etc.
It's not really like any of those things, if you'd read through the thread you'd clearly see that there is a concise difference of opinion and that a debate of the topic is occurring, so comparing it to a bunch of people all agreeing with each other or "circle jerking" as you put it is completely incorrect.
As for why it "needs" to be brought up in this venue... well I guess it doesn't need to be brought up, but nor does anything else for that matter. This is the Off-Topic section of the forum after all, so as long as people are interested in sharing their opinions on the matter and engaging in open discourse about those opinions, why do you and others that have no interest in the subject feel the need to come suggest that the conversation shouldn't be taking place at all?
Try to get away from the internet and the TV shit feed for a while and talk to the people on the streets. Ask them about their opinion on gay rights, and you might be surprised to see how few people actually think that gays are less deserving than heterosexuals. It's blown completely out of proportions by the means of mass media pulling nutters out of the bushes and displaying their bigotry on national television as a proof to how significant portion of people think. And somehow it's always the most important topic to discuss about when different elections draw closer.
I can only speak for myself here, but I don't get my opinions about how many people respect (or don't respect) the rights of homosexuals from mass media news or from internet forums. I do know a lot of people outside of internet forums and I'm well aware of their stances toward homosexuality and am also well aware of some of the actual persecution that homosexuals have to (and have had to) suffer. So, for myself, I'm not concerned with, nor do I develop any of my opinions based on, nutters displayed on the news.
As for elections, it's always going to be some sort of bullsh*t to distract voters from important issues, and when it's actual issues that do matter the politicians are lying through their teeth so it makes little difference (in this country anyway). Being a politician is a publicity career; people attracted to power that are willing to lie to gain that power (and money) are generally the people that pursue careers in politics and also generally the people that get elected. Idealists often end up deciding between sticking to their principles and accepting that they'll likely never be elected, or lying in the hopes of doing good down the line once they're elected. For example, all but one congressman (this info. could be a bit outdated at this point) in the U.S. claims to believe in God. Why? Because they wouldn't be elected if they didn't claim to.
...you might be surprised to see how few people actually think that gays are less deserving than heterosexuals. It's blown completely out of proportions by the means of mass media...
Also, I'm not sure where you live, but I may have been exposed to more of these people that you see as rare exceptions because I grew up in the American midwest. It's not just some occasional nutjob where I'm from, there's a strong majority of people in some places that are strongly against homosexuals having equal rights and, for anyone that agrees that this represents a serious injustice, there's plenty of reason to discuss it. There's no excuse for homosexual adolescents to have to grow up in an area where they are persecuted for who they are or have to fear physical harm because of it. Again, the proportions are obviously vastly different in different regions, and I'm sure there are plenty of places where there is very little anti-homosexual feeling, but that doesn't change what's going on at the other end of the spectrum.
Ask them about their opinion on gay rights, and you might be surprised to see how few people actually think that gays are less deserving than heterosexuals. It's blown completely out of proportions by the means of mass media pulling nutters out of the bushes and displaying their bigotry on national television as a proof to how significant portion of people think. And somehow it's always the most important topic to discuss about when different elections draw closer.
While, at least in some countries (particularly the US), the media may be playing a somewhat unfortunate role, that doesn't mean there still isn't a large number of people who are have unfavourable views of homosexuals/homosexuality. If you look at surveys on gay marriage, that California prop. 8, the massive protests in France. Even around here (Netherlands), where politically it's been pretty much a non-issue for years now, there are still too many incidents and too many gay couples feeling unsafe when displaying affection in public. There is still plenty of conservatism (religious, cultural or otherwise) going around, making life more difficult than it should be for (among others) homosexuals.
Why? It's a Objective theme? If so the factor of definition must come from Biology, which will squash any opinion of homosexuality being natural. Rules admit exceptions? Yes. So, can we see homosexual behavior in nature, be it human or from another animals? Yes. Still the base of an objective aspect when defining "Natural" is the heterosexual behavior.
