Does Anti-Gay Always Equal Homophobic?

[devarsi]

On the one hand, I'm against many things over which I have no phobia.

For instance, I'm against tax breaks for the wealthy, religious descrimination, and censorship.

While considering these negative issues, I often find myself overcome with anger, but I never feel paranoid, or innordinately fearful.

On the other hand, I'm not gay, or anti-gay. Or pro-gay, I guess. I know some gay people, and I consider them to be pretty much the same as the straight folks I know. Different family stuctures, but that's about the extent of it.

What I mean here, is that perhaps I'm not sympathetic enough to understand why this term "Homophobic" is so losely used. It seems so pejorative. Perhaps some more enlightened souls here could help me figure it all out?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Well better yet since you pose the question

Cite me a reason for being "anti-gay" that isn't at it's core homophobic.

[devarsi]

3. Thats An Unfair Question

'cause I can't think of a good reason to be anti-gay

[Kenneth ken]

11. it seems to me

that her question is entirely fair; even better, cuts right to the core of your questioning.

If you can't think of a good reason to be anti-gay, perhaps it is because the onlyreason to be anti-gay is homophobia.

I believe that was her point, though I express it less succinctly.

[devarsi]

14. OK, I'll accept that! (nt)

[Blue_Chill]

22. All most all of them

It isn't fear it's hate.

[Robin Hood]

2. Is aying that Black people shouldn't have rights make you a racist?

You bet it does. Why would denying gay people the same rights that I enjoy be any different than that?

Though, I do agree with Howard Deans stance on this issue. Dean states that he does not believe that it's the governments place to tell religion what to do, the same goes in return. But does believe that the Government needs to sanction gay marriage. So if you want to get married, go to the courthouse, or find some alternative religion to do so.

[noiretextatique]

4. hatred is a more appropriate term than "phobia"

for the truly anti-gay. and since you aren't anti-gay...

[theHandpuppet]

20. It's a matter of semantics

There is no equivalent term to racist for those who are prejudiced against homosexuals. So the word homophobia is the term of choice, although the "phobia" (as in fear of") may not exactly be applicable in some cases. Prejudice and hatred in any form is, whether fear is involved or not, irrational at the very least.

Soooo.... if a person is prejudiced against gays they're homophobic. Period. For there is no legitimate excuse for being "anti-gay".

[devarsi]

21. Kick Myself

for the day crowd

[noiretextatique]

70. i prefer homohatred, myself

it's more descriptive...and accurate. although i do think there is an element of fear in any hatred, i think "phobia" is too fluffy :D

[devarsi]

5. Im Asking About Homophobia

specifically.

Maybe I just don't understand the term?

I think it means to have an unnatural or overpowering fear of homosexuals. Is that wrong, or too literal?

[nofurylike]

6. also

exaggerated and illogical.

good question, i think. i wish more people out there would just openly discuss their feelings like many here in DU do. it's refreshing.

i think there are also aspects of anti-gay/lesbianism that have as much to do with controlling others, regimentation, cultural supremacy, like is seen in the hatred of ethnicities, and so-called noncomformists like hippies, environmental activists, etc.

but that raging, sputtering, frenzied kind of condemnation? seems to me that's got to involve feeling personally threatened.

[devarsi]

15. Open discussion

should be the hallmark of a forum devoted to democracy, dont you agree?

Thanks for the response :-)

[nofurylike]

19. well put! n/t

[pbeal]

7. The American Heritage® Dictionary

1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

[alaine]

8. Then there's "internalized homophobia" which is

what alot of homophobia is about in the first place.

Homophobia can be a projection of ones own queerness, and self-hatred for being gay, onto others.

This is what gay-bashing is about, trying to stamp out in others what you fear in yourself.

I wouldn't say homophobia is a fear of homosexuals per se. I think homophobia is a fear of homosexuality.

I do think that for some people who were child victims of sexual abuse at the hands of someone of the same sex, the syndrome they can have is a fear of homosexuals because homosexuality is propagandized in our culture as being synonymous with pedophilia. But they are misinformed, and religious institutions have alot to do with the proliferation of this misinformation.

People who are "anti-gay" could be described as folks who have swallowed alot of religious b.s. that is not based in fact and are reacting to what they have been told. They are not afraid of gays, they just have been told that gays are evil and immoral. But there is a striking non-coincidental congruence between the most anti-gay and the most internally homophobic, i.e.: those who protesteth too much usually have their reasons that come out (pun intended) eventually. So the term homophobia is more accurate most of the time.

[devarsi]

10. Good Answers folks!

Thanks!

I'm getting clearer on this, I hope more people throw in their two cents.

[Cheswick2.0]

59. I think it is the fear of being homosexual

like it is catching and might rub of on you if you associate or accept that some people are homosexual.

[election_2004]

9. I don't really like the term "homophobic"...

I believe the term "homophobia" can be misleading. Homophobia implies a fear of homosexuals.

Discrimination against people of a certain sexual orientation isn't always necessarily based on *fear* per se...anti-gay bigotry can also be based on hostility or disgust (which can be very different from fear).

So it isn't always a question of simply *fear*.

[Mechatanketra]

12. I think I can take a crack at this.

First of all, I'd like to offer apologetic support in advance, in that I know you're going to get blitzed by people who think you're asking "Is opposing homosexuals always prejudice?" when what you really mean (I think) is "Why is the word used for homosexual prejudice a '-phobia' instead of an '-ism'?" It's a subtle point to get across, and I missed it the first time myself.

