Difference between revisions of "Talk:Homophobia"

Revision as of 02:36, May 1, 2007

!

Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

Archive(s): /1

Intro

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)

Murder? Show a diff, or you are walking dangerously close to trolling. RobS 13:10, 28 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)

The science

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)

MatteeNeutra, I agree that fundamentally they are the same issue, because i believe that homophobia is the ultimate source of all discrimination against homosexuals (even if it gets dressed up in religious doctrines or cultural traditions over time, see the classic monkey experiment.) But for the purposes of this website, where people want to separate off psychological causes for their own reasons, it probably makes sense to concede this ground and fight them elsewhere. Orgone 18:07, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Odd, how on the Evolution articles all we here is how holy and undefiable science is; then when we prove how a scientific term and medical diagnosis was hijacked to serve a poltical agenda, science can take a back seat to stereotypes and prejudices. The irony of it all. RobS 19:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Not really, a truly empirical, scientific approach would draw out the links between the cultural and sociological phenomenon of discrimination against homosexuals, and its root cause in the individual psychological phenomenon of homophobia. However, your emphasis on treating cause so separately from effect seems to be just to leave room for other causes of discrimination against homosexuals, namely so-called moral objections of the type Ed Poor calls "principled objections to sin". To argue on this website that these sorts of religious doctrines are merely cultural constructs which originate from human psychology, and not moral absolutes which come direct from God, would be to fight a loosing battle. Please forgive me if I'm attributing a more malign intent behind your line of argument than is really there, but thats the way it appears to me. Orgone 21:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

In the mid to late 70s, the American Psychiatric Association, through whatever it's internal processes, decided to stop considering homosexuality a disease. They based this decision upon decades of research that essentially maintained the root cause of a homosexuals psychiatric problems was stigmatization and being an outcast. So the new form of treatment, i.e. not calling it a disease at all, was meant to "normalize" or embrace the homosexual, accept him as he is.

When this occured, it was not a unanimous decision among psychiatrists. Neither did dissenters in the psychiatric profession have their licenses pulled, or treated as quakes, who held to the view homosexuality was a treatable disorder. However, the profession does not recognize the diagnosis of homosexuality as a disease. When homosexuality was "normalized", the doctor essentially told the patient to go home because he was cured now. Nonetheless, a few still showed up the following week and said, "Doc, I don't feel cured, and I need help". So doctors who dissented from the decision to "normalize" homosexuality, in order to avoid practicing quack medicine and get their licenses pulled, returned to the textbooks to find what the patients problem was. And phobias, like homophobia, are still psychiatric diseases recognized by the APA and still on the books. It was discovered in many cases, the patient didn't like himself, so the diagnosis of homophobia has virtually taken the place for many who prior to the 70s were diagnosed with the disease of homosexuality. It's not hard to see how in actual fact, homophobia-bashing is simply another form of gay-bashing. RobS 22:44, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, i can see now how we got in to this cycle of debate, there are a lot of issues at stake here, some of a real Chicken-and-Egg style: Is someone unhappy because they are homosexual per se, or unhappy because they are made to feel unhappy about being homosexual? How far is homophobia linked to latent-homosexuality? Is the diagnosis of homosexuality as a disease in itself an anti-homosexual phenomenon? Where do we draw the line between proximal psychological causes of discrimination against homosexuals (homophobia) and distal cultural causes of discrimination against homosexuals (anti-homosexualism in general)? How far is homophobia linked to direct anti-homosexual behavior? These are all controversial issues, all i can say is that I disagree profoundly with the idea that homosexuality is in itself a disease, and the idea that it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals. These principles are not incompatible with the idea that homophobia is a psychological diagnosis. Orgone 23:55, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

That is all very good analysis and you have an excenllent grasp of the issues. And you're a good writer. Homosexuality has not been recognized as a diagnosis now since 1973 or sometime thereafter; it still was criminal conduct in many states and localities into the 1980s (and is criminal in many Western & non-Western nations still). Prior to the APA dropping the diagnosis, gays had the double whammy -- it was considered a disease and it was crime. "Legalization" came shortly after "normalization" by the medical community. But I think you can see, many profoundly disturbed psyciatric patients were not cured simply the day after the APA dropped the diagnosis.

