Talk:Homophobia/Archive 6

"nonprogrammed divisions of Quakerism"

What is this? I'm imagining brainwashing vs. deprogramming, which I suspect is wrong, wrong, wrong. :-)

I know something about the brainwashing vs. deprogramming issue. May I help? --Ed Poor

First we have to find out what the person who wrote that means. I doubt he means it in the sense you took. Quakers are very far from "cultish" (and I use the term advisedly).

I was the one who wrote it, and perhaps I should have said "unprogrammed" rather than nonprogrammed, but in any case, it refers to Quakers who continue the traditional style of silent worship without a paid minister, where there is no predefined "program" of service. It is described in the article on Quakerism, if you are interested. :)

I just deleted the word. It didn't add much to the discussion. Sorry to tramp on you Egern, I think using "unprogrammed" OR "nonprogrammed" without taking the time to explain what that means, is too easily misunderstood. --Dmerrill

I would never slap you, D. Your tweak of my tweak looks fine:

Homophobia (etymologically homo = same, phobia = fear) is never used according to its etymological meaning, fear of sameness. Generally it is taken to mean opposition to homosexuality, or alternately, hatred and fear of homosexuals themselves.

I was even thinking of shortening it to:

Homophobia (etymologically homo = same, phobia = fear) is generally taken to mean opposition to homosexuality, or alternately, hatred and fear of homosexuals themselves.

I think the difference between etymological meaning and usage is interesting and should remain. --Dmerrill.

So be it. It's clear, accurate and interesting. What more could an encylopedia entry aspire to?

But I have a problem with the following sentence, being one of the "religious people" it refers to:

Religious groups and some others strongly deny that their disapproval of homosexuality, often based on their interpretation of religious scripture or principles, constitutes homophobia.

Religious people, in my experience, don't work very hard to throw off the label 'homophobic'. What they expend much time and energy disputing is the claim that irrationality, fear, or hatred is any part of their motivation or actions. Perhaps an article on hate speech would clear this up, er, bring this into focus.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm on friendly terms with (a small number of) homosexual men and women. I have managed neither to hide my disapproval of homosexuality or alienate them completely. I also know quite a few 'fornicators' and 'adulterers' and manage to be on good terms with them as well. (Pats self on back) My motto is love the sinner, hate the sin.

It works, because my disapproval of (what I regard as) immorality is rather faint, almost like a parent who wished their son had become a doctor instead of a musician. I'm actually rather easy-going.

--Ed Poor

Then by my definition, you're not homophobic. I'll take a stab at correcting the sentence you referred to. I have an idea how it can work. --Dmerrill

Thanks, and I like the way you wrote the following, because the "lumping" does seem motivated to change the lumpee's mind:

. . . used by advocates for social change to indiscriminately lump together true homophobes (i.e., those who actively fear and loathe homosexuals) with those who merely disapprove of homosexuality, perhaps on principled or religious grounds, in order to shame the latter into abandoning their disapproval.

--Ed Poor

I didn't write that. I've done a lot of work on this article, but not all of it by any means. That's Wikipedia fer ya! --Dmerrill

At this point (1/3/02), the article is sufficiently NPOV, but it seems to be trying so hard to avoid taking sides that it doesn't say anything. Perhaps there is too much back-and-forth: some say, others say, these counterargue -- all in the same paragraph.

Perhaps we can maintain the balance of the article AND make the various points more clear and fully described, by maintaining the POV of one side for a paragraph or two. THEN, balance it with another side.

(I'm not sure I can do this, myself. Any takers?)

Ed Poor

I think it reads great as it is. On a controversial topic, this may be the best that's achievable. You're welcome to try, though! --Dmerrill

I'm not sure beginning with the distinction between principled and irrational opposition to homosexuality is the best way to begin, even though I think I have been the one most concerned with making that distinction.

Is there anyone who knows something about homophobia, from the point of view of those who use the term homophobia?

