From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AmesG (Talk | contribs) at 15:08, 6 May 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

The Homophobia article was unprotected on 1 May by RobS (talk)

Archive(s): /1

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.-AmesGyo! 22:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Do you have any objective support for that view? RSchlafly 00:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
One thing that is clear is that at least most of the time when the term is used it is not referring to a literal phobia of gay people. Setting aside whatever the intentions of the guy who invented the term may have been, I also don't believe there's any evidence that there are a meaningful number of people who have a phobia of homosexuality. Murray 10:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
The term clearly was invented to give currency to the idea (a) that homosexuaity was normal, and (b) the rejection of homosexuality was abnormal, (c) that science supported this view. It was psuedoscience that was politicized. And the intent of its promulgators was always to attack critics. It was bad psuedoscience to begin with, because it urged discriminition and reprisals against people who, by any scientific definition, would be handicapped. My appologies to the promulators and purveyors of lies -- the chickens have come home to roost. The fraud has been exposed. RobS 12:49, 1 May 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. [1] 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)

I would have liked to have seen Robledo's version be accepted as a fine working outline for the article... maybe even the opening part of the article... and then expanded with well-sourced backing for each of the points that it makes. It seemed to me to state the points that needed to be made correctly, neutrally, and accurately. Dpbsmith 09:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Way to run away

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

I think you were given a fair warning regarding your editing. [2][3][4] RobS 00:11, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Archive warning

Are we all ready for an archive? Maybe someone who hasn't participated as much in the discussion as I have, should do the archive. --Ed Poor 22:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Done... although I've participated quite a bit too. If anyone has a problem with where I made the cut, just fix it, I won't object. Dpbsmith 09:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Thanks. --Ed Poor 10:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

opposition to the homosexual agenda

I reverted an edit that claimed that the term was used for opposition to homosexuality, rather than the homosexual agenda. Does anyone have any comment? I see the term homophobia used for opposition to same-sex marriage and things like that, much more than homosexuality itself. RSchlafly 12:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a catch-all term. It's used to shut down debate. Like comparing someone to Hitler. It's emotionally manipulative. It reminds me of Orwell's Newspeak which was designed to prevent thought, rather to express it. It's part of the whole politically correct thing.
I'm for freedom, and I think that homosexuality is the worst sort of slavery. Many young men are trapped in it. --Ed Poor 12:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Are you serious? Every gay person I know has known either from childhood that they were "different" or discovered it on their own. Is trapped really the precise word? I know it is if you believe it is a choice, but I have never, not once, in my experience with gay people, met someone whose chosen it. That is the weirdest thing to me that people believe that. Just a thought here, but should we also have a page dedicated to straight civil unions and the straight agenda?Flippin 12:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Robledo's version.

I reverted it, because he basicly rewrote the whole thing without bringing anything up on the talk page, after there was significant discussion to come up with the previous version. I am open to changing it, but i think that his version takes it a little too far. --CPAdmin1 23:26, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

First sentence - how is homophobia a pseudoscientific term? What claims to the scientific method does it make? Is it any less scientific than arachnophobia? --Mtur 23:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
What is a phobia? RobS 23:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
The m-w says it well - "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation" There are no claims to scientificness of the term. If you can find any material that claims a scientific backing of homophobia, that would be interesting to see. --Mtur 00:05, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
Here's our Guide, the DSM IV. RobS 00:23, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm intrigued by the notion of having taken it "a little too far." The aims of my second revision were thus:

1. To make it clear that the term's common usage refers to a general opposition (not phobic or irrational), and is widely understood as such.

2. To acknowledge that even this "weak" formulation contains an implicit value judgement, akin to labelling someone racist or sexist, and that this angers principled opponents.

3. To acknowledge that violence and intimidation is a continuing issue and must be resisted by principled opponents as well as activists.

4. To do this in a clear, concise and fair manner.

The removal of the NARTH material is necessitated by aims 1 & 4, particularly with regards to fairness. This site has ample anti-homosexual entries already - it needs another like it needs a fire in its server room.

If anyone wishes to take specific issue with any of these stated aims, or identify how my second revision failed to meet them, please do so below. Comments of support are also welcome.