Homophobia is a recognized diagnosis, however it is not a crime. This abstract here says,

existing measures of homophobia have been inadequately psychometrically evaluated and therefore it is not clear whether currently this construct can be accurately measured. It is also concluded that the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality.

translated means, while homophobia remains a recognized diagnosis in the psychiatric community, there is no overall agreement on what it is, and it is concluded the misuse of the term making it an illegitimate pejorative is reminisent of the old days when the APA felt the diagnosis of homosexuals added to their stigmatization, which was cause of all the problems in the first place. And being stigmatized, they were abused with pejoritives making them outcasts. The way homophobia is used today as a pejoritive, is much like the bad old days. And not by coincidence, true homophobes are most likely to be homosexuals themselves. RobS 00:23, 26 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 description 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) 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)

Yes, I do see what youre getting out. Differentiating the clinically diagnosed homophobes from the people who (for want of a better phrase) don't like queers! Homophobe is now in common usage to describe the latter of those two. Perhaps an in depth definition of the psychiatric condition could be put forward on a separate page while we deal with the common usage here. This is, after all, the page that people will search for and if people want to read about the clinical condition they should be directed there. MatteeNeutra 15:34, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Exactly. The problem here is, turning a certifiable mental condition into a politcal attack term may itself be discrimintation against the mentally handicapped. RobS 15:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The use of the term in itself is not so much a "political attack term" but a method in which to identify a distinct group of people who hold a certain viewpoint. I doubt many self confessed homophobes think of themselves having a clinical problem! People hear the common usage all the time and most people will not be aware of the clinical connotations of the word. Therefore, does it not make sense to portray the common usage on the Homophobia page and put a clear direct to the article describing the clinical condition at the top of the Homophobia page?

On a side note, this all seems a bit pointless considering Ed Poor is apparently about to go to town on this article! MatteeNeutra 15:48, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

(undent)RobS, what's your source for stating that homophobia is a clinical diagnosis? It's not a specific diagnosis according to the APA diagnostic manual. It could fall under Specific Phobia, but there's no diagnosis of homphobia. And for someone to meet the criteria for that diagnosis, they'd need (a) marked, persistent fear that's excessive and unreasonable of gay people (b) exposure to gay people would provoke an immediate and fairly severe anxiety response (c) they'd have to recognize it as an unreasonable fear (d) it would have to interfere with daily functioning, among other things. Murray 16:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Murray, see cite at the top of this subhead ==The science==

MatteeNeutra, This proves an interesting test case; there apparantly is a difference between "common usage", and "liberal common usage", but I do not wish to derail a constructive discussion with partisan politics. Point is, the so-called "common usage" is a misnomer. And it was done by certain agenda driven groups, with the assistance of a sympathetic agenda driven media & entertainment industry, and probably even academics. Our purpose here at CP is not to rubber stamp causes like this, or to promote discrimination and criminalization of a certifiably mentally-handicapped condition. Quite the contrary, our Commandments require us to use facts, not common misnomers.

Now, let's discuss some of these dissenting concerns, and use an illustration. In the Matthew Shepard case for instance, Shepard's convicted killer I beleive may have been diagnosed as a genuine homophobe, and while we don't have access to his medical records, this may be a case were a latent homosexual homophobe acted violently. Perhaps now we understand one reason it is considered a mental illness by the American Psyciatric Association. But that still is not to say all homophobes are violent homophobes. RobS 16:22, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Rob. For clarity's sake, this is not an official psychiatric diagnosis. Murray 22:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Phobia's are an official psychiatric diagnosis, of which homophobia is still recognized as one. RobS 23:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