By objective standards, it's a simple and direct line of thought, people that defend homosexual as natural use randomized nature examples, the exception of rules and misuse philosophical and social arguments.
If people want to assume that Natural/Unatural arguments are a subjective matter, what i don't agree but i will respect if elected, then Kitteh doesn't have to "define natural", subjective opinion is inherent to each person understand of the issue, and taking in fact the existence of medicine works that see homosexuality as a disease (i don't agree with this, just to let clear, but these works exist) and with the recent studies about epigenetics changes in DNA during life time that stimulates homosexual preference (whith from the few articles i read, appears to be reasonable), there's pleny of arguments and data to protect unnatural rating.
Philosophic and social viewpoints define society bases, as normal or abnormal behavior, and in any civilized country homosexuality is taken as "normal" (edited).
About @leddyhs arguments, i don't know, maybe because i'm from Brazil, but here the acceptance of homosexuality is very wide, the few hates crime when they happen are always highly reproved. The blood lines in my country are so mixed, that hardly you gonna meet someone here that doesn't have traces of offspring from african, europe and asian. While some old people i know are racists, people i avoid when i can, most of the times, when racist argument is invoked, someone is normally trying to abuse our domestic politicy of combat to prejudice to reach some personal gains.
Our supreme court already stated that Homosexual marriages are legal and homosexual couples already have social security rights for pension. Every heterosexual right atm is already provided to homosexual couples, so maybe, from where i am, it's a bit hard to accept all the statements of injustice and prejudice i see.
Did i bully anyone for homosexuality in my life? Yes, many times in my youth on school, however i did it also to people fat, with big noses, with fun hairs, thin legs... am i homophobic? Hardly, i was youth and any excuse would be acceptable to create a problem at that time. I also suffered some bully, but it's in the package of live in school as an teenager.
Why? Because 'natural' is rather ambiguous term, and in a context such as this it is not necessarily clear what someone means to convey by it. Moreover, given some definition of natural, it isn't necessarily clear why it is a relevant property. If it is some appeal to the 'fact' (if it is one) that other animals don't typically engage in it, or that our prehistoric ancestors didn't typically engage in it, then the argument is incomplete. Much of what we humans do would on such views not be natural, so unless the greater argument is that we should all go back to living as cavemen the 'unnaturalness' of homosexuality would hardly be an indictment of it.
and with the recent studies about epigenetics changes in DNA during life time that stimulates homosexual preference (whith from the few articles i read, appears to be reasonable), there's pleny of arguments and data to protect unnatural rating.
I'm assuming you are referring to the Rice et al. paper? Because though that offers an interesting hypothesis, it has to my knowledge not even remotely been proven yet. We are still miles away from really understanding the genetics of most complex phenotypes, let alone the epigenetics (which is a much younger field to begin with). Besides, even if there was a clear epigenetic basis for homosexuality, how exactly would that support the "homosexuality = unnatural" argument? If anything, it would do precisely the opposite.
Comments
Wow wow wow! Hold there Kitteh! No one is luckier because his/her suffering isn't so hard as another suffering. This is the mother of fallacies when you level human rights from below.
Should a poor feel lucky and accept the economic system dominance over him because miserable people exist? Should this miserable person feel lucker cos bums exist and he's not one? Should Bums, completly ignored and forsaken by society, feel luck as other bums suffer more than them?
In "The Soul of Man under Socialism", is stated
"Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table?
Oscar Wilde, (father of ) anarchist and gay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Wilde (brief info about)
16 october 1954 to 30 november 1900.
Was arrested by the charge of sodomy (homossexuality), forced into a regime of hard labor, damaged by it and died in reason of it.
I never criticize the fitht for rights, my criticism is based on excesses against people that don't deserve it (that exist) and loss of focus.
I think that giving at least enough food and shelter to the poor people which we keep in poverty stays an issue because we made these peoples problems long ago during the period of conquest and colonisation.
Thats a HR issue to me!
If you are suggesting that my mindset is on the same level like people who "justifiles preempative war, legalisation of thought crimes etc.", then you have just insulted me like no one ever did here.
