Difference between revisions of "Talk:Homophobia"

Latest revision as of 17:20, April 18, 2020

Archive(s): 01 02

Anti-homosexual violence

While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI only reports offender statistics by race; thus it is not possible to measure how much gay-on-gay or gay domestic union violence occurs versus homosexual victims of heterosexual offenders.

The FBI hate crime statistics ONLY report offenses based on bias. Domestic violence and other crimes where bias was not an element are not included in these statistics. (See the various pages of the web site cited in the article.) I'm not sure if the sentence above is trying to subtract crimes against homosexuals that did not involve bias from the 1171 number (which would not make sense, as all of the 1171 involved bias, otherwise they would not have been reported as hate crimes), or if it was an attempt to gauge how much of violence against homosexuals involves bias by comparing crimes that involve bias to crimes that don't. Or perhaps it's something else? I really don't understand what this section is trying to say. RobS, could you clarify your thinking?

Neither do the statistics include senior citizens, homeless, military personnel, or battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnant -- all known victim classes of hate crime attacks.

RobS, I agree that the FBI doesn't include in their hate crime statistics crimes that include bias against senior citizens, or bias against the homeless, or bias against military personnel, or bias against pregnant women. They only include crimes that include bias based on race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, disability, and sexual orientation. I'm not sure, though, why this is relevant? And wouldn't it be clearer to simply list the categories that *are* included, rather than those which aren't? Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see why crimes that include bias against senior citizens, for example, are relevant?

Violent crimes are defined as murder...<snip>...and other. For the general population, the FBI reports a violent crime rate of 20 victims per 1000 US persons ^[1] or 1 in 50 of the overall population. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since. ^[2] Over the same time period there were over 32,000 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters reported in the general population. ^[3]

RobS, I *think* what you are trying to say in this paragraph is that there aren't many hate crimes against homosexuals - do I have this right? If so, I think you may be mixing apples and oranges here. The hate crime statistics do not include *all* violent crimes against homosexuals - just those that include bias. So if a homosexual man gets murdered by his lover because he was unfaithful, for example, it's not a hate crime, and thus will not be listed as an "anti-homosexual murder" in the hate crime statistics, but it *would* be considered a violent crime in the violent crime rate statistics. Do you see what I mean? --Hsmom 22:40, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Hsmom, I could kiss you, I really could. Hell, here you go: mwah! RobS, however, is firmly in denial on this one. --Robledo 22:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

I have followed her intelligent comments on homeschooling, and I am with you there. Well, at least, here: hsmom for sysop! Human 22:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Aw shucks, thanks guys - and right before Mother's Day too.--Hsmom 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

The statistical flaw in the way the FBI compiles statistics, mandated by law, is it creates and defines a "victim class"; then it only defines "offenders" by race. A classic example of "mixing apples and oranges", as defined by law. RobS 16:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

RobS, since you haven't answered my concerns here, I've made some changes to the article. I'm sure you'll have some changes to what I wrote too - please try to add to it or adjust it rather than just reverting to the previous version. Let's work together to find a version that is clear and well-cited and focuses on the topic at hand (homophobia).

I still do not understand what you think statistics on offender class would do. I would like to understand your point of view here. I'm guessing that most of the crimes that include racial bias would be done by someone of one race to someone of another, most of the crimes that include sexual-orientation bias would be done by someone of one orientation to someone of another, etc. Do you have a different understanding of these crimes? Can you give a hypothetical example? I am trying to understand your point of view.--Hsmom 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

RobS, I do not understand why you made changes to the article without explaining your thinking here. The idea of the talk page is so that different editors can explain more fully their points of view, concerns, etc., so that other people editing the article can understand why certain edits have been made. I would really like a fuller understanding of your concerns about the hate crime statistics, mainly because I do not think I have the same understanding as you about about which kinds of crimes are included. I would very much like to understand your point of view about the limitations of the statistics. Let me flesh out my current concerns about the article:

In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias. ^[4] I'm OK with this sentence. (We could cite the number of incidences, or the number of victims, but offenses is fine with me.) However, I think it's useful to get a sense of how many of the total hate crimes are based on sexual-orientation bias. If you prefer not to have further information in the article itself, I think a footnote could clarify important points (such as the fact that a few of these 1,171 offenses were actually anti-heterosexual.) Thus I would add this reference ^[5]

While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, ... Just a grammar detail here - I think it's important to be clear that race, religion, sexual orientation and disability ARE the victim classes / bias motivations, so I'd change it to While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability)...

...the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders. I'm still not sure I understand your point here. The FBI also does not report the sexual orientation of victims. Some but not all of the crimes motivated by sexual-orientation bias were anti-homosexual; a few were actually anti-heterosexual. In addition, someone who is attacked because the attacker thinks they're gay may not in fact be gay. However, the point of this whole section is to show that there are some people out there who take their views against homosexuality to the extreme of committing crimes, and to get a sense of how widespread this problem is. The stats aren't a perfect fit for this purpose, so I think you're sensible to express some caveats about them. I had expanded the caveats, but I would be fine with putting my expansion in the footnotes. Thus I would add this footnote. ^[6]

Thus a conclusion that all offenders are heterosexual is faulty, and the methodology does not measure gay-on-gay violence. I agree with this statement. However, I would add to it a little bit to say Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias. I think some people mistakenly believe that any crime against a homosexual counts as a hate crime, and thus these statistics include ALL crimes against homosexuals, which is not the case. There's a lot of misunderstanding about hate crimes, so I'd like to make it clear that incidences of violence against homosexuals that cannot be linked to bias based on sexual orientation (which would include most gay-on-gay violence) are not included in these statistics. (These stats also include non-violent crime - I'm not sure if we should go into that here or not.)

In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since. ^[7] First, let's be clear that this does NOT mean that only one homosexual person was murdered in 2004. It means that there was one murder which was motivated in whole or in part by bias against homosexuals. (It does not even mean that the victim was actually homosexual.) So we need to say anti-homosexual hate crime murder. I think it's important to give the reader a context for this number - the fact is that relatively few hate crimes in general are murders. By giving this number in the context of the total number of hate crime murders, the reader an get a better understanding of the situation. (For example, if there had been 300 total hate crime murders with only one being anti-homosexual, that would be quite a different situation.) In addition, ...and the FBI has reported none since is a bit misleading, because there is only one more year of statistics available, those for 2005. Still, we don't need to clutter up the article too much, so details can be given in the footnotes. I think we should say something like In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005. ^[8]

So the whole thing would read:

In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias. ^[9][10] While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability), the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders. ^[11] Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias. In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005. ^[12]

RobS, I hope that you will explain your concerns here, so that we can work together to improve this article, incorporating both of our concerns to make the best article possible.--Hsmom 11:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Very simple: my edit points out (a) flawed methodolgy of FBI stats; (b) flawed popular misconceptions based upon flawed methodology; (c) flawed methodology is mandated by law.

Recycling explanations of deliberate flawed statistics in hypertext does nothing, except serve the agenda of those promoting perversions in law to advance a biased agenda. Please look up in the left hand corner of your screen. You will see this Conservapedia. Our mission is not to advance disinformation and subversion of our political process by alleging FBI statistics are credible to promote the obvious flawed conclusion, that anti-homoexual violence is perpetrated by hetrosexual offenders. Our mission is quite the contrary. RobS 11:19, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

You are either completely missing her point or steadfastly ignoring it. FBI statistics report based on bias. Thus, anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual. A gay on gay attack does not have a bias of this type and is thus not included. You are trying to argue that the FBI counts every crime against a gay individual as an anti-homosexual crime... if this were true, then your point on need statistics on the perpetrators would be valid, but this is not how the statistics are reported, thus your point (not the statistics) is flawed. Your stubborn denial of this is nothing more than an attempt to push your point of view into statistics which are neutral. QNA 11:48, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

• anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual.