So I've been talking with Rob on the 'ol e-mail, and my argument on this is (1) the science is sketchy, and all I can see is the abstract of a potentially useful article, which isn't enough to judge, and (2) assuming arguendo that homophobia is a mental illness, it is first of all, not immutable, so discriminating against it is fine, unless you concede that homosexuality is immutable, and then we can talk, or second, that discriminating against those with mental illnesses is something that can be done under the Constitution if the discrimination is narrow, and based on legitimate state interests. Advancing gay rights, for example, may have the incidental impact of discriminating against homophobes; but, discrimination requires an intent to discriminate, not a pursuit of a course of action in spite of discriminatory impact. So there's not really a lot that would ever qualify as discriminating against homophobes.-AmesG_yo! 10:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

current revision

Tells us what homophobia is not. Most encyclopaedic.

I agree, EdPoor generated the impression that when the article returned it would be in a substantial form, which i presumed to mean the main issue and subsequent issues would be as fully and clearly explicated, argued and sourced as possible, whats there now is worse than nothing. Orgone 16:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Orgone, you got a good grasp and write very well, why don't you take the lead here. RobS 20:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Im just starting my final exams at the moment, but they will be over in about two weeks, and then i could work on it properly. Orgone 15:09, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Definition

Here's a good definition and supporting cite,

• The term "homophobia" is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia--or irrational fear--of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled "homophobia." [1] RobS 14:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

NARTH isn't authoritative or objective; it's an anti-gay think tank.-AmesG_yo! 14:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

The trouble is that principled disagreement often is labeled homophobia. RSchlafly 14:40, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

That's right. We need the clear definition that principled disagreement is not homophobia right in the intro. Homophobia is a phobia -- a diagnosible medical condition -- not hate speech or a crime. RobS 14:46, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

No, there no diagnosable medical condition called homophobia. RSchlafly 15:45, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

There is no such thing as principled discrimination. "Principled disagreement" based on Biblical interpretation used to be the basis for racism and sexism too, but they're still called racism & sexism.-AmesG_yo! 14:53, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Principeled discriminition? Are you refering to rational discrimination against gays, or liberals who wish to criminalize a medical condition? RobS 15:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Do you believe there is such a thing as rational discrimination against homosexuals? Orgone 15:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Sure, and there is rational racism and sexism also. RSchlafly 15:45, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Merely rationalized, or cogent, rational, truly and fully justified forms of negative discrimination against people on the basis of their race, gender, or sexuality? Orgone 16:07, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

There is such thing as rationalized homophobia; but that's not a defensible, moral position. Roger, do NOT, EVER use such offensive terminology as "F****t" on CP again. I will report you for even including it in the article. You won't get banned because you're Andy's brother, but you should.-AmesG_yo! 16:30, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Rob, your compromise was good for the first half. Good job! The second half I edited a bit.-AmesG_yo! 16:36, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, do you think that "faggot" is more offensive than "homophobic"? Why? RSchlafly 17:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Roger, "f----t" is the modern equivalent of "n----r," conveying a moral opprobrium based merely on status. It is an expression of bigotry and hatred. "Homophobic," rather, is a term describing the perspective that engenders the first term, much as the term "bigot" relates to the term "n----r." I'm sure you can fill in the dashes, because I would not be so tasteless as to spell out the actual word.