The thing is, there's a strong fear element to almost any prejudice. Anti-immigrant bias, for instance, is fueled by fears of invasion -- people wonder if we're being "taken over" slowly by encroachment instead of by direct military strike (which is why almost any war is accompanied by lash-outs against perceived 'foreigners' even when they have impeccably patriotic credentials). A great deal of racism against blacks manifests in a stereotype of criminal behavior, so racists dread the imagined possibility of a mugging around every corner. And so it goes.

I think 'homophobia' became the accepted term for anti-homosexual bigotry for two reasons: (1) "orientationism" is both awkward and unevocative (sounds like a merit badge), and (2) while prejudices like racism and sexism are typically patronizing (that is, built on the idea that these groups just happen to be naturally inferior in ability to the preferred group, and that any inequality they suffer is just a natural outcome of that inferiority), anti-homosexuality prejudice tends to be aggressively active -- in other words, the prejudiced hold that gays constitute a group Americans need to take special steps to hold down, that they're somehow dangerous or "out to get us", that they have an "agenda" to hurt us somehow.

Wikipedia has a very in-depth discussion of the word and various semantic disputes over its use, but to sum up, it's Received Wisdom on the left that anti-homosexual prejudice is rooted in anxiety and irrationality; by the same token, conservatives generally don't like the term, because they believe there are perfectly rational reasons to oppose homosexuality.

Frankly, I'd just point out that this is hardly the first time English has used the -phobia root to mean a general aversion rather than a literal fear. Rabies was called hydrophobia, for instance, not because it made one afraid of water, but because it made one unable to drink or swallow.

[devarsi]

13. This Is Exactly what I was looking for

so thanks, and thanks also for the "apologetic support" lol - you were right on with your take on what I was trying to say.

The part of your post I found particularly helpful was that sectionregarding "orientationism" merit badges, and the difference between patronizing and agressive prejudices.

Thanks again for the post!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. Just to be clear, I wasn't assailing your post

I really was asking if you could cite a reason that wasn't homophobic at it's root. When I am wondering about a situation such as your question that is where I start...with an inquiry.

[devarsi]

17. Thanks for clarifying! But I blame Myself...

I wasn't as clear as I could have been, and as Kennethken pointed out, your question made much more sense than I was able to see at first glance.

[gottaB]

18. great summation and wiki

I'd like to add a sociological or cultural dimension. When defined as an institutional or hegemonic form of oppression, homophobia's roots in the psychology of anxiety do not entirely explain its persistence and social force. To get at that you need to examine how basic values and beliefs about the person are generated and reinforced, the uses of scapegoating in the formation of politcal blocs, the ways in which people's basic assumptions about the world are ideologically manipulated against their true interests, their class interests or what have you. Etc.

[Breezy du Nord]

23. I saw a tv special on these jerks commit acts of violence against gays

And they kept referring to these people as "homophobes"

My friend has arachnophobia, so whenever she sees a spider she'll scream and run and have me kill it, but she'll never attack our actually hunt down other spiders and hurt them. So maybe the better term is just for these "homophobes" is just a**holes?

Of course, I think at some level, they are afraid of homosexuals. Some people are always afraid of whatever's different.

[tuck]

24. "heterosexist"

i believe you are searching for the term "heterosexist"

"homophobia" used to mean homophobia and heterosexism.

within the lgbtqqi community, "heterosexism" is taking it's place where before "homophobia" was used.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tuck]

26. gee, thanks, i feel so much better

"I think it goes against the natural order of things"

nice to know i'm on you list of "unnatural things to avoid"

you have a nice day too

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tuck]

36. i'm not asking

that you engage in homosexuality. i'm asking you not to pretend you are supportive, when you are obviously not.

btw, see nothingshockmeanymore's post below

edited for grammar

[hotphlash]

39. What is support to you???

I think we got our wires crossed.

You can support something and NOT have exactly the same beliefs.

I support gay marriage. I support adoption by gays. I detest the use of religion to condemn homosexuality. I believe that homosexuality exists in nature and in human nature.

None of this is pretend. What should people HAVE to believe to support gays?

[tuck]

44. it ain't this:

"I think it goes against the natural order of things."

see how someone of the queer persuasion might find that offensive?

and if it does go against the "natural order of things," how can it also "exist in nature and in human nature"?

[hotphlash]

46. OK....I apoligiize for offending.

When I say natural order of things, I mean procreation.

[tuck]

49. *slaps forehead and groans*

okay. forgiven.

do me a favor and figure out what you mean to say before you say it.

[devarsi]

65. Thanks for working this out!

I like to see DUers get along :-)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. Natural order of things? Tell the animals that

For other issues, click on the links to the left.


Aug-99


"JERUSALEM -- The London newspaper The
Independent reports that a pair of gay vultures at
the Jersualem Zoo have shown the world just how
talented and caring gay adoptive parents can be."


<snip>

Another one is chimpanzees. Bisexuality is the norm among male chimps (check out Jane Goodall's books). Effectively a male chimp forms a long-term partnership with another male (which includes sex at times). WHen the higher-ranking of the pair challenges for leadership of the troupe, the backing of sidekick is essential. If successful, they then become nos 1 and 2 respectively in the pecking order of the troupe for access to the females, as well as food etc. But their closest relationship is with each other.

http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/Science3.html

The Gay Side of Nature


Even as moralists and activists continue to debate homosexuality, many
species casually practice it

BY JEFFREY KLUGER

Giraffes do it, goats do it, birds and bonobos and dolphins do it. Humans
beings--a lot of them anyway--like to do it too, but of all the planet's
species, they're the only ones who are oppressed when they try.