Wrong. Flawed. A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals, and is not accounted for in FBI statistics, mandated by law. And your premise underlies precisely why we cannot accept any further explanation regarding the FBI's flawed methodolgy, because it used to perpetrated a flawed popular misconception, that heterosexuals are solely responsible for anti-gay violence, which we have now clearly demonstrated, FBI statistics do not measure or account for. RobS 11:58, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals. If this is true, then of course I would agree that the statistics are seriously flawed. From reading the report's methodology, it does not seem that the FBI intends for this kind of crime to be reported as a hate crime. The report explains "The FBI collects data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability and are committed against persons, property, or society. Because motivation is subjective, it is difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender’s bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime. If law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, then the incident should be reported as a hate crime."^[13] How do you think this happens? Is the problem with police departments wrongly reporting normal crimes as hate crimes? Can you provide some kind of reference that speaks to this? Do you also believe that this is true for disabled people, blacks, etc. and that the hate crimes statistics for them are flawed?--Hsmom 12:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

<--The determination is based upon the discretion of the local investigating officer. He is not mandated to discern the sexual orientation of the offender, only the offenders race. Therein lies the statistical flaw.

And secondly, in what state, or in what federal law, are law enforcement agencies mandated to keep statistics of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships? If we are to contemplate things such as so-called "gay marriage", then what may be appropriate is to investigate the level of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships. And I believe, it may be credibly proven, homosexual relationships suffer from a distinctly higher proportion of violence than heterosexual relationships -- and the law may as of now, not take any consideration of this in compiling statistics for us to make a judgmental value.

Thirdly, "it does not seem that the FBI intends for this kind of crime to be reported". It makes no difference what the FBI's "intent" is, the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting. Therein lies the problem, this legal mandate dictates a statistical and biased error in reporting, which likely is intended to lead the public to a faulty conclusion, i.e. that anti-homosexual violence is solely the responsibility of heterosexuals. Given what I've stated above, if heterosexuals are to be responsible to insure against anti-homosexual violence, and if a disproportionate degree of reported "hate crimes" are perpetrated by homosexual offenders upon homosexuals, then the heterosexual community deserves accurate reporting on such, before heterosexuals are asked to pass judgment upon recognizing the legal validity of domestic, homosexual partnerships. RobS 12:34, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

RobS, when you say the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting it seems like you believe that the law requires all crimes against homosexuals to be reported as anti-homosexual hate crimes. Do I have this right? This is not my understanding of the law, and I think all our differences hinge on this one point. If you are right, then I would agree with much of what you are saying - the FBI statistics would be virtually meaningless. Or are you making a more nuanced argument? Something like "police officers may mistakenly perceive any crime against a homosexual as a hate crime, especially if they do not determine the sexual orientation of the offender, thus they may include crimes in the statistics that do not belong there (for example gay-on-gay domestic violence crimes)". Am I getting closer to understanding you? Either way, do you have any references to flesh out your concerns? --Hsmom 13:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

As I've stated above, the investigating officer or agency must make a determination.

Now, let's marry two threads here. There has been extensive discussion on several pages about Homophobia, and I believe I have effectively made the argument that many, if not most, "homophobes" who seek psychiatric treatment today are homosexual. It would not be surprising given this, that there is a certain amount of gay-on-gay anti-homosexual violence, and much may be occurring in gay domestic relationships. Or it could occur even randomly or anonymously in the gay lifestyle, that is to say a gay person, unhappy with himself for being attracted to members of the same sex, or blaming gays for making him attracted to them, vents his anger at himself and gays for being involved in the homosexual lifestyle. None of these reporting statistics, mandated by law, be they "hate crime" stats, or domestic violence stats, allow for taking this into account. RobS 13:36, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I suggest moving all this junk to an article on hate crimes. It doesn't have much to do with homophobia. RSchlafly 13:40, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