Should the "white house" be labeled as racist in reason of it's name?
Also, agreed with @kamuizin. I'll be blunt: I'm getting sick of political correctness. And even sicker of seeing minorities using discrimination to their advantage whenever they see fit.
It depends. Gotta love this diplomatic sentence.
Also, that three letter word that means cigarette. Which is really annoying because some forum filters block that word, and in the UK (especially in Scotland) it is generally used to mean cigarette. So if someone else is saying something, you have absolutely no idea what they are saying in a sentence like "gunna get myself some **** later."
I don't think I've heard** "homo" used more than half a dozen times in my life.
* Queer has actually been quoted as having this meaning from as early as the 1920s, and perhaps earlier still. Interestingly, the word seems to have gained ground in the U.S. first, and then moved outwards to other countries.
** Literally heard - not saw. The internet would account for more than I would like to see with regards to derogatory comments. Although it is a little difficult to recall the exact number of times I have actually heard it.
Interesting how words can have such vastly different connotations depending on the country. It reminds me of this article on gestures. The one that got me was the left-handed one, since, well, I'm left-handed.
I still find it cringe-worthy, though.
I'll take off my hat and play the world's smallest violin for the slave-owners' children of the era in which slavery was finally legally and socially scorned in America. That they had to occasionally censor the racially pejorative terminology with which they had grown up so as not to be seen as evil or hateful is such a shame, and it isn't in any way completely outweighed by the real problems of the oppressed. It's so sickening to see minorities using discrimination to their advantage by speaking out when they are discriminated against.
/sarcasm
Do people sometimes take advantage of systems in immoral ways? Obviously they do, but this is in no way confined to minorities.
I personally detest the system of affirmative action in America as I believe that it promotes racism by suggesting to minority youths that they need help to get into jobs and schools that white people don't need help to get into; and also because it attempts to repay a past harm by creating a new one (depriving a qualified person of a position). However, I don't blame the people that get the positions or consider them evil, it is the policymakers and those in charge that are accountable for the immorality of the system, not those that may or may not have benefited from it.
Similarly, I have noticed more and more people that take issue with minorities blaming these minorities for their own guilt and their own self-censorship. Blaming minorities at large for one's confused feelings of guilt, or defensiveness, or a need to censor oneself, is not placing blame appropriately. If speaking out against a group of people makes a person a social pariah, and said person can't handle that, then it is the fault of that person for deciding not to speak out, and the fault of the social conventions in place that cause the effect in this person's social circles; it is not in any way the fault of the group that the person wishes to speak out against.
Furthermore, to add to what was said above, a few cases of homosexual people taking advantage of the situation of homosexuals at large does not invalidate the struggle of or in any way vilify homosexual people at large. A homosexual person that cries "hate crime" after being assaulted when he knows that the assault was not motivated by a hatred of homosexuals is doing something ethically wrong; he is abusing a system put in place to protect people from violence motivated by hate, but his decision doesn't invalidate the actual persecution that has been suffered by so many homosexuals over the centuries. Suggesting that the cases of individuals using the system to their advantage is worthy of blaming the homosexual community at large or of invalidating their legitimate outrage at being persecuted is tantamount to suggesting that because women sometimes "cry rape" and put men away when they weren't actually raped, that all supposed rape victims are just attention seekers and that their entire desire to see justice served is invalidated by the acts of a few individuals.
Once again, you are applying generalizations to homosexuals that you refuse to apply to other groups. I have no doubt that you detest rapists and that you also detest women that degrade the legitimate cause by lying about being raped; and yet I'm also willing to bet (correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't allow the actions of these few women to invalidate the legitimate cases in your mind... Why do all of these double standards exist do you think? Every generalization that you make about homosexuals, you refuse to make about any other group.
I am blessed/cursed (can't decide) with the experience that many gay people go through, from being outcasted to physically abused. It's brutal to think that many gay people have been shunned by their own family. I live in Pittsburgh, and I pray this city is 100 years behind the rest of the world because if it's not, then there is no hope for humanity.