What humans share with so many other animals, it now appears, is
freewheeling homosexuality. For centuries opponents of gay rights have
seen same-gender sex as a uniquely human phenomenon, one of the many ways
our famously corruptible species flouts the laws of nature. But nature's
morality, it seems, may be remarkably flexible, at least if the new book
Biological Exuberance (St. Martin's Press), by linguist and cognitive
scientist Bruce Bagemihl, is to be believed. According to Bagemihl, the
animal kingdom is a more sexually complex place than most people know--one
where couplings routinely take place not just between male-female pairs
but also between male-male and female-female ones. What's more, same-sex
partners don't meet merely for brief encounters, but may form long-term
bonds, sometimes mating for years or even for life.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/959610750.Zo.r.html

If your argument is going against nature then taking life saving medications and having radiation for cancer would seem to also. The natural order of things is that these diseases kill to thin out species.

[Terwilliger]

30. interesting homophobia

"I think it goes against the natural order of things" is homophobic

"I feel the best way to raise a family is with a Mommy and Daddy. ...I do not think the nuclear family is the ONLY way to raise children"

So which is it??

And, if it's two loving parents, what should it matter what their genders are?

[hotphlash]

34. It doesn't matter what the genders are in most respects.

But there are things that can be learned from a healthy mother, father relationship that can't be learned with an alternative family unit.

Not better, just different.

"homophobic"
You don't know me so you have no f-ing right to throw that moniker around.

[Terwilliger]

37. I'm sorry, you referred to homosexuality as unnatural

thats either homophobic or woefully ignorant

and THAT's your basis for saying they shouldnt be parents

I think that 2 male parents could teach a boy about the realities of human sexuality FAR better than a man and woman could. (Or two women)

OnEdit: two men OR two women...printed out for the grammatically homophobic

[hotphlash]

40. WTF???

What do you have agains Lesbians adopting? Are you Anti-Lesbian??????? The nerve.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hotphlash]

43. BTW...

point out where I said Gays SHOULDN'T BE PARENTS. Please do. Please.

[Terwilliger]

47. ok

I don't condone homosexuality.


Its not for me, and I think it goes against the natural order of things.


What else do you need? You dont condone it and it goes against the natural order of things....so OBVIOUSLY you are against gay parents.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terwilliger]

128. please

get a clue

You wont live long judging other people on the basis of your own ignorance.

[TrogL]

41. and that would be?

But there are things that can be learned from a healthy mother, father relationship that can't be learned with an alternative family unit.

Elucidate, please.

[hotphlash]

45. Where is there a SHOULDNT????

Where? I was raised by a single mom. I would have like to have a father around. I missed out on some things, but I learned others.

[Terwilliger]

48. Maybe you should condone a loving relationship between two people

instead of denying children a chance to have a better childhood

[hotphlash]

50. WHAT THE F DID I SAY?????

I said that a stable mother father family IN MY OPINION is the best way to raise a child. NOT THE ONLY WAY. I also said I don't think a nuclear family is the only way to raise a kid. I also stated that I believe gay people can adopt. I never said anything was wrong with that.

I feel you are projecting your rightful hatred of zealot pseudoreligious bigots on me.

[noiretextatique]

73. i understand what you're saying

but as someone who grew up with both parents, i can't tell you how often i prayed for divorce. i wanted my mom to be a single parent, so it all depends on your experience and your perspective. the grass is always greener...

[hotphlash]

76. this is my point...

I think a loving gay family beats out a hateful straight family any day.

I grew up with a single mom...then she married a guy who I hated and who hated me...I never said just because you have a nuclear family makes it a better family. I always injected "stable" into my posts. Stable.

[noiretextatique]

80. i saw that, my dear...my point: it doesn't exist for many

perhaps not for most. most of the families i know of are not stable, by any stretch of the imagination. mine wasn't...yours wasn't...most of the people i know did NOT have that either...and most were raised by a man and a woman. it seems that, at least from my experience, the "normal" families are so in the minority as to be non-existent. but then, again, that's from my perspective. peace...from a another survivor of a dysfunctional family :hi:

[hotphlash]

82. see...this is cool.

Again I apologize if I offended.

:dunce:

[noiretextatique]

85. i didn't take offense...i figured

your views had something to do with your life experience...and i understand. i used to dream of a "normal" family life too...then i got over it :D
i learned from my childhood experience that there were some family patterns i didn't want to repeat...one of the main reasons i never wanted children. sheesh...it took ME over 25 years to come to grips with my childhood...i didn't want any child to suffer while i worked (and not) on myself. something i truly wish more parents would think about, instead of unconsciously passing along their issues, and their families' issues to their children.
now that i am somewhat prepared to be a parent, i am to old to have kids of my own...but maybe someday, with the right partner, i would consider adopting. i figure two happy, loving, healthy moms is a lot better than no parents...or two unhappy, unhealthy ones of any gender.

and i think you would agree.

peace :D

[hotphlash]

96. of course I agree.

A couple of others did take offense and rather than go about things and LEARN from people, they insult and villify.

Thank you for your views and patience. I have learned something from this thread...in many respects.