RobS, I think I am starting to get your point. You are saying (do I have this right?), that much of the violence that appears on the surface to be anti-homosexual hate crime is in fact perpetrated by homophobic gays. I think this is an interesting point, and I don't have a problem with including it per se, however I don't think the article as it is currently written conveys this point well at all. I think the best approach may be to have a factual paragraph about the FBI stats and then a paragraph putting forth your perspective. I think that approach will make your points clearer to the reader, rather than having them buried in the stats paragraph. Can you find some references that will allow us to say "some conservatives are concerned that", or "Such and such author has put forth the idea that" or whatever? Because we will be able to write a stronger paragraph if it can be backed up with references. I don't have time to work on this for the next few days, but will try to take a stab at it when I get a chance.--Hsmom 09:48, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

References for Anti-homosexual violence discussion

1. ↑ U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice StatisticsViolent Crime Rates
2. ↑ U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4.
3. ↑ U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005,Table 1.
4. ↑ U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4.
5. ↑ Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[1] Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual. These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.
6. ↑ The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.
7. ↑ U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4.
8. ↑ U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism. In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.
9. ↑ U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4.
10. ↑ Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[2] Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual. These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.
11. ↑ The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.
12. ↑ U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism. In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.
13. ↑ Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Methodology. </i>[3]

"most common usage"

Though the term can be used for a variety of purposes, its most common usage is to criticize people opposed to homosexuality.

I happen to think this statement is correct, or at least is correct as of the last few decades. But I'd like to see sources or evidence presented that confirms it. Dpbsmith 11:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I think we've proven on this talk page several times over the meaning was corrupted from the git go; it was coined to impugn critics of the APA dropping homosexuality as a mental diagnosis, it has persisted, but the failure of legistlators to criminalize what was alleged to be a mental disturbance has led to the theraputic community dropping the term. Its misuse has persisted in popular culture, largely because common people have not got the message that both the legal and threputic professions are dropping the term. And lastly, the accepted theraputic use of the term was applied most often to homosexuals themselves. In sum, popular usage never understood what it meant, and has always been misused. It is little more than an attack term, when it originally was invented to make people think opponents of the homosexual agenda were crazy, not criminal, as it is misued today. RobS 12:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

And the citable source that supports "criticism of people opposed to homosexuality" as its most common use is... what? Dpbsmith 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

The term homophobia describes the aversion of a person to homosexuality. Unlike other pathopsychological phobias (e.g. arachnaphobia=a fear of spiders) this phobia isn't primarily about avoiding contact, but the deliberate insulting, humiliation and symbolic annihilation of homosexuals.

Homophobia usually manifests itself through insults, humiliation, threats and violence directed at homosexuals and may also be directed at heterosexuals perceived to be homosexual by the perpetrator.

PhilMcAvity

Well, there are other uses. I happen to think the one here makes a lot of sense. [4] Maybe, someday, we'll all be proud to be homophobic. I'd rather be homophobic than homos-xual any day. Mathers 09:52, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. That kind of fits into the definition above. PhilMcAvity 10:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

I suggest using the definition provided by PhilMcAvity. It should start the article. It clealy describes an aversion of a person to homosexuality and not Homosexuals as individuals. It certainly doesn't imply that those who object to homosexuality on moral and religious grounds are being irrational, i.e., literally suffering from a mental illness but clearly states that the phobia isn't primarily about avoiding contact, so by the definition above, those who object to homosexuality on moral and religious grounds are are not homophobic if they don't deliberately insult, humiliate or threaten violence towards homosexuals. They are simply condemning the sin not the sinner, or as some Christians put it hate the sin not the sinner. The rest of the article could then describe how gay rights an liberal activists have perverted the meaning away from the objective one above.