Please also contain your ridiculous comments about the "homosexual agenda." The idea of a group working collectively, in secret, and evilly, is preposterous, unsupportable, and a conspiracy theory that rivals even your commonly overreaching assumptions. I would read the "homosexual agenda" article, but it's been locked to prevent opposing viewpoints, since long ago, where I first voiced my criticism of it.-AmesG_yo! 20:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

RobS, I don't get the import of the quotes you've added. They don't seem to say that homophobia isn't bad; just that it isn't as bad as liberals make it sound?-AmesG_yo! 20:42, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I don't get it, but I added a comment at the end that seems to put it in context. Maybe?-AmesG_yo! 20:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Stop Editorializing

It's an encyclopedia, Roger, not your blog. Go back to Dark Buzz.-AmesG_yo! 14:27, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Who uses the term to describe an irrational fear? RSchlafly 14:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

That's the def. of the Greek suffix.-AmesG_yo! 14:55, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, there is no doubt that the term "homophobia" is used to promote the homosexual agenda. If you don't believe that there is such an agenda, then see the article on the subject. RSchlafly 20:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Answered above.-AmesG_yo! 20:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Rational or irrational, it's still valid. "Phobia" means "fear of". So yes, if you fear gay people, then homophobia exists. homo=same (for this context, same-sex), phobia=fear of, so homophobia=fear of gays. --Hojimachong^talk 20:27, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Compromise!

Rob & Roger, I made a compromise edit that I think takes stock of your suggestion, gives my reply, and does it in a good format. Good?-AmesG_yo! 20:49, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

It's taking shape. Perhaps in a third subhead (once these two get a little more information), we can have a sort of a discussion format with rebuttals to the varying views. RobS 21:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

No. Most of the changes do not say what homophobia is, or how the term is used. They only add confusion. I favor reverting. RSchlafly 21:44, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

The changes that I thought were confusing were Rob's, but I think they're better in context, and less partisan. But you wouldn't favor being less partisan, obviously.-AmesG_yo! 21:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Roger, The problem is, there is no agreement within the therautic psychriatic and psychological professions on use of the term ("psychometric measurement", as O'Donohue and Caselles refer to it). So the default position is, phobias, (and Brainer argues homophobia is one) are still on the books defined as diagnosible and treatable disorders. RobS 21:53, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think that anyone uses the term "homophobia" to mean a diagnosable phobia. Brainer has his own psychoanalytic theorizing, but his quote is not particularly helpful. RSchlafly 22:14, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

That's Rob's argument. Not mine. I've argued with him on it, and decided that it'd be more useful to put it in than to keep fighting about it. I don't agree with it, but now it has "equal time."-AmesG_yo! 22:30, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

The article is a mess. It says "Conservatives allege" as if the point were under dispute. It quotes Breiner on "There is only one homophobia", but fails to say what it is. The sentence on O'Donohue and Caselles contradicts the actual quote by referring to a disorder. The section on discrimination is incoherent and has no support. RSchlafly 01:10, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll add support for the discrimination point. The disorder stuff is Rob's, though, and there is dispute. Rob and I agreed on this, we like it the way it is.-AmesG_yo! 01:13, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

How dare you disrupt the agreement we reached! I'm reverting; I also gave a cite, which is what you asked for. And "conservatives allege" was removed, too - this was an attempt to include your wishes, too!-AmesG_yo! 01:24, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Your disregard for decorum is shocking. I'm out for the night, but I trust RobS will resume this tomorrow. Please give reasons for your reverts, and while you're doing it, try to remember that Jesus Christ loved all equally.-AmesG_yo! 01:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

No, I did not disrupt any agreement, and you did not support the discrimination point. You added 3 references, but none of them even mention homophobia. I explained my changes above. RSchlafly 02:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

No edit warring please.

AmesG and Rschlafly, please discuss it, don't edit war. if a decision can't be reached between you, then you should agree to let someone else decide, or *gasp* take it to the panel. --CPAdmin1 01:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Dictionary definitions

Dictionaries aren't always right, but what we write should be informed by them; and when we say something different from what dictionaries say, it shouldn't just hang unsupported in a vacuum; there ought to be some kind of backing or justification.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a
NOUN: 1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. 2. Behavior based on such a feeling. AHD online

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Function: noun
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals Merriam-Webster online

fag·got
NOUN: Offensive Slang Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual man. AHD online

Main Entry: fag·got
Function: noun
Etymology: earlier and dialect, contemptuous word for a woman or child, probably from ¹fagot
usually disparaging : a male homosexual Merriam-Webster online

Observations 1: One dictionary describes the word "faggot" as "offensive," one as "usually disparaging." Neither makes any such comment about the word "homophobia." The evidence of these two dictionaries would not support equating the two words as in "The term is considered offensive, like the term 'faggot.'" Therefore, it should not go in unsupported, as being obvious or well-known.