[noiretextatique]

107. no problem, hotplash

as one who sometimes react without listening carefully or reading through the lines, i know how easily this can happen...and how remorseful i feel afterwards.
that we could have this exchange is a real blessing for me...so thank you.
and since i haven't seen you around before...welcome :hi:

[TrogL]

54. Exactly what did/do you expect to learn

that is gender specific?

[noiretextatique]

71. really? when you find a "healthy mother, father relationship"

please let me know. i haven't seen too many of them in my 44 years on the planet.

[greekspeak]

51. Try this hotphlash

"I don't condone racial integration. Its not for me and I think it goes against the natural order of things....but i DO NOT wish for blacks to be discriminated against." Wow! You change a couple of words around and looky there!

[hotphlash]

69. No...how are people reading into this this way...

I never, NEVER, NEVER stated that I was against gay anything. Marrige, Adoption, etc.

Some folks got so defensive, they mistook my statement to mean all these hateful things. You all read hate into my words. You all read fear into them.

No one has pointed anything out to me except my statement about being unnatural. I also pointed out that having a mother and father around is in MY estimation the best way to raise a child. Again, I will restate, it isn't the only way nor should it be.

If I display ignorance, since it wasn't followed up by the usual anti-gay invective and I have over 500+ posts on DU (which should mean something), then I should be taught the error of my way of thinking.

Did I get that opportunity? No. I was insulted, and labeled mean-spirited things. This wreaks of hypocrisy to me. People are putting words and belief in my posts that arent there and then change the frame to make me look like a bigot.

I apologized and I still get labeled things. I was raised in New York City, I have a degree in theatre, I have around the theatre all my life. I live in WEST FRIGGIN HOLLYWOOD! A old friend of mine was in Naked Boys Singing, and another published a gay magazine. I spent last summer with a lesbian couple (my best friend's aunts). I've worked at Disney during and am a staunch supporter of Gay Days. I believe what I believe rightly or wrongly. Whats wrong can and should be changed, whats right is whats right. One can not win acceptance if one refuses acceptance.

[hotphlash]

72. I think it sucks to remove posts when real dicussion is going on.

I made a statement that many people agree with and many people disagree with. How can people change minds or have their minds changed if we get so PC with our threads?

[Touchdown]

75. Your talking about homosexuality.

There is nothing to agree with or disagree with. We exist. Gay people exist. That's baiscally it in a nutshell. You can't be walking in the woods, come across a rock, and say..."I don't agree that that is a rock." It is a rock, no matter how much you deny it.

You have opinions, we have life experience. You have the against nature thing (ie. folklore) and we have biological evidence.

If you disagree, then your just plain wrong, and there's really nothing left that we can help you with.

[hotphlash]

81. Again with this...

Now I don't believe gay people exist???????? What posts are you reading?

I even explained my against nature thing MANY MANY times.

"If you disagree, then your just plain wrong, and there's really nothing left that we can help you with."
Are you serious? I doubt a truly enlightened person would say something like that. I'd expect a freeper to come out with bs like this.

My ignorances are based on what I was raised with. I spoke out because I wanted to test my beliefs to what other people thought. I spoke out honestly and I get lots of invective.

[Touchdown]

132. The post that was deleted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was you who said that homosexuality was "unnatural" or some other adjective, did you not? By that, you are basically saying that we are an abberation to nature's design, and have a dubious or human manufactured place in the universe.

" Are you serious? I doubt a truly enlightened person would say something like that. I'd expect a freeper to come out with bs like this."

Let me ask you something. How often do you ponder this subject? How many books have you read about the subject of homosexuality? How often do you tune into Oprah, Sally-Jessie, etc, watch documentaries, read psychological studies, biological/zoological research to get more informed into this subject matter that you are so audacious about that you deem yourself an authority on the subject?

"I spoke out because I wanted to test my beliefs to what other people thought. I
spoke out honestly and I get lots of invective. "

It's been my experience, that when someone makes a broad, sweeping judgement call as to whether or not we belong in "the grand scheme of things" that most have read, or studied VERY LITTLE of this particular subject matter, yet are flabberghasted and have the nerve to be insulted when people who are actually gay don't take them seriously. Can you now see why? In short, I don't think you have enough information to be making any statements when it concerns the natures of a group of people to which you do not belong, and haven't bothered to put forth any effort to understand us better.

I have lived for 38 years on this planet as a gay man. I have sought out every study, TV show, documentary, book, and scientific expert that I can get my hands on to understand who I am. I live every hour of every day as a gay man. Do you have the same amount of information to make such value judgments on people like me, who have nothing to do with you, and have no control over your happiness?

I am attacking what you think... You are making value judgements on WHO I AM. There's a big difference there Pal.

[LibertarianLurker]

123. Wow!

"There is nothing to agree with or disagree with. We exist."

I'm sorry who's saying you don't exist?

"Gay people exist. That's baiscally it in a nutshell. You can't be walking in the woods, come across a rock, and say..."I don't agree that that is a rock." It is a rock, no matter how much you deny it."

This is convoluted garbage to shut down anyone who doesn't think like you. Someone can disagree with the healthfulness (physically, spiritually, psychologically...) of homosexuality without denying your existance.

Of course you exist, but that's not the issue.

"You have opinions, we have life experience. You have the against nature thing (ie. folklore) and we have biological evidence."

Beleif and beleif...yes, you're beleif is the holy word of god while anyone who thinks different:

"If you disagree, then your just plain wrong, and there's really nothing left that we can help you with."