--Robledo 13:59, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes but the whole problem stems from the disinformation campaign mounterd by gay activists in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s; they nakedly abused a scientific term to further a political agenda. The idea was obvious then, once homosexuality was "normalized", gay activists sought to slander opposition to homosexuality as "abnormal". Today, 2007, they cannot walk away from the factual, historical, record, claim they were misunderstood or something, while at the same time slandering people who both oppose the homosexual ageneda, and dissent on the idea that homosexuality is "normal" behavior. RobS 14:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, cards on the table. I personally hold homosexuality to be a trivial physical difference exhibited by a minority of the population, in much the same way that some people are left-handed or have blue eyes.

Your primary concern seems to be the history of the use of the term. I'm more concerned with how it's used now. Can we perhaps agree on two things:

1. That principled opponents explicitly reject violence and intimidation directed against homosexuals, and that the article needs to make this clear.

2. That the historical points you are trying to make might be better placed within articles which already serve that function, namely homosexual agenda?

--Robledo 15:19, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

  • principled opponents explicitly reject violence and intimidation directed against homosexuals
Please stop momentarilly; this itself may be a bigotted statement against heterosexuals. It automatically assumes "violence and intimidation directed against homosexuals" primarily comes from heterosexuals. Homosexuals have the highest rates of domestic violence of any socio economic group. Consenting homosexual relationships are often are fraught with violence. So before we begin accusing or condemning a large group of people of things they may not be guilty of, we need to lay some other cards on the table. RobS 15:45, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus wept, RobS. Let's try this again then:

1. That principled opponents explicitly reject that violence and intimidation which is directed against homosexuals purely because they're homosexual, and that the article needs to make this clear.

People get beaten up for being gay (killed in some countries). This is a Bad Thing. However great your antipathy towards homosexuality in general, I struggle to believe you'd wish to come down on the side of petty thuggery and I'm frankly baffled as to why you're prevaricating.

--Robledo 18:15, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Valid point. And it needs to be made somewhere. But we're not making concession to the fact that gay rights activists have been extraordinarily deceptive and mean spirited with the use of this term since the day of its inception. And the recent Congressional action testifies to this [5] RobS 18:24, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Glad to have you on board re. violence and intimidation. This is a Good Thing. Oddly enough, the Bill your above link frets about so much confines itself to those who cause, or attempt to cause, bodily injury to someone because of their (deep breath) actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or disability. Why this can't be dealt with under existing laws, I don't know, but there's no mention of anti-gay speech at all. I suggest you read it.

I still think that the historical points you wish to make would be best developed in homosexual agenda. I'd be happy to link back to it within a short paragraph explaining the depth of feeling/anger involved.

--Robledo 22:29, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

There is serious reservations about this legislation. See Christian belief a 'hate crime' under plan, WorldNetDaily, March 3, 2007. See this qote from another citations,
"So, if speech turns a three-year sentence into a 30-year sentence for a state "hate crime" violation, just what might H.R. 1592 do on the federal level? As Rep. (and former Judge) Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, pointed out on the House Judiciary Subcommittee, if passed, H.R. 1592 is going to put pastors in prison. Pointing to Title 18 of the US Criminal Code, Section 2 (a):
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. –18 USC Sec. 2
Pastor? Have you ever counseled from a biblical perspective or read from Roman 1? I Corinthians 6? Genesis 19? Leviticus 18 or 20? Then, if H.R. 1592 becomes law and someone who has attended your church, read your materials or heard your broadcast commits a crime – such as pushing away a cross-dresser's unwelcome advances – you are "punishable as a principal," as someone who "counsels" and "induces" the now-illegal belief that homosexual behavior is a sin. [6]
What is most appaling is, this blatant attack on the Constitutional rights of American citizens does not have a prayer of becoming law, because we know Bush will vetoe it. But Pelosi and company have now stated categorically what their priorities are -- this evidenctly is more important than getting troops out of Iraq, because they already have acted upon it. nevertheless, despite Pelosi & company knowing it will not become law in legislative session, we have another example of liberal Deceit, only this time the Democratic Party leadership is deceiving gay rights activists, misleading them into beleiving their desire to violate the Constitutional rights of other American citizens has a chance to become law. RobS 13:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, Rob, the real victims are the people discriminating against gays, and constantly making them feel like second-class citizens. Thanks for reminding us who the real victims are.-AmesGyo! 13:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

We're getting sidetracked here (though I'll check out this new Bill later). Can we return to the idea that I feel the historical points you wish to make would be best developed in homosexual agenda? Any specific criticisms you have of my second revision would be useful too.
Good to see you back, AmesG ;)
--Robledo 13:36, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

UPDATE: H.R. 1592 still confines itself to those who cause, or attempt to cause, bodily injury. Read the blazing thing here!