Regardless of dictionaries, something is offensive if someone is offended by it, so I'd support the inclusion of a remark about "homophobia" being offensive if, and only if, some good backing for that statement can be provided.

2. The article says "The suffix 'phobia' suggests an irrational fear, but that is not how the term is used." Since both dictionary definitions lead off with "fear of" (AHD) or "irrational fear of" (Merriam-Webster), it would seem that the dictionary editors judge that that is how the term is used. Therefore, if we say that is not how it is used, some evidence for that ought to be provided.

Dpbsmith 13:05, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

The cite in the article [2] explains how this neologism came into American English, extracted,

Professor Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., published "Beyond 'Homophobia': Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century," in the April, 2004, issue of Sexuality Research & Social Policy.

...In his paper on homophobia, stigma, and sexual prejudice, Dr. Herek suggests that although the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture, the term may be too limited in its scope today.

Herek describes in detail how the term homophobia was invented in 1965 by Dr. George Weinberg and later popularized in his writings in the 1970s. According to Herek, Weinberg helped mainstream the idea of homophobia with the help of two gay activists, Jack Nichols and Lige Clarke. They first used the term in the pornography magazine Screw, edited by Al Goldstein.

I don't see how dictionary definitions, based upon a neologism that came from Screw magazine, have any authenticity in an encylopedic entry. RobS 13:47, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not I'm understanding your point RobS. The cite provided the history of the neologism...Is it your objection that the term was not first coined by an reputable source? What is being given more weight: the history of the neologism or the source of the history? -- Rob Pommer_talk 14:09, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

(I assume RobS's point is that if the dictionaries don't mention that the word was coined by George Weinberg and was published in Screw magazine, the dictionaries probably don't know much about the word and whatever else they have to say about it isn't trustworthy... RobS, is that right?) Dpbsmith 14:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

The dictionary definitions have no support from agreement in the scientific professions to back them. [3] No one is disputing Prof. Herek's research on the origins and history of the activism that flouted the term. Prof. Herek, who is evidentally sympathetic to gay activists, is admitting the failure of the activists to accomnplish its goals and gain support within the therapuetic community. So they've abandoned that tract and are replacing homophobia with new pejoritives and fresh pseudoscience with terms like "heterosexism". In 30 years, we'll leave it to others to sort out if there is in fact any scientific basis to words like "heterosexism".

See, even dictionaries need to reprint everyear with new material, otherwise you wouldn't need to buy a new one cause lasts years serves perfectly fine. They'd go broke and be out of job. Oh, those evil dictionaries, motivated by greed, and useful idiots to a cause. RobS 14:57, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Dictionary definitions may or may not be correct, but they are relevant. They are widely accepted as impartial authority. You can certainly say "standard dictonaries are wrong," for thus-and-such reasons, but you shouldn't just ignore them. Dpbsmith 14:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

The point is the fraudulent nature of the neologism. It begins in the pornographic Screw magazine by gay activists with a poltical agenda. It flows from there into the scientific and legal community where no consensus is made as to what its meaning is, or if there is actually any scientific basis for the term. Meanwhile its repeated by media outlets, the entertainment industry, and public schools with its pseudoscientific meaning to further an activist agenda. This sort of thing is actually quite common. RobS 14:18, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

P. S. I still haven't seen backing for the term "homophobia" being "offensive or derogatory." The NARTH article says nothing about this. Dpbsmith 14:16, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

See NARTH Postiion Statements

"The term "homophobia" is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia--or irrational fear--of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled "homophobia."