LOL...OMFG, talk about bigotry... Everyone must think like you, eh?

[TrogL]

124. The issue is homophobia

Someone can disagree with the healthfulness (physically, spiritually, psychologically...) of homosexuality without denying your existance.


Our being is imbued with homosexuality (or bisexuality). It is part of our humanity. Despite what the fundies and ex-gays say, it is immutible.

If you feel that homosexuality is disordered, then you feel that I am disordered.

[LibertarianLurker]

126. That's a beleif, not an absolute

"Our being is imbued with homosexuality (or bisexuality). It is part of our humanity."

Sexuality is a part of the ego, the self. Our essential being is consciousness, which transcends this. We are spiritual beings before we are sexual beings.

I beleive that homosexuality is a fetish like any other, with underlying psychological reasons - both genetic and environmental.

I like to be sexually dominated by women...it's a fetish I have. But my being is not imbude with it...it's psychological. I'm sure there is an underlying psychological reason for it and it's no doubt not completely healthy psychologically (though it sure can be fun...)

I'm sure I could be changed...though I'm not sure I'd want to... ;)


"If you feel that homosexuality is disordered, then you feel that I am disordered."

No more disordered then I (or most others). :)

I neither judge nor condemn nor fear nor am disgusted or anything else like that. I just don't buy into the more extreme views on it or the condemnation of those whose views differ.

[Touchdown]

133. See my post #132.

"I'm sorry who's saying you don't exist?"

By pronouncing that we are "unnatural", which means that we have no biological basis for existence, and have no claim to any facet of the natural order of things.

"This is convoluted garbage to shut down anyone who doesn't think like you. Someone can disagree with the healthfulness
(physically, spiritually, psychologically...) of homosexuality without denying your existance."

They certainly can, but when they say "unnatural" it becomes a whole other argument. What you are talking about is values, not a matter of nature. As far as trying to shut down anyone who disagrees with the validity of homosexuality, and thinks that they are entitled to be taken as an authority on the subject, well I find that kind of audacity to be incredulous at best. Nobody is stopping anyone from making value judgements on gay people, but when you delve into the realm of science, and human nature, you better be armed with years of research to back you up.

"Beleif and beleif...yes, you're beleif is the holy word of god while anyone who thinks different:"

I before E, except after C. If you can show that you have extensive knowledge on the subjects of human nature, the natural order of things, and homosexuality, enough to trump what I know about it, then you are more than welcome provide me with some of your years of research and extensive insight. Otherwise, DO NOT expect any of us to take your arguments that you learned from the locker room or the diner counter seriously. When you start to make sweeping pronouncements on the validity of who people are without credibility, then you shouldn't get offended when others shoot down what you think.

[Touchdown]

28. If I can take a stab at it.

and to expand on Mechatonkatruck's excellent post, fear is implicit in anything that has to do with opposition.

Such as your examples...Why are you against tax breaks for the wealthy? Is it because you fear that with less money that they pay, the middle class and poor will have to shoulder more of the burden? I agree with that, and fear it becoming permanent. Why are you against religious discrimination and censorship? Is it because you have seen that throughout history that religious oppression caused most of the atrocities, wars, and famines? That the suppression of information (be it propaganda or overt denial of information) causes the populace to be uninformed, and easily led into any dubious or even deadly endeavors throughout history as well. Simply put, you are afraid of their return, because history has shown what happens when the zealots take over.

Same thing with homophobia...against gay codification of their relationships (I don't care if it's called marriage or not)...they don't want gays to be be further accepted as equals in society. They like the comfort zones they built that gays are promiscuous, animal-like creatures that are rabid sex addicts, hate families, destroy nations (Rome), and recruit young boys (strange it's never girls) into their filthy lifestyle. To change any of that public perception, and show these wives tales for the fantasy that they are scares them.

Gays in the military? They're afraid that some dude is going to look at their son's weenie in the shower, and that even though he's supposed to be a brave fighting man, defending our country, and automatically a hero, he still needs the government to protect him from some other soldier checking his package out.

The list goes on...AIDS research? If there's a cure found, then they will be found out to be charlatains, since it really wasn't "God's judgement" against gays, just another nasty disease technology wiped out, and they can't be wrong, because God is on their side...right? So if God really isn't on their side, but on EVERYBODYS, then that scares them the most, since they don't know who they're better than anymore.

There's definitely a reason why "phobia" belongs in that word.

[devarsi]

29. Phobia vs. Fear

I understand your point, and I agree, to an extent.

I'm not phobic about any of the issues I used as examples. Yeah, there's some fear involved, just as there is some fear involved when I consider putting my hand into a fire, but I don't suffer from arsonphobia, which is the unnatural fear of fire.

I also like Mechatonkatruck's answer, buyt I still have a question. Unless the term phobia has been misapplied, why should the term homophobia be used, except in cases where thje subject shows "A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous."

[Touchdown]

60. Let's break down the definition...

A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or
situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous."

I would say that thinking gay people recruit, or have a cabal like the Elders of Satin is pretty "irrational." Thinking that we chose to be this way, is certainly "abnormal".

How is the best way to avoid something you fear? Get someone else (government) to make it go away(criminalize it), or destroy it(ex-gay ministries).

