Talk:Homophobia

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.-AmesG_yo! 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?-AmesG_yo! 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)

Your response seems a bit muddled, specifically regarding the relationship between trapped and choice. As I understand these words, when one is trapped, one's choices are limited, curtailed, stymied, and even eliminated. A prisoner in a jail has no choice about his daily routine. He can't, for example, take a stroll outside the grounds.

Perhaps you have confused me with other Christians who regard homosexual behavior as entirely a matter of choice. Going to rock concerts instead of opera and ballet, is a choice. Majoring in economics or biology or civil engineering (or not going to college at all), is a choice. Voting Democratic or Republican is a choice.

Feeling revulsion or fear or indifference or attraction upon seeing a pretty girl, on the other hand, does not appear to be a matter of choice. Asking her out on a date, or shooting her with an automatic rifle, however, is most certainly a choice. --Ed Poor 10:26, 7 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.-AmesG_yo! 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!!!-AmesG_yo! 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)

OMG

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.-AmesG_yo! 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.-AmesG_yo! 14:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

RobS,

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)

Response,

• 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.-AmesG_yo! 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." -AmesG_yo! 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!-AmesG_yo! 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.-AmesG_yo! 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.-AmesG_yo! 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.-AmesG_yo! 16:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Ah ha! So we have it right there! An admission they used a medical term to promote a politcal agenda. RobS 16:10, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

You're imputing an invidious mens rea where there is none. The term has never been used, even implicitly, to suggest that homophobia is a mental disease. Please try not to be so paranoid. On the other end, aren't you just using a medical term - gender identity disorder - to further your own political agenda?-AmesG_yo! 16:13, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

When the American Psychiatric Association downgraded homosexuality from a mental illness, the tables turned, and gay activists sought to characterize homosexuality as "normal" while impugning critics of the APA's decision as "abnormal", i.e. mentally deficient, or crazy. Gay activists sought to convince us only a crazy person would oppose homosexual activity, and the gay agenda. Today, as you and others have very well articulated, gay activists seek to criminalize what gay activists once considered a mental illness. RobS 16:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, you say that "homophobia" is just a term for discrimination and not a phobia. Do you have any sources to support that? It is contrary to my experience. Eg, some states have laws against discrimination, but none have laws against homophobia. Why is that, do you think? RSchlafly 16:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

This is true what he says. It is not illegal to think, only to do. In some countries one cannot say that they think homosexuality is wrong, but no one says what you can believe in your heart.MoshiachNow 16:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

If you can find a gay rights activist saying that homophobia is a mental disease, then throw down. Otherwise you're just imagining it. And RSchlafly, I think that your note about the way that the law works is just right on: it recognizes that the only thing that gay rights workers are after is criminalizing discrimination, not though.-AmesG_yo! 17:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

What is a phobia? other than a mental illness? RobS 17:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Is arachnophobia a mental illness?-AmesG_yo! 17:24, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know; I thought it was a movie, but I never saw it. And please, spare me the details on it. RobS 17:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Movie?! Huh. Anyways, not all "phobias" are mental illnesses, first of all, and second, I have yet to see you show me someone saying (other than you!) that homophobia is a mental disease.-AmesG_yo! 17:28, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Dr. Breiner in this article states discusses the problem with the term pretty good. RobS 17:29, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Right, Rob, he states the linguistic problem with it, but he doesn't prove that anyone has used the term to mean as much. It has never been used to mean mental illness, get a grip.-AmesG_yo! 17:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

What would you characterize "Christophobia" as? RobS 17:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Since I've never heard of it, I'd characterize it as another thing you made up.-AmesG_yo! 18:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT) Love the compromise. Great work Robledo!-AmesG_yo! 19:13, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a pseudoscientific term with a hidden poltical meaning, and very offensive to those to whom it is applied. RobS 20:07, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Robledo version

Robledo, I reverted your edit because it appeared contrary to all the discussion here and contrary even to the cited sources. You define "Homophobia is most commonly used to indicate a general opposition to the idea that homosexuality is an acceptable state of being.", but the source does not say that and you give no example of the word even being used that way. Then you equate homophobia with murder! Now I think that the current version understates the extent to which homophobia is used as a smear term. You are trying to use it to smear as murderers anyone who objects to the gay agenda. I think that your edit is false and offensive, and it is certainly not a compromise. RSchlafly 19:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Nonsense. My edit left the old article untouched in the Objections section. All the evidence suggests you have the ability to read - I suggest you employ it more fully next time.

You can not seriously deny that gay men and women suffer violence and intimidation, and yes, even murder, because of some people's deep antipathy towards homosexuality. The article must make that clear. Even RobS agreed that.