BenDoune 07:31, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

• activists have perverted the meaning away from the objective

• (a) This article documents how the term was created with the specific intent for the perverted meaning you refer to.
• (b) You are dealing with the same issue in Gay bowel syndrome, i.e. a term the medical community does not recognize yet nonetheless has currency in the lay community for what is popularly beleived to be a medical condition. Rob Smith 12:38, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I think the suggestion BenDoune and PhilMcAvity is great. Carry on! RogerDailey 13:33, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

"Homophobia-phobia"

This seems to be an unsourced personal essay or opinion by User:Jaques. No source is cited to show that this term has any significant degree of usage. Only 92 Google hits on the term (hits include both with and without the hyphen), a negligible number (compare 1,490,000 for homophobia, 34,900 for phobophobia (fear of fear), 29,200 for heterophobia (fear of heterosexuals), 14,900 for gamophobia (fear of marriage), 11,700 for theophobia (fear of God), 1310 for pantophobia (fear of everything). Dpbsmith 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Homophobia-Phobia

Because of the fear of homophobia, some homsexuals develop a phobia of homophobes, and may become paranoid to the point that he/she believe everyone who dislike him/her or say anything negative about homosexuality is a homophobe.

Homophobiaphobiaphobia

A condition affecting homophobes who are too frightened to admit that they are homophobic because of widespread phobia against homophobes. Not an official mental condition yet but you heard it here first.

Actully, Homophobiaphobiaphobia means people who are afraid of those homosexuals who are afraid of homophobes.Jaques 01:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Homophilia

Why hasn't this word been coined? It is technichally and mechanically the opposite of "Homophobia." "homo" + "phobia" = "homophobia." Since "Philia" is the literal and exact opposite of "Phobia" it should therefore follow that: "Homo" + "Philia" = "Homophilia." If no one has any objections I would like to coin and use this word as is applicable.--Historiocality 17:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

• It is nothing, as it means the same, apparently. Let's try to keep this as jargon free as possible. Oh, and FYI, please edit and sign your post, please. Unsigned posts are removed. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 17:13, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

homophilia:

Another term for homosexuality , the condition in which love and lust are directed to persons of the same sex. [5]

okey-dokey--Historiocality 17:18, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

So, if homosexuality=homophilia, homophobia is the opposite of homophilia, and homosexuality is the opposite of heterosexuality, that means heterosexuality=homophobia?

Where does bisexualphobia fit in this scheme? Rob Smith 14:30, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

It doesn't. I wasn't sure I had a point, but now i have: The opposite of "love" is rather "hate" than "fear" (although Darth Vader might disagree whether that makes a difference), so, grammatically homophilia is not the opposite of homophobia.

Latin is not the issue. "Homophila" is quite synonymous with "homosexuality", I have heard it before, but usually in comparision to other paraphilias (pedo-, necro-, copro- etc). So, the word "homophilia" should, imho, be used to emphasize homosexuality as a perversion, rather than as form of love. Eygar 15:36, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

(a) it's not Latin, it's Greek. (b) in the Greek idiom, there is not a duality of polar opposites, it is a triality, philia, phobia, and phagia -- attraction, repulsion, and consumption. Here's another contrasting idiom, epipheral, ephemeral, and etherial -- what is comprehensible to the naked eye within the horizon, what is known of only momentary significance (which carries a rather sexist idea that it is 'feminine'), and what is known but not visible or something over the horizon. In a later sense and Latinized sense, etherial also becomes something "up in the air," for example, Christ will return in the ether.

Soooo, you seem to be applying modern understanding and modern idioms to ancient inscriptions, a rather common occurance. Rob Smith 15:55, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

I'm not talking about dualities in Greek, the words are "opposite" when used in English, since "attraction" is basically the opposite of "repulsion", which confirms the original post (It (homophilia) is technichally and mechanically the opposite of "Homophobia."). I don't try to pretend to be able to discuss "ancient inscriptions", what I know is what the word is used for today, and why. In the media and the gay community, the word "homophilia" is used as a synonym for "homosexuality", although in a more pejorative sense, alluding to the word "paraphilia". That's what matters in this context.