Reassurance and awareness? How many psycologists, doctors, scientists, biologists, daytime talk show hosts, news reports, exposure to real gay people have we had in the last 35-40 years since The Mattachine Society took those daring first steps in the early 60s? And they still think that we prey on young boys (remember blaming pedophile priests on gay priests?) and that we are responsible for the breakdown of the family unit, not to mention the cause of Rome's collapse.

I'd say it fits, but I'm of only one opinion.:-)

[TheBigGuy]

31. it means the same thing as "racist" or "racially prejudiced".

....except it relates to sexual orientation.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. Words mean different things to different people.

Words mean different things to different people. That sounds so obvious that it actually looks a little silly in print. But it's still true.

For instance, look at the dictionary definition posted by pbeal:


1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.


So when a Freeper uses the term homophobia he is giving most weight to the 'contempt' part of the definition. When a gay person uses the term, they are stressing the 'fear' part. When you come right down to it, they are both using the same word, but that word means two very different things, depending on whose mouth it comes out of.

[The_Golden_Child]

35. As a orthodox Catholic...

I believe homosexuals, like single heterosexuals, are called to a life of celibate chastity. This does not mean I'm afraid of homosexuals. "Homophobe" is usually just name-calling to discredit someone with a different point of view.

[devarsi]

38. I agree that it sound pejorative

Though not as insulting as some of the things straights say about gays... :-)

[greekspeak]

53. Love your double standard

Thank you for discrediting gay relationships. Apparently in your beleif system, simply by virtue of being born gay, a person has no more rights to sex than a heterosexual who just chooses to abstain. i think in the case of that statement, we are talking about definition number two: contempt for gay people. So if you look upon gays-specifically their sexual relationship ships-with such contempt, you are homophobic.

[The_Golden_Child]

58. No double standard...

There are many single heterosexuals who are not so by choice. One of them is me. Over 80% of my body is covered with burn scars, including my entire face. After at least 20 operations and skin graphs, I still look monstrous. I would like to get married some day but, barring the greatest love story ever, I know that is unlikely to happen. Therefore, I must live a celibate life.

[greekspeak]

62. I feel for what you have been through

However, what does your experience have to do with your beleif that gay people should not have sexual relationships?

[The_Golden_Child]

63. Sorry, I misunderstood you first post...

I was just stating what I believed as an orthodox Catholic. I posted to someone else what the teachings of the Catholic Church were concerning sexual acts.

Obviously, not everyone agrees with the Catholic Church. One day, I suppose, we will all find out whether or not she was right-- about this and everything else...

[TrogL]

55. and this is based upon what? the bible?

The concept of "homosexuality" wasn't invented until within the last hundred of years.

http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/bibquote.html

[The_Golden_Child]

61. No, this is based on the teaching of the Catholic Church...

Among scripture scholars, there is some disagreement concerning the verses that condemn homosexual acts-- but that would be a entirely different discusson since I never mentioned the Bible.

The Catholic Church teaches that any sexual act outside of the monogamous life-long marriange of one man and one woman-- whether that act be homosexual, fornicative, adulterous, autoerotic, or anything else-- is objectively disordered and a grave mortal sin.

I am an orthodox Catholic and I accept this teaching.

[tuck]

64. gut instinct sez:

not gonna argue w/you on this one.

i am sincerely glad that you have strongly held beliefs. too many people don't.

[TrogL]

66. The Catholic church also taught

that the Sun revolved around the earth.

It doesn't.

It's about time the Catholic church caught on that homosexuality is not "objectively disordered".

Just for clarification, are you orthodox Roman Catholic or Orthodox?

[The_Golden_Child]

67. Actually, it never taught that...

There were many Catholics, and many people in general, who once believed in a geocentric universe, but that was never a defined, official teaching of the Catholic Church, either by a Church Council or by a Papal ex cathedra statement.

Clarification: I am an orthodox Roman Catholic.

[Terwilliger]

78. Ptolemy was accepted by the church, and Galileo was considered a heretic

so, the fact that the church didnt actually WRITE the theory is irrelevant...they acted on it even though Galileo could clearly see moons circling Jupiter.

[Terwilliger]

68. Catholics threw Galileo in the pen because he violated church doctrine

and they couldnt even admit they were wrong until 10 years ago...fuck the god-pods

[devarsi]

77. What is a God-Pod

and why do you want to fuck them?

Seriously, this person said somehing about their own beliefs that wasn't at all rude. Though you may disagree, the post wasn't stating a supposed fact, it was representing a fairly harmless belief.

Do you have to resort to "fuck yous" to get a debate point across?

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[devarsi]

83. Fine, but take it elsewhere

It seems you have some prejudices of your own. I haven't said anything to anyone about their beliefs, hoping to let free speech rule, but you screwed that up. Thanks.

[Terwilliger]

87. I'm not free to say something?

Have you determined that any rejection of homosexuals and their way of living is homophobia yet?

[hotphlash]

89. you're not free to be nasty. At least on DU.

.

[Terwilliger]

94. Is there a nasty clause in the DU rules?

I share the common goals of all liberals to get rid of hatred and prejudice. Pardon me while I'm pissed off at your ignorance.

[hotphlash]

98. Yes there is...telling someone FU can get your posts deleted.

.

[Terwilliger]

129. not "can"..."does"

but that doesn't change the sentiment, nor the reasoning behind it

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

102. Really? So because gays aren't allowed to be married . . .

. . . they can't have sexual relationships?

That just seems sad.