I stand by my definition of homophobia and by the fact that my source supports it:

What is homophobia? The suffix "phobia" is derived from the Greek word "phobos". In English, it means either fear or loathing. "Homophobia" has a variety of meanings, including:

• "hatred of homosexuality"
• "hatred of homosexuals"
• "fear of gays and lesbians"
• "a desire to discriminate against homosexuals"
• "an attempt to discriminate against homosexuals"

The fourth and fifth options appear to be the dominant meanings among the general population. It places "homophobia" in the same class as "racism" and "sexism" where hatred, fear and discrimination are directed against persons of different races, and genders.

You have frankly made yourself appear somewhat foolish.

--Robledo 20:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, you have cited one particular source that gives 5 definitions, and then says that those who oppose same-sex marriage are homophobes. That would include most Americans, and most Democrat leaders. Then you want to associate homophobes with cold-blooded murderers. Would you like to add a sentence saying, "There are radical groups that brand political leaders like Clinton, Kerry, and Obama as homophobes who are promoting the murders of minorities." That seems to be what you are justifying here. RSchlafly 20:37, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure if you're drunk, or wilfully trying to provoke me. The source gives 5 definitions and then fastens on the last two as "the dominant meanings among the general population." This is exactly what my definition claims.

As per my definition, the term is perfectly suited to "those who oppose same-sex marriage" as they're clearly demonstrating a "general opposition to the idea that homosexuality is an acceptable state of being." The fact that you don't like the term is frankly neither here nor there.

And as for my associating everyone who displays this general opposition with "cold-blooded murderers," that's nonsense and you know it. I clearly state that "principled objections to homosexuality are perfectly possible, particularly on religious grounds." A principled anti-gay stance pretty much excludes violent assault, wouldn't you say?

I intend to revert unless you can come up with something vaguely coherent.

--Robledo 21:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Robledo, we need a definition of "internalized homophobia", which my source, Dr. Breiner, denies exists. Secondly, can you produce recent FBI stats of the number of homosexual murder victims attributed to homophobia? Thank you. RobS 21:23, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

N.B. murders include non-negligent manslaughters

2005 - Table 4

• Anti-Male Homosexual: 0 murders, 105 aggravated assaults, 203 assaults, 195 incidents of intimidation
• Anti-Female Homosexual: 0 murders, 29 aggravated assualts, 43 assaults, 52 incidents of intimidation
• Anti-Homosexual: 0 murders, 1 forcible rape, 34 aggravated assaults, 76 assaults, 47 incidents of intimidation

2004 - Table 4, p.19

• Anti-Male Homosexual: 0 murders, 113 aggravated assaults, 253 assaults, 252 incidents of intimidation
• Anti-Female Homosexual: 0 murders, 34 aggravated assualts, 49 assaults, 61 incidents of intimidation
• Anti-Homosexual: 1 murder, 51 aggravated assaults, 58 assaults, 69 incidents of intimidation

2003 - Table 4, p.18

• Anti-Male Homosexual: 6 murders, 100 aggravated assaults, 288 assaults, 270 incidents of intimidation
• Anti-Female Homosexual: 0 murders, 2 forcible rapes, 21 aggravated assualts, 66 assaults, 66 incidents of intimidation
• Anti-Homosexual: 0 murders, 1 forcible rape, 41 aggravated assaults, 85 assaults, 93 incidents of intimidation

This is a 2006 report on an attack in a Massachusetts gay bar, and this is a report from Amnesty on the scale of the international problem. Not pleasant reading :( --Robledo 22:36, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

So there have zero "anti-homosexual" murders in the United States since 2003? And you think this warrants its own subhead, considering the FBI does not attribute them to homophobia, and that we should place this information ahead of an undefined term? RobS 22:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't you start going all RSchlafly on me here, RobS. I give you more credit that that. The very fact that some people are so anti-gay as sometimes to commit murder is noteworthy in itself, and is precisely the reason why you, as a principled opponent, should be seeking to distance your views as far from theirs as possible.

Let's look at the figures for aggravated assaults against male homosexuals for a minute. On a rough calculation, they entail that every 3-4 days someone has the living sh't kicked out of them simply for preferring men to women. That alone is a Bad Thing.

I repeat: homophobia is most commonly understood as a general opposition to the acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable state of being. In the case of your principled objections, then it's just an annoying term you're going to have to learn to live with. Others, however, use this general opposition to legitimise their own violent and thuggish behaviour. As thoughtful human beings, we must challenge this.

