trendkill

It's more of a fear of anything that could even remotely be seen as implying homosexuality than of homosexuals per se.

Jinksy

Depends on what the original context is. I didn't look further than bomb #20's quote (and I'm not really sure what he meant to imply with the other quote). But that source isn't the first to claim that laissez faire capitalism is the only amoral political philosophy. It's not true, and it's deceitful to claim that it is. Otherwise (assuming we're not talking about 'anarcho-capitalism', whatever that's supposed to mean), on what basis do advocates prescribe the laws they do?

Bomb#20

My objection to The Libertarian Defender's essay (linked in the OP) is that its line of argument is inconsistent -- to say there's no objective right and wrong and we therefore should do such and such is a bald self-contradiction. Whether people wish to describe this as a semantic objection or a philosophical objection is of no concern to me; the crucial point is that self-contradictory claims are always wrong.

Mr. Zito says he agrees with the commentary's central thesis. This leaves me wondering -- does he agree that we should devise laws encouraging the crafting of multiple moralities, or does he agree that we should expunge morality from our consciousness, or does he agree that we shouldn't do anything? Or is he able to agree with all three at once?

It was an analogy -- like the TLD quotes, it makes three claims, each of which blatantly conflicts with the other two. I meant to imply that TLD needs to clear up his self-contradictions before the rest of us decide whether we agree with him.

Where in that article does Hayek claim it's amoral? Are you talking about statements like "neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion"? I think those need to be understood as shorthand for his more complete statement, "moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion." He's taking a moral position about what each person's protected sphere is -- I gather it's the well-known "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose." theory. Hayek's decisions about which acts of coercion are justified is based on that moral position.

Moreover, the idea that Hayek is claiming his political philosophy is amoral runs smack into quotes like "The chief evil is unlimited government". I don't think it's tenable.

In any event, even if LFC were amoral, it would hardly be the only one. If anyone's political philosophy is entitled to that dubious honor, surely it's Machiavelli's.

general_koffi

Most people don't fear for their lives or experience a completely irrational and debilitating sort of fear (a true 'phobia'). The term is rather misleading in that regard.

The kind of fear referenced is a more subtle thing. It's the classic kind of fear for people who are different and who may have fundamentally different and possibly conflicting survival goals (this is hardly true, but hey). It's the same kind of thing that fuels racism, sexism and xenophobia.

The "fear" aspect of homophobia is obvious in the kind of people that want to prevent same sex marriage, fearing that it will somehow damage heterosexual marriage. It's also visible in the Us military's ban on homosexuals, fearing they will threaten unit cohesion (in the face of overwhelming evidence that they don't.)

I don't really like the term, but it's better known than something like "heterosexism" or "sexualism" which may be more etymologically correct.

Killer Mike

The American Psychological Association has made an official statement essentially stating that peoples sexual orientation cannot be changed thru psychotherapy and that for most, sexual orientation appears early in life before one has had any sexual experience. Both the American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Association have removed homosexuality as being a psychopathology. In other words it is within the range of normal sexual behavior.
Regardless if our sexual orientation is a choice or not, this does not condone homophobia. However, most people who are gay would instinctively agree with the statement that they were born that way. We see homosexuality widespread in nature in everything from mice to primates. We also know from animal studies sexual orientation can be influenced by the level of testosterone exposed to an early developing fetus. These studies in mice conducted in the 1960's, showed at certain levels mice when born will be heterosexual, while at different levels will be born showing homosexual behavior.
We really dont know what causes homosexuality. We also really dont know what causes heterosexuality. People who are right handed can of course "choose" to use their left hand, but it is more natural and comfortable for them to use their right.
I see no problem with either being gay or straight. I do see a problem with being judgemental, and looking at people who are different then themselves, in a negative light. People have been supressing people for centuries. It is one of the main reasons our fourfathers who initially came to America from Europe settled here. Basically to escape religious persecution. Its a sad irony, that religious persecution persists here in America.
You cant have your cake and eat it too. Either we all have freedom, or none of us should. I vote freedom for all!

Jinksy

Oops. If I'd realised that I wouldn't have bothered saying it again

Actually, it was the second sentence I was talking about. Referring to 'the protected sphere' as though it has some sacred value prior to the question of morality. A friend of mine's trying to persuade me to read Hayek's book on libertarianism (liberalism to him), but if the argument's as disingenuous as that essay it's going to make me very annoyed.

I know. Natural rights ethics, basically.

Peter Watts

Oh, I'm so grateful I have you to show me how intolerant I'm being ...
Puh-leeze.
I'm a straight male.
I would find it uncomfortable being surrounded by naked men. How is that "fear"?
Would a homosexual female find it comfortable being surrounded by naked men?
Would a homosexual male find it comfortable being surrounded by naked women that he has to "squeeze by"?
Probably not.

Jinksy

No, but what does that prove? Heterosexual women are usually uncomfortable around random naked men, too; it's the threat.

None of the ones I've known have given a damn. In fact, they've usually had a certain kitsch fascination with female genitalia.

I'm not trying to imply anything, btw, beyond the fact that you can't directly compare both sexes' inclinations.

Peter Watts

You're not implying anything?
OK, I get it. You're just being stupid.

Columbus

As a gay guy who has been around the block a time or two(several times, actually) as well as member of "naturist" clubs I know a lot about comfort while surrounded by naked people.

Women have reason to fear men. Men are notorious for using sexual domination as a tool. Most men are straight, making women their preferred victims and making it unlikely that they will suffer from assault by another man. So yes, there is a good reason for women in general to be careful around men.
On the other hand, I like squeezing by naked women. Nothing sexual, I just like flesh. Young, old, black, white, yellow, red, brown, male, female, gay, straight, single , attached, it just doesn't matter. I'm an adult who is well in charge of his hormones. I don't want to bother anybody, and will go way out of my way to avoid trespassing on someone else's boundaries. I will make my own boundaries clear.
Assuming no-one is in danger of physical assault, why would you feel uncomfortable around naked people, men or women, except for irrational fear? For a straight guy, being uncomfortable around around other guys is especially irrational. Why would it mtter to you if they were wearing clothes or not?

Tom