NARTH are qualified professionals and scholars in the therapuetic community, hence they trump dictionary defintions we prove are faulty. RobS 14:26, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Do other qualified professionals and scholars in the therapeutic community take the same position? Dpbsmith 14:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Homophobia is a liberal smear term. It literally suggests "homosexuality phobia", but there is no such phobia that is recognized by psychologists and it is hard to find anyone who uses the term that way. It is an offensive term designed to imply that anyone opposed to the gay rights movement is mentally ill. The term is more offensive than faggot, and it is used entirely to promote bigotry and prejudice.

I removed the section on discrimination because it was misleading and incoherent, and because the cited sources had nothing to do with homophobia. This is not an article for debating the pros and cons of gay rights. RSchlafly 14:48, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

As I read NARTH's statement,

The term "homophobia" is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia—or irrational fear—of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled "homophobia."

NARTH seems to be saying that when "homophobia" is being used to describe principled disagreement, it is, as you say, a "smear term." However, NARTH seems to be saying that it has a legitimate usage as well, and NARTH does not seem to be saying that it is always used improperly. Dpbsmith 14:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

NARTH is saying irrational or obsessive fear of homosexuality is just another phobia. Proponents of the term use "internalized homophobia", because the research concludes most diagnosed homophobes are latent homosexuals afraid of acting on their impulses. So the smear term backfired, while it was invented to pursuade the law to grant special rights and protections to gays based upon victim status, the law needed the scientific community to define what looks like a psychiatric term. The therapuetic community meanwhile discovered most "homophobes" were indeed homosexuals who didn't like being homosexual and were afraid of continuing their self-destructive behavior.

Now we see the new pseudoscience taking shape, "heterosexism". Having been blocked from criminalizing homophobia because of no concensus among professional therapists, they've taken the word "sexism", which is defined in law, and added hetero to it. "Homosexism' would probably make more sense for what their trying to achieve, but they didn't ask me for my opinion. RobS 15:25, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

So who uses it properly? In what context? RSchlafly 15:27, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Ask NARTH? I must assume there's a reason, given their mission, why they used the wording they used. Or... I'm not completely sure I understand what RobS is saying... but I think he's saying yes, there is a legitimate meaning and usage, and the gay-rights community is trying to abandon the word because its proper usage doesn't fit their agenda... is that it? Dpbsmith 15:48, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

The theraputic community recognizes phobias. NARTH says "Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia--or irrational fear--of homosexuality." Discussion of rational vs irrational is pointless. Let's say an irrational homophobe killed a homosexual and used his mental illness as a defense. How can homophobia be crimininalized then, since the killer is not acting rationally? And if he doesn't have the mental disorder--an irrrational fear of homosexuality--he's not homophobic. RobS 16:18, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

NARTH has its own agenda. I don't see how it helps to say that some use the word properly, unless we also say just what that proper usage is. RSchlafly 16:03, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

NARTH says homophobia is just another phobia. I misspoke yesterday in represeting their position. NARTH rejects all the pseudo science of homophobia, internal homphobia, cultural homophobia, etc., and seems to agree with you, it is a smear term invented by activiists which has unfortunately found activists and sympathy within the theraputic community to promote its pseudoscience. So despite "scholarly literature" appearing which discusses homophobia, the professional theraputic community has not formerly adopted any of it as being legitiamite diagnosis's. And it appears now, the theraputic community is not likely to, either. So what used to be called "homophobia", as of late has been split into three, "sexual prejudice," "sexual stigma," and "heterosexism." And you can see, these sound more like legel terms then psychological or scientific terms. RobS 16:18, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Gerald Weinberg's own definition is relevant

The man who coined the term is a reasonable authority on what it meant at the time when he coined it. David Plummer's book may be junk science, but I am usually willing to accept direct quotations that have sources given as being accurate. The NARTH article does not cite any direct sources for the original meaning; what it cites a paper by a psychologist who, as you say, wants to introduce replacement terminology. Unfortunately NARTH's link to that paper is a dead link.

