Talk:Homophobia/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Homophobia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Just as a PSA: Before editing any article as controversial as this one, editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. The three main policies must also be understood and carefully upheld: WP:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. A sustained effort by all editors to maintain these policies and guidelines is the best way to create an accurate article and avoid conflict. Joie de Vivre 17:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that "homophobia" is literally fear of things that are the same. It is used as slang to refer to fear of homosexuals. Hans404 23:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is quite a lot of info in the article with regard to word's etymology. I don't think that your comment does add anything helpful. -- tasc ^words_deeds 23:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There may be much in the article about the meaning and usage of 'homophobic', but there is nothing on this point, which is indeed helpful to those who value precision and clear communication in language. What, for example, is one to make of the word 'homophony' if the kind of loose association employed to create 'homophobia' becomes the norm. Jimdcozes 13:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you, Hans. Isn't it clear that homophobia actually manifests itself as a fear of things that are different? I'm afraid that the question of what homophobia is will not be dismissed so quickly with a "not helpful". Not helpful to whom? In your worldview? Let's add that homophobia might mean a fear of what is different in the same and not its literal meaning of fear of the same, etymologically speaking. (Chauve-Souris 02:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

Etymologically, Hans is actually saying that "homophobia" literally translates as "fear of the same". "Homo" is a prefix here that means "Same". Not different. Now, if you are saying that homophobia often manifests itself as "fear of what is different", I.E., fear by a heterosexual of someone who is differently-sexual than them, then yes, homophobia is often described to label a person with anti-homosexual opinions. The real matter here, though, is that the assertion that someone is homophobic is definitely an opinion. The one 'academic source' that is cited, George Weinberg, is clearly a 'homophile' due to his political affiliations with pro-homosexual groups. Hardly clinical.... Zebraic 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is a lot on the word's etymology in the article, and while it may appear to derive as "fear of same", it does not. Nor does the apparent etymology of a word define its meaning. The word is very clearly used to mean "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". We needn't make up mental contortions for how speakers get there from "fear of same". Etymology is not everything. bikeable (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, etymology is not everything. Neither is fact, definition, usage, or intent. It is all bogus. Everything can be dispensed with if it gets in the way of the inteligencia’s agenda to redefine vice as virtue, and scum as saint. To what end? The destruction of the culture through the destruction of the languages ability to describe that which is antithetical to a cultures own survival? Surly there must be some sanity left in the mind of the reader that shouts out, "Liar!" when one reads tripe that is spewed onto the pages of Wikipedia by delusional eggheads who desperately want to recreate the world by calling a pig a princess. No, I say; the netizens know your game and even though you type millions of characters into edit boxes, you cannot change one mind. A pig is still always going to be a pig no matter how you dress it, the pitiful "oink" will give it away every time. Save your arthritic knuckles from further punishment. No one is fooled except your own self. Britcom 08:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should calm down and recall WP:CIVIL. I am merely trying to point out that etymology does not determine meaning; meaning is determined by usage. It may appear that homo-phobic means fear of same, but I defy you to find uses of the term in that way. The clear meaning is as stated, because that is how it is used in the real world. It is a common misunderstanding that words must follow their etymologies. They do not. Is something that is "cool" necessarily cold? Must a quarantine be forty days long? Does a lipophobic compound really "hate" fats and oils? You know what "homophobic" means as well as I do, so perhaps you should stop with the histrionics. bikeable (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to patronize a serious observation. My comment is not that hard to understand. Wikipedia has a serious flaw in that it can be successfully high jacked and used as propaganda by small groups of academic cultural revisionists who have nothing better to do than insult our intelligence. Britcom 10:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you didn't bolster your "serious observation" by referring to others as "delusional eggheads", people would be more willing to listen. Joie de Vivre 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Britcom has been violating Wikipedia guidelines by deleting inflammatory material from their comments. At Talk page guidelines, under "Behavior that is unacceptable", the following guideline is listed:

"Don't change your text: Obviously you can edit or delete your own words, while you are still composing the initial text, but afterwards, you should not do so, as this will put others' comments in a different context. Even if no one has replied, someone may still have read what you have written — so think before you speak! If you wish to amend your statement, use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration. Strike-through is typed <s>like this</s> and ends up like this."

User:Britcom had previously used the phrase "delusional eggheads" among other such material, which they have since deleted. Joie de Vivre 20:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Rubbush... "delusional eggheads" is still there and has been there the whole time. I think the term fits as used. All of my edits are commented and the only changes I make are for typos. Joie de Vivre is apparently blowing hot air with his accusations. Britcom 23:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the edit history! Joie de Vivre 01:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Joie de Vivre could enlighten us by linking to the exact edit history that he believes shows that User:Britcom edited the phrase "delusional eggheads". Britcom 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Rescued this from an article being considered for deletion, not sure if it has a place in this article or not (homophobia being defined psychologically rather than behaviorally) but it's interesting and ought to find a place somewhere:

Norway became the first country in which in the 1981 year a criminal penalty (a money payment or imprisonment for up to 2 years) for public threats, defamations, expressions of hate, agitation for discrimination against LGBT was added to Criminal Code. Norway General Civil Penal Code, §135 a.