[Booberdawg]

106. Agreed

Under that notion, gays can't have sex because they are not married, but they aren't given the choice to marry. It's not realistic or even fair to suggest any person should deny themselves a normal and natural part of life.

[BlueState]

52. Overused, pejorative or not - it does exist

One need only look at the violence with which gays or too often treated. It cannot be argued that perpatrators are expressing a reasoned or rational view based on religious conviction. They are lashing out in a most unreasonable way.

Often times I have heard people voice the opinion that any tolerance of gay people will result in the collapse of western civilization. Personally I think this qualifies as an unreasonable and unfounded fear.

Do people used it too loosely, maybe, not all people who are anti-gay are phobic many are just plain old fashioned bigots.

[Booberdawg]

86. Old-fashioned bigots

"Do people used it too loosely, maybe, not all people who are anti-gay are phobic many are just plain old fashioned bigots."

Wouldn't you agree that homophobia is at the core of the bigotry?

[TrogL]

105. Last time Western Civilization collapsed

it was the fundies doing the collapsing - it's called the Dark Ages. Now they're gearing up for round two.

[Booberdawg]

108. No kidding

I'm counting on help from gays to save civilization from the fundies!:o

[davidinalameda]

57. If one is not for me, one is against me

Gay people and straight people are not equal in the eyes of the law.

I can't understand why anyone would be against gays having all the same rights as straight people unless they were homophobic.

My 2 cents

[Feanorcurufinwe]

74. "If one is not for me, one is against me"

"If one is not for me, one is against me"

That's an understandable sentiment. However, in practice, it oversimplifies the world, and makes you feel opposed by many people who in fact, have no opinion about you at all.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

91. Ambivalence is almost worse than hatred in my book

At least hatred is an emotion that is volatile and therefore movable.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

109. Ambivalence is not the same as indifference

Ambivalence is not the same as indifference. Someone who watched someone being beaten for being gay without compassion would be comtemptible. But everyone's life is different. We can't expect everybody to be passionate or even aware of the same things we are. Seperating everyone into either 'with me or against me' does nothing but bring another division into a world that needs uniting more than dividing.

[hotphlash]

84. You sound just like Dubya.

of course NO ONE. N O O N E has said they don't want gays to have the same rights as everyone else.

Take the chip off the shoulder...

[Booberdawg]

88. Chill dude!

He wasn't addressing you.

[Terwilliger]

90. "Women have inferior minds! But I won't keep them from voting"

do you see a problem with that?

[hotphlash]

92. sometimes thats the best you can hope for with some people.

Smacking them over the head and telling them f&*^ you isn't going to win any arguments or change people's minds.

[Booberdawg]

93. What are you talking about?

Your previous response appeared to be an arbitrary personal swipe at someone who wasn't even addressing you.

Are you trying to pick a fight?

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Booberdawg]

97. That answers my question

You ARE trying to pick a fight

[hotphlash]

99. little ole me?

look, I've been haranged and labeled a racist, bigot, homophobe and such, when I stated a belief I was raised with and is still in my conscience.

If anyone had read my posts and contant defense of myself, they would see what I actually believe. The anger is coming out of everyone BUT me.

[Booberdawg]

101. *sigh*

If you wrote the post that was deleted, then yes you.

[hotphlash]

103. ok...cool. I've been defending myself quite a bit and I'm getting jumpy.

:scared:

[Booberdawg]

104. Now I don't remember who wrote the post

that was deleted. I edited my previous message.

But if things are cool now, great.

[Booberdawg]

100. "not equal in the eyes of the law"

I agree. There is no rational basis for suggesting gays to not have the same basic rights as straights. Human rights or legal rights

[willyjixx]

110. something i dont understand?

if (pardon my ignorance) GLBTG groups want to be equal. then why do they need/want schools, churches, community centers etc etc just for them? self segregation breeds contempt and fear which feeds the antis and homophobes.

[hotphlash]

111. word of advice...DUCK

:scared:

[TrogL]

112. First I've heard of this

Churches? Community Centres?

Given the hostile environment in typical (especially fundie) schools, this is understandable. The same with Scout groups and AA groups.

When it becomes safe, they are no longer necessary.

[hotphlash]

114. There are gay proms, in NYC soon a gay school.

I think separating ones self is self defeating. That's what the fundies WANT.

[TrogL]

119. No, the fundies want us dead

or wavin' our hands for Jaysus

[Booberdawg]

113. Well, if you're asking me ..

I don't see it as an issue of segregation or special treatment. I see it as giving them an even playing field. These kids are often treated disgracefully by their peers, and even threatened and physically harmed. Every child has the right to an education in a safe and productive environment.

Alternative centers have been around forever. My brother attended one as a teen for behavior and truancy, and he just simply didn't fit in with the others. He was treated to a "swishy" one day where some boys picked him up and stuffed him head first into a toilet.

It isn't the job of a teenager to have to constantly worry about their safety. To suggest they should just learn to deal with a hostile environment is barbaric in my estimation. Prison inmates receive better treatment. The purpose of going to school is to learn.

"then why do they need/want schools, churches, community centers etc etc just for them?"

Why the hell not? It happens all the time with other groups of people. Why do us Democrats need our own community here at DU? Why do ethnic groups form their own activities and community centers based upon their ethnicity? Why the chess club? Why 4H? Why sports clubs? Why men's and women's organizations? If gays exercising the same right to assemble as straights have causes fear and contempt in others, then the problems lies with them. What you are suggesting is that gays have fewer rights.