There are numerous other sources that say that it was coined by Weinberg, cite the same book, and give the same definition: Google book search on phrase. I don't have a copy of Weinberg's book and it will take me several days to get a copy through my public library as they will need to get it through interlibrary loan. (I don't think they can get me copies of Screw magazine, and frankly I don't plan to ask them to).

Random Googling suggests that Weinberg really did see it as a classical phobia, but he was talking about a sort of extreme reaction that was seen in the 1950s and 1960s but is rare today. One source indirectly quotes him as saying

I realized when I went to Washington D.C., a woman I met there was terrified about being alone in a room with me. As soon as her male friends left the room she began to tremble and almost couldn't speak and I realized she thought I was a homosexual and she was extremely phobic about me.[4]

It's probably fair to call Weinstein a "gay lib pioneer" or something of the sort, if people think that characterization should be added so as to make it clear that the coiner of the term had an agenda. Dpbsmith 07:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm interested in the original meanings of words, as well as current usage. For example, people who raise and train dogs use the word "bitch" for a female just a farmer uses the word "cow" for female cattle. But when those words are applied to people they convey different meanings.

The use of homophobic and homophobia to refer to critics of homosexuality conveys more than "This person believes that homosexuality is bad." It implies that the person has an irrational reason, that they are mentally ill. Thus, whatever they say may be dismissed. It's the ultimate argument ad hominem.

The terms also imply that critics of homosexuality are motivated by hate. This enables supporters of homosexuality to charge opponents with a hate crime. As you probabably know, various corporations, universities and countries have hate speech rules or laws. By asserting that any statement against homoxuality is necessarily "hateful" (i.e. hate speech), supporters can force opponents into silence.

So much for the tolerance which gay rights activists are always appealing to. It applies only to others (i.e., critics must not speak).

The article should give examples of people who were kicked out of school, lost their jobs, or were convicted of hate crimes merely for quoting the Bible or science re: homosexuality. --Ed Poor 07:56, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I am not saying "Weinberg said in 1972 that the word means X, therefore that's what the word means."

I was objecting to RobS's having removed Weinberg's definition from the article.

What I am saying is that the article says:

In early usage by homosexual activists, the term described heterosexual fears that others might think they were homosexual,"

and I haven't been able to follow a citation trail for that statement because the NARTH paper cites a dead link. And I have found what I think are reasonable sources for Weinberg's defining it to mean

"the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals."

And so far everyone seems to agree that Weinberg coined it. And I don't think the two meanings are equivalent.

If the meaning has drifted over time that bears against its legitimacy. The words "moron," "imbecile," and "idiot" are examples of words had legitimate meanings and now are only used as ad hominem insults.

I agree that the word "homophobia" is often used dismissively and insultingly. Dpbsmith 08:26, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I see no problem with quoting Weinberg's defintion. Only a bad egg like Humpty Dumpty would insist that a word can only mean what he wants it to mean:

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. [5]

Ever since the "fall" of man, tricksters have used words to mislead. "Did God say you would die?" asked the serpent. "You won't die, you'll be just like God". Read Genesis 3:1-6.

In all my descriptions of gay rights activism and the word battles I am speaking only about the arguments against God's rules which have been published or used by activists. --Ed Poor 08:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Personal remark removed Orgone 10:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

What is obvious is in 1973, as was the fashion then, Weinberg coined the neologism "homophobia" to attempt to give some reasoned or scientific basis to the phenomenea. It backfired. Homosexuals unpleased with the homosexual lifestyle who seek therapy get diagnosed with "internalized homophobia", while activists seek to criminalize an alleged mental disorder. This was precisley the case of what homosexuality was before the theraputic community "normalized" homosexuality, it was both a crime and a mental disorder. So activists actually (unknowingly) ended up trying to re-criminalize homosexuals as homophobes. So that bit of pseudoscience got trashed, only activists and the general public doesn't know it yet. That episode of pseudoscience having failed, that is, inventing neologisms as pseudoscience in an effort to influence the poltical process by poltical activists who penetrated the scientific communisty, now we see an entirely knew phenomenon. The attempt to write legal terminology into behavioral science texts. RobS 18:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Science again

