Difference between revisions of "Talk:Homophobia"

Revision as of 19:25, April 25, 2007

This phrase,

• akin to racism and sexism.

has been removed. People are not born homosexual as they are born a certain race or sex, and we will be happy to destroy any junk science citations that make that claim. RobS 23:36, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

The issue of whether people are born homosexual or not does not affect the fundamental similarities between discrimination in terms of gender, race and sexuality. If you want to make an argument for why discrimination based on sexuality is o.k, where as the other two are not, then go ahead and make it and we can discuss whether your right. Otherwise, don't confuse the issues. Orgone 12:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

The question of whether one is born homosexual is certainly not a settled matter, in EITHER direction. Your claims of junk science not withstanding. Still, as Orgone points out it is immaterial to the comparison. Would you not consider discrimination against someone based on their religion to be "akin to racism and sexism"? One is not "born Catholic" for example, one has to choose it... how is that any different from your argument? QNA 13:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Deletions?

Wow, within the last few minutes almost all of the article has been deleted. I thought it was a lot more useful with all that detail and the example of the murder of a homosexual. Why was all of that deleted? I'm not sure the super-conciseness of the article in its current state is in lines with Conservapedia standards. It should be at least longer than a sentence. Ylmw21 23:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed! The article was starting to take shape before the ever predictable hand of Conservative came in. Why did you delete all of that valid information Conservative? Surely you should have posted on the discussion page first before simply deleteing it? MatteeNeutra 12:14, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Fresh start

Article should distinguish betweeen

1. Accusations of "homophobia" against someone who (A) says that homosexuality is forbidden by the Bible or a church; (B) says that homosexuals can become straight with counseling; or (C) makes any other general statement about homosexuality
2. Adverse actions taken against individuals, such as literal gay-bashing, i.e., beating up homosexuals for "looking or acting queer"

Another related topic could be Discrimination against homosexuals.

But we should not adopt the gay rights perspective which deliberately conflates irrational fear and hatred of people with principled objections to sin. --Ed Poor 12:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Assuming homosexuality is a sin, which not all do. Moreover, does that mean the same people fear and hate "fornicators" the same as homosexuals? I think not. ColinR^talk 12:51, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Colin, I haven't even gotten started yet. I'm planning to open up Pandora's box and jump inside with a big can of DDT. ;-) --Ed Poor 12:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed regarding your first point, why do we need more than a sentence to distinguish between those things? Why not incorporate it into what was there already. Your second point seems to support my point that Conservative should not have deleted the example I gave of an homophobic attack. I don't think a fresh start is needed and we should work with what is already here! MatteeNeutra 12:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's a cite and some material, HOMOPHOBIA: A Scientific Non-Political Definition, Dr. Sander J. Breiner, National Association for Research and Theraphy on Homosexuality, 2003.

There is no personal, internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia. The terms do not exist in the recognized scientific literature, as described earlier. There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined. ... Blumenfeld and others are doing the same with the term homophobia. Their purpose may be sincere and in some contexts useful. However, the approach is unscientific and not useful in the diagnostic/therapeutic sphere. It can even be used by some individuals in an anti-therapeutic manner.

Calling all responses to homosexuality other than it "is a normal sexual variation" as homophobic is anti-scientific and decidedly anti-therapeutic.

There is no doubt that homophobia exists. There is also no doubt that there are rationalized and irrational anti-homosexual attitudes. However, it would be very valuable for society in general, and therapists in particular, to have a clear picture of homophobia separated from all the other topics that have been lumped under that rubric. With this in mind, let us examine the topic of homophobia, as would be correctly defined and limited as a true phobic reaction.

IOW, homphobia is psychiatric diagnosis, i.e. they are handicapped persons, and it appears bigots are intent upon systematically persecuting and discriminating against these handicapped victims. RobS 12:26, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Nonsense, are you joking? Tell me your being sarcastic! There may be nothing inherently immoral with homophobia per se, just as there is nothing inherently immoral in any phobia, like arachnophobia, say. But there is a problem with the discriminatory behavior which may be caused by homophobia, and in condemning this behavior you are not: "systematically persecuting and discriminating against handicapped victims.", in the same way that pyromania may be a psychiatric diagnosis, but in condemning people who go around setting fire to buildings, people are not being bigots, they are just pointing out that burning people and their possessions is wrong. Orgone 13:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

• there is a problem with the discriminatory behavior which may be caused by homophobia

This is a diagnosable psychiatric condition. They are legally handicapped. Persecuting them is discrimination.

• pyromania may be a psychiatric diagnosis

Not all pyromaniacs are arsonists, just as not all homophobes commit crimes of violence, either. RobS 14:04, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree that persecuting someone because of a psychiatric condition is discrimination. It is not persecution, however, to disagree with discriminatory behavior, no matter what its motive. In which case i support the creation of an article for homophobia as a psychiatric condition, and a separate article dealing with discrimination against homosexuals in general. Orgone 14:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely by creating a page that deals soley with the psychiatric condition and neglects to mention discrimination is like giving homophobes an excuse to discriminate against homosexuals! Why do we always need two articles, one to describe the subject matter, one to slander the idea with all contentious issues on this site. There is no reason these two things cannot be included on the same page. MatteeNeutra 14:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Orgone nailed the issue. And something should probably be said about the discrimination homophobes have suffered, and the utter insensitivity of thier oppressors in trying to criminalize mentally handicap people. RobS 14:28, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I should point out that while homophobia may be considered a psychiatric diagnosis by some, i personally don't see that as any kind of excuse on behalf of homophobes for discriminatory behavior against homosexuals. In other words, for me the separation of the articles would be a technical thing, because its true that not all homophobes necessarily discriminate against homosexuals. Orgone 14:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

RobS, in comparison to the discrimination of homosexuals by homophobes, the discrimination against homphobes is negligible. Name one case of an "anti-homophobic" attack! Orgone, whether all homophobes discrimnate against homosexuals or not, discrimination happens. Any article that tackles homophobia must talk about the discrimination that homophobia causes. I am not saying we should put a theme through the article saying "homophobia is bad" I'm merely saying that the two are not just related issues, they are indeed the same issue. MatteeNeutra 15:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

This requires studying sources such as the link provided above; while homosexuality is no loner considered a mental disease (as it once was by the APA), phobias, and specifically homophobia still is considered as diagnosiable mental condition by the American Psycriatric Asscociation. Now, here is the kicker: most diagnosed homophobes are so-called "latent homosexuals", their fear of homosexuals being personal, i.e. that they may cross the line from latent attraction into an active homosexual lifestyle. In this sense, psyciatrists are still "treating" homosexuals, not homosexuality as a mental disease, but latent homosexuals fear of acting on their impulses. This is the true, scientific, and medical descripting of the disease.

What we've experienced in recent years, however, is a media and political campaign to shame people with a medical condition. And an investigation will most likely reveal, the term has been misused. The people who allegedly "discriminate", in most cases (1) have not been diagnosed, (2) and many are probably not textbook homophobes. Effectively what's happened is, a certifiable mental condition, for poltical purposes, has been turned into an attack term. And many of those accused of "homophobia", are nothing of the sort. Why this has happened, I can present musings and theories, but let's just stick to the facts of the definitions of terms, and the science to support them. RobS 15:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)