I gather in common parlance it means

opposition to homosexuality (on, say, moral or religious grounds)
discrimination against homosexuals (can't be Boy Scout leader or get married)

Is there, as I think, the intent to label opposition and discrimination as literally irrational, fearful or hate-filled? --Ed Poor

Fairly often. I suppose I can't think of a reason for opposing or hating homosexuals that isn't irrational, fearful, or hate-filled, because at least one of those adjectives adequately describes every incident of homophobia that I've witnessed or suffered. However, we don't necessarily or even usually have the full range of implications behind the word every time we use it (hence questions like "Why are people homophobic?" - if the word denoted all of the above, the question would lead to a tautology.)

En passant, it's kind of fun to see I'm becoming one of the local Gay Guys. :) - user:Montrealais

I only agree with you half way: reasons for hating homosexuals are all irrational, fearful or hateful. As for "opposing homosexuals", I can't comment unless I know what you mean by that. By "opposing homosexuals" do you mean (a) opposition to homosexuality, or (b) discrimination against homosexuals, or what? --Ed Poor

Amazingly I find myself agreeing with Ed here. Religious arguments for opposing homsexual activity are neither irrational (by the standards of religion, anyway - *so long* as you believe the world was sneezed out by the Great Green Arkleseizure, if the Great Green Arkleseizure apparently said "homosexuals should burn!" it's not technically irrational to say homosexuals should burn. Which leaves us in the difficult position of condemning all religion as irrational, or accepting my/Ed's point...), necessarily fearful or necessarily hateful. Now let me go read the page. =) --AW

Adam, while there are some religious folks who say "homosexuals should burn", in general religious disapproval of homosexuality is not so, um, heated. It usually falls into the same category as religious disapproval of any other sort of extramarital sex. I think this is explored on the homosexuality and morality page.

Ed - I hoped it was clear my post was exaggerated for clarity and so as to make it clear it wasn't an attack on any particular group. This is why I used the Great Green Arkleseizure (who comes from H2G2, and so far as I can tell has no followers in the real world :>). Obviously it wasn't, sorry. --AW

Adam raises a curiously interesting question: is the rational implication of an irrational belief itself irrational, or rational? -- in other words, is irrationality transitive? ;-) -- Tarquin

I moved up and labelled the section "Manifestations of homophobia", because I thought it was more important than the wrangle about the term homophobia. --Ed Poor 15:33 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)

Hardly anyone but me on this talk page. It's getting boring. Maybe it's time to do something to (grin) mix things up a bit.

I propose to revise the article to explore 3 main categories:

irrational hostility toward homosexuals: discrimination, beatings, etc.
principled opposition to homosexuality: e.g., religious grounds
attempts to score debating points by equating the above 2 categories

--Ed Poor

Well, isn't 2) often the foundation of 1)? Can you really argue that religious opposition to homosexuality is "rational"? Who equates 1) and 2)? I think people are rather saying that 1) happens because of 2). --Eloquence

Well, isn't what you just said above an example of 3)? ;-) --Uncle Ed

Equating them is different from claiming a cause/effect relationship. --Eloquence

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Perhaps then the article could distinguish between (A) the view that opposition to homosexuality can be principled and rational, but that hostility toward homosexuals (such as discrimination and beatings) is bad; and (B) the view that opposition to homosexuality is necessarily irrational and that thus it inevitably gives (or tends to give) rise to hostility such as discrimination and beatings. --Uncle Ed

An example of (2) would be the belief that the nuclear family is the bedrock of society, and therefore homosexuality is not a desirable thing. That's a perfectly rational position, though not one I share. I tend to use the term "homoskeptic" to describe this non-violent opposition, and "homophobic" to describe (1). I'd definately be in favour of revising the entry along those lines - "homophobia" is similar to "freedom fighter" - it's absolutely essential to clarify what the words mean before going on to discuss the subject.