This article I think is complete and it's been nominated for feature status. Let me add a personal observation: many who disputed the science in the Evolution related articles were curiously silent when it came to discussing the science in this article, or dismissed the science outright. There is something to be learned from this. RobS 00:01, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

There's not really any science in this article to speak of. The sentence about the therapeutic community being divided is, in my view of that community, a mischaracterization because it suggests a relatively even split, which I don't think is accurate. If there's a citation that supports that point fine, but as is it doesn't work. Murray 01:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I think that the article still needs work. It says, "Christians and others who oppose homosexuality on Biblical grounds". But the word homophobia is not just used against those who oppose homosexuality on Biblical grounds. In fact it is usually used against others. It is used against those who oppose same-sex marriage, even when the opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible.

The etymology may not be correct. My Merriam-Webster dictionary gives 1958 for the earliest known usage. RSchlafly 01:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

The etymology is sourced to Gregory M. Herek, Beyond 'Homophobia': Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century, Sexuality Research & Social Policy, April, 2004, one more reason this psuedoscience is suspect. A cite dating back to 1958 supports Dr. Breiner's claim, "There is no doubt that homophobia exists" and "There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined". The psuedoscience which has permeated the research community has produced volumes of research papers propounding "internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia", which the theraputic community as a whole has failed to adopt or recognize as having any sort of valid scientific basis, at least as far as diagnosis and treatment are concerned (it may have some value in the Sociological field, but that does not carry the weight among legislators for whom this psuedoscience is intended to influence). As far as Herek is concerned, the term did in fact enter mainstream and journalistic use about the time he claims, 1973 and after, and the assertion it reached mainstream use starting with pornographic publications (Screw magazine likewise probably can be supported by the evidence). The claim Weinberg invented it is probably fauilty, but we can say "gay activist and psychologist Gerald Weinberg helped popularize the term".

What may be most valueable here is demonstrating how the attacks on Creation science claim it lacks a "true" scientific basis, yet those making the attacks are absolutely powerless to give any scientific support to the idea of "homophobia", which was the original intent when the term was popularized. Having failed to hijack the psychologcial research and theraputic professions to futher the homosexual agenda, we see the next phase of an activist agenda taking shape with an attempt to redefine the same flawed theories in new language using legel terminology (hetero "sexism") instead of the psuedoscientific terminology. RobS 10:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Of course. The whole thing is tied in with Junk science, i.e., the citing of unreproducible scientific studies to score political or ideological points. The first time I caught people doing this was over the phrase, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." (Maybe my interest stems from my last name, I dunno. ;-)

In the Western world, over the last few centuries, both the rich and the poor have become wealthier. Statistics prove this easily, thus disproving one of Marxism's most central claims. --Ed Poor 13:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll never argue that homophobia is a phobia; just that it's a form of discrimination.-AmesG_yo! 22:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Reparative therapy

Reparative therapy has no less than 3 primea facia serious flaws in its intial expansion, see Talk:Reparative therapy. We are not ready to split this off into a separate article yet. AFD Reparative therapy has been nominated for deletion because of the naked mirepresentation of scientific and technical sources and the editor warned. [6] RobS 13:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Robledo's edit

User Robledo edited the page to a concise, clear, sensible version on April 30 2007. it has been rapidly reverted to the rather bizarre paranoid rant that has developed, which is a shame since it satisfied well known sensible conservative user Ed Poor, and a loony leftie like me. Human 21:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Way to run away

So you lock it without discussion? Doesn't a shorter, more succint article make more sense?-AmesG_yo! 22:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)