[willyjixx]

115. the proper term is "Swirly"

It isn't the job of a teenager to have to constantly worry about their safety

however one must be aware of the dangers of the world and others.

i agree with that! but at the same time people must learn to understand diversity. people must learn to understand humanity. an for those who wish to refuse to except one for racial, religious, sexual, ethnic, cultural differences then they should be removed from society. what i may have come across as criticizing the group is wrong. i am criticizing the society that would force a group to self segregate. in my ideal school everyone is welcome. young people must learn to except all of humanity for what it is an to seperate something from it will breed fear and contempt towards those who recieve better or worse treatment then they do. i think it is wrong for any body to have to seek protection among there masses for fear of retribution. and that society should take a hard look at what is teaching to allow that to happen

equal is uqual across the board. you are no better than me. i am no better than you. we all work for a collective goal. a productive an safe community an for each of us to pursue our own liberties an happiness.

[tuck]

116. so fucked up....

high school kids are not your own personal science experiment. they are not barometers for society. they are kids who need a safe place to learn.

if you are gay, then talk all you want about wether exclusive gay space is good or bad. if not, it's none of your business. when you can tell me you have been verbally/emotionally/physically abused for being gay -- or just because someone thought you were gay -- then you can decry gay-space all you want

until then -- and i hope this starts to sink in eventually --

shut

the

fuck

up

[willyjixx]

120. wow.........i never once assumed high school kids as a science experiment

so according to your statement.....if im not gay i cant talk about gays.

if this is the extent of your level of reasoning them im in the wrong place. i was referred here because people welcomed new ideals an others opinions. i see i was wrong. i will follow your statement an start to breed my own hatred an contempt. ill vote repub now thank you

[tuck]

121. don't even try to understand....

"so according to your statement.....if im not gay i cant talk about gays"

what you cannot assume is that just because you have this grand idea about how things should be that that is the way things are.

if you will read what i said, it was that you don't have authority over gay-only space -- your opinions as to its effectiveness and value are irrelevant.

people on DU open to new ideas? generally. are you? can you take a moment to consider the possibility that i have more experience in the arena of homophobia and heterosexism than you do?

i've had this conversation a thousand times with a hundred different people. i have hindsight and perspective on my side. you have theory.

you can talk about gay issues all you want, but if you want to learn anything, you will shut up and listen.

[Booberdawg]

118. OK

"Swirly":) Whatever the name, it's humiliating and terrifying. How can you get an education in an environment like that? (rhetorical question) I'd be completely paranoid??

"It isn't the job of a teenager to have to constantly worry about their safety however one must be aware of the dangers of the world and others."

Why "however"? Do you mean awareness that everybody learns? Or that gays are somehow obligated to "take their medicine" in an enviroment that's hostile to them? Maybe I misunderstood you.

Like you said, in an "ideal" school everybody is welcome. It doesn't work out that way in real life. These attitudes start at home and other times it's grounded in religion.

"young people must learn to except all of humanity for what it is an to seperate something from it will breed fear and contempt towards those who recieve better or worse treatment then they do"

Not sure what you mean by this. It sounds like you mean gays are getting better treatment or "special treatment" by allowing them an alternative to a hostile environment. I think the point of an alternative environment is to put them on an even playing ground and allow them an EQUAL opportunity for the education and productive environment any other student is entitled to.

I don't mean to pick on you.:) I understand that you are essentially agreeing that gays are equal and entitled to equal treatment

[willyjixx]

122. hey booberdawg

its okay i understand you are not picking on me we are having a dialogue. i visit this sight to read the opinions of others, that doesnt mean i have to or every body will agree with me

" I understand that you are essentially agreeing that gays are equal and entitled to equal treatment"

yes exactly what i want. an instead of having these people leave i would rather have the ......"Bad" folks the disrupted ones leave.

no one should have to take there medicine if all they are doing is living a decent life.

the only ones who need to take there medicine are the ones who forcibly and violently push there ideas on others

[Booberdawg]

131. It doesn't work that way in the "real" world

"yes exactly what i want. an instead of having these people leave i would rather have the ......"Bad" folks the disrupted ones leave."

Okay. I think it's naive to think that will ever happen or be enforced, but until that happens, gays are entitled to an alternative environment. It isn't their obligation to put up with abuse in the meantime. They're entitled to an EQUAL opportunity to get an education in a safe and productive environment NOW.

[Cheswick2.0]

125. where do you see evidence of that

One school to protect some kids who at risk everyday from abuse...who are more likly to commit suicide because of the bullshit they have to live with day in and day out from people like you?

New flash, you are perfectly welcome at MCC churches, as for the rest of it...community centers? Where?

My how clever of you to ask such a narrow minded question. Bet cha really think you stumped the liberals, doncha jim bob?

[noiretextatique]

130. you should mention this to matthew shepard

who was beaten to death...that's how welcoming some folks are. i LOVE IT when people have the audacity to say this, as if...as if whites don't self-segregate, for example. what's with all the "gated communities" in various outlying locations in every city in the USA? and, of course, straight people self-segregate all the time...it's "normal." people self-segregate, often, because they aren't welcome among the antis and homophobes.

[iangb]

127. What is 'Anti Gay'.....

.....if it isn't homophobia.

I'm trying to envisage a situation which calls for discriminating against people because they're gay, and isn't homophobic.

You know?

Gay people shouldnt.......because they are........, and are likely to............because that's what all gay people do. Isn't it?