I've got to assume that MyRedDice was using freedom fighter in the sense of, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". --Uncle Ed

Precisely. One person's principled opposition is another person's irrational hostility. Personally I've always found "burn in hell" comments rather tame - it's the "burn in reality" advocates that worry me... -Martin

"homoskeptic"? Arg! Please, don't let's invent more ill-formed words! "homophobia" should mean fear of things that are the same as oneself. -- Tarquin 17:19 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC), from his spot at pedants' corner. ;-)

Yes - but someone who believes that the nuclear family is the bedrock of society doesn't necessarilly have a phobia of homosexuals. I believe that Tony Blair is an unprincipled liar, but that doesn't make me afraid of him. But I'm not advocating that wikipedia use the term "homoskeptic", so pedants need not fear... -Martin

I wasn't complaining about the concept you have identified -- just the formation of the word. -- t

Well, I think we have some problems with terms here. What is rational and what is irrational? That's a deeply philosophical distinction, as irrational is frequently interpreted negatively, and thus, even religions do not like to be called irrational. I consider a view rational if it is based on plausible assumptions and verifiable facts. The belief that the "nuclear family is the bedrock of society" may be plausible, but the "therefore .." stuff simply cannot logically be concluded from it. Because if that's the case, you would have to oppose people living alone as well. You would have to demand legislation to force people into marriage. A homosexual harms the bedrock no more than a heterosexual who doesn't get married.

But this gets us deep into POV territory. The beliefs I think there are:

Homosexuality is perfectly normal, and any opposition to it is necessarily irrational.
Homosexuality is not normal, but it harms nobody, so it doesn't need to be opposed.
Homosexuality is not normal, and it harms the institution of the family (somehow), so it needs to be opposed..

Besides there are:

economic and legal discrimination
physical abuse
psychical abuse

There may also be subconscious fears and more primitive claims, such as "homosexuals are filthy" etc.

As to the connection between these two:

Holders of belief 1 tend to see a causal connection between the irrational fear of homosexuality and abuses/discrimination of homosexuals. For them, the religious belief is either a pretext for or the cause of homophobia.
Holders of belief 2 see the opposition in form of discrimination and abuse as irrational, but the view that homosexuality is abnormal as distinct from it.
Holders of belief 3 claim to only accept certain forms of (e.g.)legal discrimination, but reject other forms, or physical/psychical abuse.

We also need to mention the hypothesis that homophobia is correlated with latent homosexuality. I think there are some studies on the subject.

Oh, and homoskeptic is not a word. --Eloquence

Following up on Erik's question above: "Who equates them?"

A quick web search turned up the following essay, which equates opposition to homosexuality with fear and hatred (see Homophobia: The Fear Behind The Hatred). IMHO, this essayist assumes (or wisheds to lead the reader to assume) that opposition to homosexuality is same as hatred. He does this by inserting a heading, "The Reasons Homophobes Give For Their Hatred" followed by a paragraph with begins: It's not natural. The paragraph goes on to rebut the view that homosexuality is not natural.

Unless I'm reading the essay wrong, the essayist is literally and intentionally equating "opposition to homosexuality" with "hate". QED.

But please rest assured that I'm not going to "pounce" on this as a justification for making further, radical changes to the article. I'm done for the day, if not the month. Just consider this food for thought.

-- Ever humbly, Uncle Ed 17:37 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)

I beg to differ, while the author obviously equates hatred and opposition to homosexuality, he does not say that everyone who is opposed to homosexuality will beat up homosexuals. He does say that religious bigotry results in / is the foundation of such discrimination and abuse, i.e. cause and effect as I mentioned above.

So I think that few, if any, people believe there is no distinction to be made between people who, for instance, physically abuse homosexuals and those who are opposed to homosexuality. --Eloquence

This article seems hopelessly filled with POV to me. Now granted it sounds like the supposed NPOV stuff that I would expect to hear in the U.S., but it totally neglects the fact that it is possible to rationally oppose homosexuality. To most Americans this concept is absurd, but just because Americans are close-minded does not mean that this should not be a NPOV'ed article. -- RM

Are you really saying that if someone fights against those who are opposed to homosexuality, somehow this is being closed-minded? -- Zoe

No, not at all. But to just call someone irrational for believing something without listening to their evidence is equally irrational and ignorant. I'm saying that it is *only* those people who call people homophobes without listening to them is being ignorant and irrational. That is by definition an ad-hominem attack. The Homophobia article says that people believe that anyone who is opposed to homosexuality is irrational. That is a belief, plain and simple.