--Robledo 13:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I thought so. Good to be back Robledo!!!-AmesGyo! 13:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
(a) it doesn't stand a chance (see Deceit), and (b) Evangelicals are up in arms about it. I got numerous cites over the past week. RobS 14:05, 6 May 2007 (EDT)


Sometimes I read articles here that make me wonder how people think. Sometimes I read articles that make me think, "these people are truly craxy!" This article is one of them. Wow. Human 23:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

you are very intolerant.Bohdan

Back on Topic...

I think this article fails because it addresses a usage of the term that almost no-one expresses: it's essentially an article against a straw-man. I've never heard of gay rights activists claiming that homophobia is a disease. I've always used the term to mean something analogous to "racism" or "sexism." The article should reflect common usage, not pointless venting against a straw man.-AmesGyo! 14:12, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Why didn't they use "homosexism" when they invented the pseudoscientific pejoritive back in the 60s? RobS 14:16, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't think linguistic dissection is a legitimate argument here, where the plain meaning in context is clearly the same.-AmesGyo! 14:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)


Unless you care to provide some specific criticism of my second revision, I plan to revert within the next few hours. You've had ample opportunity to comment constructively.

--Robledo 14:29, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

  • is widely understood as such.
understood by who? RobS 14:32, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Mostly by everyone except you. I have never heard a single gay rights activist argue that homophobia is a mental disorder. Nor have I heard argued that racism is a mental disorder. They both may be distastes based on "Principled Objection," sure, but that doesn't save either from being wrong. But not to get off topic, all I'm saying is that no one argues that homophobia is a mental disorder.-AmesGyo! 14:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

So please explain. Is homophobia a phobia? Is the term phobia commonly used to describe mental disorders? Is the term homophobia intended to be a derogatory term? RSchlafly 14:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
It's intended to be a term as derogatory as "racism," and "homophobia" is just a term for discrimination that has arisen in a cultural context that wholly separates it from any independent definition of "phobia." -AmesGyo! 15:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

We risk getting lost in trivial point by point arguments here. Please read my second revision and provide a comprehensive reply detailing any specific objections you may have.

I thank you for your forthcoming co-operation in this matter.

--Robledo 15:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Robledo, I like it, but while I agree with the last paragraph, I don't think it'd survive a revert war. Maybe "couch" it a bit, and then revert, please, because your definition is actually sensible!-AmesGyo! 15:13, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Cheers, fella :) I'm off for some dinner - we'll see if they've come up with anything substantive when I get back.

--Robledo 15:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

  • rarely employed in its full "strong" sense, i.e. an irrational phobic response
Rarely used? That's not the way many have heard it used for several decades now. RobS 15:37, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I think the problem is that the "strong" sense is your perception, based on homophobia-phobia, if you will. Your fear of the term's use as a mental illness is an irrational fear that has no actual grounding.-AmesGyo! 15:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so we agree a pseudoscientific term has been misused to impugn innocent people, although you do not wish to discuss why the promulgators did this. The debate now is, why should we continue to contribute to the victimization of alleged "homophobes" to further a politcal agenda of activists proven to be deceitful? RobS 15:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

No, I don't think we agree that a pseudoscientific term has been misused. The term has never been understood or used - except by you - to class homophobia as a mental disease. It's just a buzzword, and a shortened & easier way to say "someone who discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation." Nothing more, nothing less.-AmesGyo! 15:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Why didn't Mr. Weinberg & Al Goldstein, way back when, use "homosexism" then, if it means discriminition? RobS 16:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Ask them! Probably because "homosexism" doesn't sound as good, and muddled the issue with women's rights, which as a movement was not doing so well at the time, and would no doubt do better on its own. Imputing an invidious reason is just paranoid.-AmesGyo! 16:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)