Try to get away from the internet and the TV shit feed for a while and talk to the people on the streets. Ask them about their opinion on gay rights, and you might be surprised to see how few people actually think that gays are less deserving than heterosexuals. It's blown completely out of proportions by the means of mass media pulling nutters out of the bushes and displaying their bigotry on national television as a proof to how significant portion of people think. And somehow it's always the most important topic to discuss about when different elections draw closer.
As for why it "needs" to be brought up in this venue... well I guess it doesn't need to be brought up, but nor does anything else for that matter. This is the Off-Topic section of the forum after all, so as long as people are interested in sharing their opinions on the matter and engaging in open discourse about those opinions, why do you and others that have no interest in the subject feel the need to come suggest that the conversation shouldn't be taking place at all? I can only speak for myself here, but I don't get my opinions about how many people respect (or don't respect) the rights of homosexuals from mass media news or from internet forums. I do know a lot of people outside of internet forums and I'm well aware of their stances toward homosexuality and am also well aware of some of the actual persecution that homosexuals have to (and have had to) suffer. So, for myself, I'm not concerned with, nor do I develop any of my opinions based on, nutters displayed on the news.
As for elections, it's always going to be some sort of bullsh*t to distract voters from important issues, and when it's actual issues that do matter the politicians are lying through their teeth so it makes little difference (in this country anyway). Being a politician is a publicity career; people attracted to power that are willing to lie to gain that power (and money) are generally the people that pursue careers in politics and also generally the people that get elected. Idealists often end up deciding between sticking to their principles and accepting that they'll likely never be elected, or lying in the hopes of doing good down the line once they're elected. For example, all but one congressman (this info. could be a bit outdated at this point) in the U.S. claims to believe in God. Why? Because they wouldn't be elected if they didn't claim to.
By objective standards, it's a simple and direct line of thought, people that defend homosexual as natural use randomized nature examples, the exception of rules and misuse philosophical and social arguments.
If people want to assume that Natural/Unatural arguments are a subjective matter, what i don't agree but i will respect if elected, then Kitteh doesn't have to "define natural", subjective opinion is inherent to each person understand of the issue, and taking in fact the existence of medicine works that see homosexuality as a disease (i don't agree with this, just to let clear, but these works exist) and with the recent studies about epigenetics changes in DNA during life time that stimulates homosexual preference (whith from the few articles i read, appears to be reasonable), there's pleny of arguments and data to protect unnatural rating.
Philosophic and social viewpoints define society bases, as normal or abnormal behavior, and in any civilized country homosexuality is taken as "normal" (edited).
About @leddyhs arguments, i don't know, maybe because i'm from Brazil, but here the acceptance of homosexuality is very wide, the few hates crime when they happen are always highly reproved. The blood lines in my country are so mixed, that hardly you gonna meet someone here that doesn't have traces of offspring from african, europe and asian. While some old people i know are racists, people i avoid when i can, most of the times, when racist argument is invoked, someone is normally trying to abuse our domestic politicy of combat to prejudice to reach some personal gains.
Our supreme court already stated that Homosexual marriages are legal and homosexual couples already have social security rights for pension. Every heterosexual right atm is already provided to homosexual couples, so maybe, from where i am, it's a bit hard to accept all the statements of injustice and prejudice i see.
Did i bully anyone for homosexuality in my life? Yes, many times in my youth on school, however i did it also to people fat, with big noses, with fun hairs, thin legs... am i homophobic? Hardly, i was youth and any excuse would be acceptable to create a problem at that time. I also suffered some bully, but it's in the package of live in school as an teenager.
As for this: I'm assuming you are referring to the Rice et al. paper? Because though that offers an interesting hypothesis, it has to my knowledge not even remotely been proven yet. We are still miles away from really understanding the genetics of most complex phenotypes, let alone the epigenetics (which is a much younger field to begin with). Besides, even if there was a clear epigenetic basis for homosexuality, how exactly would that support the "homosexuality = unnatural" argument? If anything, it would do precisely the opposite.