In fact, if you hold to Moral relativism then you have to admit that there is at least a chance that things like the Nazi movement could be correct (even if highly unlikely). As such even if it is highly unlikely that you can rationally disprove of homosexuality, the fact is that you have to at least allow it or you are irrational yourself. Quite frankly people who are irrational are not worth my time to discuss things with. -- Ram-Man

Of course he is - tolerate the intolerant and all that ;-). Too bad, I thought Ram-Man was smarter than that. Do you have any specific NPOV complaints about the article, Ram-Man? --Eloquence

My mistake is being rational. My belief for or against homosexuality has nothing to do with this. The fact is that tolerance is irrational unless you tolerate the intolerant as you say. In the end no one is tolerant. If you don't tolerate the intolerants (like virtually everyone), then you are making a moral judgement and that is self-refuting. My specific complaint is just that I have not yet added the material that I desire: a counter-point well-reasoned defense for why it is rational to be a "homophobe". -- RM

How can homophobia be rational, any more than any other phobia? -- Zoe

The word "homophobia" is frequently (mis?)applied to those who do not have an irrational fear of gays, but merely oppose homosexuality on rational grounds. This (mis?)application should obviously be covered in an article on homophobia. In practice, very few people actually have a phobia of homosexuality. You can't walk up to a conservative politician and say "hi, I'm gay" and get them to run away screaming, no matter how many times said politician has been (mis?)accused of being homophobic. -Martin (who happens to be bisexual)

It really is just basic logic (which unfortunately many people do not care about or understand). You are really just begging the question. You are defining homophobia to be a problem and then claiming that one is irrational for being a "homophobe" because it is a problem. That is circular reasoning. I can define "zoephobia" as a serious ailment of liking Zoe. Since you like yourself (presumably), you clearly are being irrational (because this is a serious ailment). -- Ram-Man

Actually, zoephilia would be the ailment of seriously liking Zoe...

Sounds to me that, instead of being "rational", you're trying to "rationalize" your own illness. -- Zoe

Can we avoid accusing each other of being "ill" here, please? :)

Hardly! My argument is logically sound. However, as the example above shows (and you have not refuted), it is irrational to claim that I am sick. It is quite typical in these emotional discussions for people to abandon reason and totally ignore valid arguments in favor of ad-hominem attacks. Since when has it been a crime to rationalize? BTW, that is self-refuting and inconsistent as well, because I am being accused of being irrational (which is rationalizing). In fact, how can you tell me I am sick if you don't even know what I believe? I could be a homosexual myself for all you know! Also it should be noted that the original argument is simply the logical fallacy of the appeal to popularity. -- RM

The word homophobia come from the Greek words homo meaning "the same" and phobia which means "fear". It does not mean "fear of the same", however; it means "fear of homosexuals". It is a modern word and not considered to be well formed by the standard of the scientific terms it is modelled on. The homo part is actually a back formation from homosexual.

I removed this because I'm not convinced that it is true. Do we know this for sure? Firstly http://www.phobialist.com, seems to think that it can mean "fear of the same". Possible etymologies are:

derived from the greek words, as described
word from the psychiatric phobia which leaked into popular usage
derived from "homosexual phobia"
derived from "homo" (slang abbreviation) and "phobia" (English word)
Some combination of the above

-Martin

What is "Opposition as hate" mean? Under the heading of "Opposition to Homosexuality", is this supposed to mean that everything under the heading refers to opposition that is intentionally hateful? -- RM

Clutch claims that "Up until very recent days, discrimination against homosexuals was openly visible, but has now so far reversed itself that heterosexuals are often discriminated against"

Huh? If this were true in the slightest, that means that today there is nearly no more homophobia - and in fact now it is the heterosexuals who are being discriminated against? That is a ludicrous position. I vote that the recent changes be reverted. RK