The more proper suffix for -philia (used in with negative connotation) is -erasty; e.g., not pedophilia, but pederasty, utilizing the eros element for sexual love, instead of phil- an element for friendly love. (Thunkful 18:26, 16 June 2010 (EDT))

snarl

What is a 'snarl' word please? MrSmith 16:30, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I never heard of it either. --SpudNolan 15:37, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

I was reading the article on Junk science, and thought, what if I rewrite the definition of "Junk science" to something like this?

"The term junk science is a snarl word used by conservatives to verbally tar and feather anyone who dares to oppose a scientific theory (for example, global warming or evolution)."

I guess that would get me banned in seconds. Does anyone get my point? Eygar 13:19, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

• Missing your point here, I have to admit. I have dozens of liberal friends and acquaintances who employ the use of the term "junk science" every day, so quite obviously the writer of that article practiced deceit. I believe that term was used by one of the lead scientists on the United Nations global warming committee, in the Wall Street Journal, to explain the extrapolated conclusions that the UN used in its published report. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 11:22, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I was trying to point out that the definition of "homophobia" was a little bit unfair to gay activists. Moreover, it is not really informative; the term is (more?) often used to describe "fear of being/becoming gay" than fear of actual gays. I'll look it up in a dictionary and write a better definition. --Eygar 13:26, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Homophobia is a fear

I am surprised this article defines homophobia as hate. It is not. It is a fear of homosexuals, their rising poltical power, they're watering down of our collective morality and their intent to dissolute our great institutions of social stability (such as marriage). This is why people are "phobic" of homosexuals. But it is NOT hate. We do not want them destroyed, like Al Qaeda wants us destroyed. We want them to see the righteous path with God and to engage in holy matrimony with a member of the opposite sex, to live fulfilling lives heeding God's decree to go forth and multiply. We want them to find the path of redemption. That is not hate but compassion. Love the sinner, not the sin.

Looking back through the article's history, it seems that early versions of the article did not include the "implied" definition of hate and in fact several sysops (RSchlafly, RobSmith, etc) fought valiantly against the incessant tinkering of AmesG and other liberal vandals to insert a pro-gay tolerance slant to the article's introduction and perhaps elsewhere. I've only skimmed it so far, but it looks pretty entrenched. Incidentally, the "hate" aspect was only added in February and by the "trustworthy" editor named User:Kiss20.

I'm going to try to work this article back to a more accurate definition over the next few gays. -Foxtrot 01:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually, it seems like the liberal slant was confined to the introduction. Fixed now. What a relief. -Foxtrot 01:57, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Foxtrot Daniel1212 16:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)

No problem! -Foxtrot 06:24, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Homophobia - Etymology and definition

I suggest the removal of the term "etymology" from this section. A better title would be "Homophobia - Morphology and definition."

What makes homophobia a slur word is that the suffix "phobia" connotes a mental disorder, an irrational fear. The morpheme phob- means fear. But this morpheme is not merely historical in significance (etymology, diachronic linguistics). If in fact phobia were merely a matter of historical derivation, then this term would not have the polemical debater force that it has as a slur word. Instead of speaking of etymology, the issue is morphology and associated present semantics (synchronic linguistics). As a suffix, a phobia is a generative suffix in contemporary usage. When one adds -phobia to a word, immediately persons understand that an irrational fear of something is connoted. The force of this suffix has not faded in time to be merely a matter of the word's etymology. Etymological meaning is often faded (like dios in adios -- no present reference to God is felt or communicated in saying goodbye with "adios"). (Thunkful 17:44, 16 June 2010 (EDT))