--Robledo 23:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

You want to do a subhead entitled "murder", yet haven't defined the term. Then the sources you cite here on talk doesn't use the term, either. Next the proposed text actually cites a few British incidents -- evidently gays are safer in the US than in the Great Britain despite the fact their chance of being killed with a handgun is 37 times greater than GB. Frankly, I don't know where we're going with all this. RobS 00:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

If it is true that some people are so anti-gay as to commit murder, then that might be relevant to an article on hate crimes, but not homophobia. You repeat your definition, but it is meaningless unless you can explain how it applies. Are Kerry, Clinton, and Obama homophobes? RSchlafly 00:05, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

RSchlafly, I refer you back to my earlier reply beginning "I'm not sure if you're drunk, or wilfully trying to provoke me." RobS, I'm going to bed - we'll pick this up tomorrow.

--Robledo 00:12, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

A reference that doesn't say what the article says they say

The article says:

The term was invented to impugn and slander opponents of homosexuality.

It supports that by a reference to Gay Psychologist Creates New Terms for Use in the Social Debate. Well, there are two problems with that. The first is that the article does not say that. What the article says is

Dr. Herek suggests that although the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture...

Either "Pushing forward the gay agenda" and "impugning and slandering oppontents of homosexuality" mean the same thing or they mean different things. If they mean the same thing, there's no reason to prefer the second wording. If they mean different things, the second wording should not be used when the reference uses the first wording.

A second problem is that the site is not directly quoting Herek, so what we have is not what Herek said, but NARTH's summary or paraphrase, and NARTH is sufficiently non-neutral that I don't trust it to have rendered Herek accurately.

Until someone finds Herek's article—has anyone been able to? NARTH's article has a link, but it's dead—let's stick to what the reference actually says, and let's note that it is not a direct source. Dpbsmith 21:23, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Smith is right, and I was wrong. We must use quotes correctly. --Ed Poor 21:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

This cite, Charles W. Socarides, M.D., How America Went Gay, America, (November 18, 1995), says

• They have created a kind of conventional wisdom: that we suffer from homophobia, a disease that has actually been invented by gays projecting their own fear on society. RobS 21:32, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Ah. Found the Herek article. A valid link is: [7] Haven't read it yet. Dpbsmith 21:33, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Nope, that doesn't work as a permalink, either. Can't find anything better as a link than to tell people to "go to http://nsrc.sfsu.edu and search on "stigma in the twenty-first century." Dpbsmith 21:35, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

The Herek article says "Weinberg gave a name to the hostility and helped popularize the belief that it constituted a social problem worthy of scholarly analysis and intervention. His term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies." It does confirm what NARTH said about its first appearance in print, cites May 23, 1969 as the date of publication, and confirms that in that publication Nichols and Clarke used homophobia to refer to heterosexuals’ fears that others might think they are homosexual. Dpbsmith 21:42, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

The cite supports exactly as I've said,

• With that one word, Weinberg neatly challenged entrenched thinking about the “problem” of homosexuality.

The word was invented to make "antigay" attitides (as Herek describes) "abnormal", exactly at the time the mental disease of homosexuality was declared "normal". RobS 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Weinberg claims homophobia is a mental illness.

• Of course, any answer to the question of how an illness develops,( and homophobia is an illness, no doubt about that) has to be incomplete. What worse illness can there be than acute conventionality. You should pray every night that you don't wake up with it. [8] RobS 22:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

RobS, I was addressing a statement that said "The term was invented to impugn and slander opponents of homosexuality." I don't know whose statement that was. I provided a citation that supports some things that some people have said. But please look clearly at what it does and does not support.

The statement has been made that the term "homophobia" is used as a tool by gay-rights advocates to further their cause. Well, I think Herek can be fairly described as a gay-rights advocate and indeed, here is a gay-rights advocate saying "His term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies." OK.

It does not say that it was invented for that purpose. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but the passage I quote from Herek does not say that.

And it says that it was a tool "for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies." It does not say that was a tool for "impugning and slandering" opponents. Slander, in particular, is a pretty strong word with a reasonably specific meaning.

Please be clear about the distinction between these statements. They are not the same.

• A gay-rights activist has described it as an "important tool" in furthering that cause.
• "Gay-rights activists have described it as an 'important tool' in furthering their cause.
• "It has been used by gay-rights activists to impugn their opponents."
• "It has been used mostly by gay-rights activists to impugn their opponents."
• "It was invented to impugn opponents of homosexuality."
• "It was invented to impugn and slander opponents of homosexuality."

Dpbsmith 05:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Proposed compromise

Here's a proposal for a compromise solution. If we can first create a subhead, ==Internalized homophobia==, and discuss the controversial issue how much of the research over the past thirty years has discoverd most of the patients therapist have been treating are homosexuals with an aversion to themselves and/or their own conduct, complete with some statistics, this would end the fraudlent notion that homophobia is exclusively a heterosexual phenomenea. Then we could include a subhead entitled ==anti-homosexual violence== with the FBI stats, and noting the FBI does not use the term homophobia. RobS 00:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Disagree. Stick to the topic. Define homophobia and discuss how the term is used. Reparative therapy and anti-homosexual violence aren't relevant. RSchlafly 01:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

The term homophobia is used to assert an idea. The idea is that all opposition to homosexuality is evil. Obviously, Christians and others who regard homosexuality as evil are going to object to this.

