Talk:Homophobia

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)

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)

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)

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)