Clarification: At issue are the meanings of the morphemes in "homophobia." Historically, as to etymology, the word can be broken into the elements: hom- = same, -o- = connecting vowel for words of Greek derivation, phob- = fear, -ia = process, state, condition. However, in terms of synchronic meaning, homo- = homosexual, phobia = irrational fear of, a type of mental disorder. By way of comparison the word "understand" has the etymological elements under = under and stand = stand. But by no stretch of the imagination does understand mean to "stand under." In terms of synchronic linguistics, explanations about the etymological meanings of "stand" and "under" are irrelevant to synchronic meaning. Synchronically "understand" has but one morpheme (element that has meaning). I hope this clarifies why I think that this section should be called "Morphology and definition." It is the present meaning which is much more significant that the etymology. Alternatively, somehow the section could be revised to indicate that the meaning of -phobia is irrational fear, as a type of mental disorder and that the etymology is not faded in meaning so as to render it irrelevant semantically. (Thunkful 18:14, 16 June 2010 (EDT))

Specific Recommendation: Replace this sentence:

"Homophobia is an etymologically incorrect term which most directly denotes 'an unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality', with

"The term homophobia is being used in a morphologically incorrect manner as denoting . . . ." (Thunkful 18:34, 16 June 2010 (EDT))

The Definition of Homophobia

Does homophobia refer to fear of offending homosexuals?

One realizes that it is description, rather than prescription primarily at issue. In defining a word it is more scientific to merely observe how the word is used and report on it instead of saying "how it should be used" or "how it must be used." Of course part of the description is observing the emotive connotations and the polemical aspect, if there is one. Nonetheless, persons who have agendas may start using and declaring what a word means in hopes that their usage will spread to the point that lexicographers will write the definition their way. Research would be needed to establish that the word "homophobia" is more properly defined as fear of offending homosexuals and suffering a counter attack from them. (Thunkful 17:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT))

Suggested Revision of first sentence: Instead of:

"The term homophobia, as applied to criticism of homosexuality, implies that all such criticism is irrational (see phobia)," substitute:

The term homophobia, as applied to criticism or opposition to homosexuality, implies that all such criticism and opposition is based on an irrational fear and is a type of mental disorder[1] (see phobia)." The footnote would be a reference to 3 sections of the DSM-IV-TR. (Thunkful 18:40, 16 June 2010 (EDT))

Mechanics, Grammar

The writer has written:

". . . often take offense at this term, which had led to the use . . . "

Did he mean to put "has," instead of "had"?(Thunkful 19:26, 16 June 2010 (EDT))

Missing Footnote

Has the footnote for the following paragraph gotten lost somehow?

"A study by University of Arkansas researchers . . . ." (Thunkful 19:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT))

The article isn't locked. If your changes are egregious they will be reverted or discussed here. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:38, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

I don't understand. I saw what looked like an excellent paragraph in the article, but there was no footnote in the paragraph, and it obviously needs one. So I asked if the footnote had gotten lost. I didn't make any changes to the Arkansas paragraph. I don't understand how the adjective egregious got into this. I thought I would help by fixing a couple of mechanical/grammatical slips. (Thunkful 00:32, 17 June 2010 (EDT))

You're over-thinking this....I just pointed out that you are an editor here, the article wasn't locked, and your suggestions were respectful and there wasn't a need for your posts to be reverted here, is all. Carry on. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 00:38, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

fear of yourself?

Wouldn't "homophobia" technically mean fear of yourself? Homosexualphobia would mean an irrational fear of homosexuals, but the word "homo" doesn't only refer to homosexuals. JohnRoberts 23:38, 23 November 2011 (EST)

Intro size

Can we perhaps reduce the size of the introduction of this article? If the new additions are to be kept (which I am not opposed to), could they perhaps be split off into one or more subsections? --David B ^(TALK) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (EST)

I personally think we should temporarily revert the article to how it was before and then re-add the info in a less disruptive and higher-quality way (preferably not in the intro -- I recommend keeping the intro how it was before). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2018 (EST)

Question

Is some form of conversion therapy acceptable or even legal for persons suffering from homophobia? RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:20, 18 April 2020 (EDT)