This is like calling scientists who disagree with the UN climate panel "global warming deniers" with deniers carrying the same connotation as holocaust denial.

Ironically, it is also like calling people who defend Israel, against Arab nationalism and terrorism, "Nazis".

It is name-calling, in place of reasoned discussion. It confuses the issue. And my personal touchstone for evil is: whatever moves us away from clarity and towards confusion, is likely to be evil. Be wary of it. --Ed Poor 10:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I don't agree with your edit that homophobia is used as "a neutral synonym for any opposition to homosexuality or gay rights". I've never heard anyone use it as a neutral term. It is only used as a derogatory epithet like nigger or faggot or fascist. If it were a neutral term, then there would be people who proudly call themselves homophobes. There aren't. RSchlafly 13:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Like the new intro, Ed. :) I've tweaked it a bit to keep the peace with RSchlafly. I'm adding the Anti-homosexual violence bit shortly as per RobS.

--Robledo 16:47, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I second Roger's motion. We are not talking about how the term is used, we are talking about how it has been abused, both when it was coined, and now. This intro simply caters to that abuse. RobS 17:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

If we are going to any of this information about anti-gay violence, we need statistics from reseach by propoents of "internalized homophobia" theory. This is the propoposed compromise. RobS 18:07, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

My apologies. I hadn't realised that one was contingent on the other. I'll look into it, but I suspect it's something of a blind alley. --Robledo 18:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't see how the anti-gay stats are any more relevant than stats about how gays are spreading AIDS. This article should be a lot shorter. I'd like to know whether we can agree on a few things, including:

• The term homophobia is a pejorative and offensive epithet.
• The word suggests that it is a phobia, but there is no such recognized disorder.
• Some apply the term to anyone who opposes same-sex marriage. RSchlafly 19:33, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

"The word suggests that it is a phobia, but there is no such recognized disorder." Agree provisionally. Haven't looked at DSM-IV myself, not a psychologist, don't know the literature, but think you're right.

"Some apply the term to anyone who opposes same-sex marriage." I'm sure you're right, but should be illustrated by concrete (sourced) examples.

"The term homophobia is a pejorative and offensive epithet." Disagree. It all depends who's saying it, what they mean by it, what the context is, what the implied tone of voice is. Think of "paranoid" as a parallel. Depends whether the person saying it is friendly or hostile, whether it's meant loosely or literally, and, of course, whether the person of whom its said is clinically suffering from paranoia.

I might buy that it's "often" or even "usually" used that way, but I'd like to see concrete support. Also, I find "pejorative" easier to buy than "offensive," particularly given that the dictionaries don't describe it as "offensive."

One of the things I'm getting at is that I do not currently think Weinberg used it that way, although it's possible that other gay-rights advocates might have used it that way from the beginning. I think Weinberg really saw it as a phobia in the clinical sense. Of course he was talking about incidents like a woman literally trembling with fear and unable to speak to him because she thought he might be gay.

(One of the things you didn't mention because it's not important, but I suspect we agree on this: as a coinage it affects me like a fingernail scraping on a chalkboard, dried-out marker squeaking on a whiteboard, because "homo" doesn't, or shouldn't, mean "homosexual." If we're mixing slang and Greek, it could just as well be "queerophobia."). Dpbsmith 21:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Weinberg said homophobia was a mental illness that both gays & straights suffered from. Of course now we know, the theraputic community has largely rejected the entire idea that Weinberg proposed back then. Nonetheless, it has always, since it was coined, but used as a political attack term against anyone who opposed the gay agenda. Hence, this is a clear cut case of paseudoscinece being used to create mass deception -- and this is what this articl e needs to arcticulate. RobS 21:24, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Unclear Sentence

Neither do the statistics include senior citizens, homeless, military personnel, or battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnent -- all known victim classes of hate crime attacks. I haven't waded through the whole talk page here, but I did notice on skimming the article that this sentence needs some work - I think I may understand what it is trying to say, but it is very unclear and the last part (battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnent) definately needs to be cleaned up gramatically and spelling-wise. I'd do it myself but am reluctant to touch it since I'm not sure I understand what it's meant to say.--Hsmom 17:54, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Pregnant women often are violently abused by husbands and boyfriends after becoming pregnant. This is a hate-motived crime. RobS 18:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

<shakes head back and forth to make sure he just heard that reply> What? how is this... wha? I am so confused by your reply to this I don't know what to say. <composes self> How is beating a pregnant woman a hate crime? <exits, pursued by a bear> Flippin 18:19, 9 May 2007 (EDT)