DanB†DanD 02:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In this vein, I was wondering if this sentence could be elaborated on a bit more: "Besides public expression, specific laws have been made to oppose homophobia, as in hate speech, hate crime, and laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." There are significant differences between US and European anti-discrimination laws, and leaving it as a one-liner doesn't tell half the story. Interestingly, I think within the US government (federal employees) sexual orientation is mentioned, but in general US laws don't include it. I think European and Canadian laws, on the other hand, do. I bring up the issue in this forum because 1. I'm not someone with enough information to add it and 2. this article appears to be the staked-out domain of others arbitrate the content anyway.

Scott K, 4 Jan 2007

The second sentence in the first paragraph under Etymology and Usage is unclear to me. Here's how it reads at the moment:

However, from 1969 it has been more frequently used with its current denotation, first appearing (in print) in the American Time magazine, 31st October edition.[4]

This doesn't quite make sense because the preceding sentence mentions the word being used with a different meaning as early as 1920; so 1969 was apparently not the first time it was seen in print. Furthermore, the syntax is a bit jumbled, and it's not entirely clear to me that the Oct. 31st magazine article is from 1969. The #4 reference link takes me to the online OED, but that's a subscription service I don't have access to, and thus can't verify the year of the magazine article, which presumably is stated in the OED. (And is that a good reference to have for Wikipedia readers, if they can't see what's being referred to?)

Strictly on grammatical and syntactical grounds--without in any way wishing to step into the debate on the merits of the article--I'd suggest the following revision of this one sentence only:

However, it has been used more frequently with its current denotation since the word was first used with that meaning in the October 31, 1969, edition of the American magazine Time.

Of course, someone who does have access to the OED should first verify that this sentence is correct as stated before making the revision. That's it. I'm out of here.  :-) --Textorus 07:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Who says it is wrong or in any way unfair? All religions frown upon same-sex relationships. I'm also quite sure that, were polls taken, people from all cultures, races, backgrounds etc would find a man inserting his erect penis up another man's anus to be abnormal and unnatural. This needs to be reflected. In the majority of people's minds, homosexuality, not "homophobia" is the perversion. 11 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.128.105 (talk • contribs)

The idea that "all religions frown on same-sex relationships" is false. Many religions are affirming of same-sex unions, including but not limited to the United Church of Christ, many Presbytarian and Anglican churches, Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism, many Buddhists and Neo-Pagans -- they are supportive of gay people, their relationships, and their rights. See Religion and homosexuality. Also, speculation does not meet the criteria for what belongs on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:No original research. -- Joie de Vivre 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, United Church of Christ as a denomination has no official position; the Resolutions of the United Church of Christ are non-binding and non-representative. Presby and Angtlican (you should throw in ELCAs) churches are the same way; there are activists at the top and they make statements that the laity disagree with. But this is immaterial....there's no clear consensus in the mind of the American public (religious or not) and so wikipedia shouldn't definitively state who "the good guys" are. We are NPOV. We are switzerland. We are Neutral. We report the facts... sourced facts. MPS 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(laughing) I like "We are Switzerland"... but I must say I didn't say that any of this is "good" or "bad", or that any of this should go in the article. I am just listing the churches in my neighborhood with rainbow flags on the front door, stating publicly "We Are A Welcoming Congregation" -- which means welcoming of GLBT people. I'm just pointing out that "all religions" aren't agreed on the issue, and that the speculated results of an imaginary worldwide poll don't belong here either. I'm out; peace. Joie de Vivre 02:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

After nearly 5 years of working on this article on and off, I find that there is still an utter lack of clarity on the difference between:

• homophobia as prejudice or irrationality; and,
• homophobia as a term which sounds irrational used to label legitimate moral objections

I daresay there are many who use the term to imply that no moral objection can be legitimate. The article should clarify this usage, rather than adopting it. --Uncle Ed 19:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it's rational, which is a determination we should not be making, a moral objection, legitimate or not, is a prejudice. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

only moral objections based on pre-judgements are prejudiced. r b-j 04:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you are indeed lumping in moral objections with prejudice. For example, if I have a moral objection to you lying or stealing, I would be "prejudiced" if I refused to hire you. Right? --Uncle Ed 15:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The harm caused by the act of lying and the act of stealing is easily established. There are in fact two commandments set forth in the Judeo-Christian tradition against lying and stealing; "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor". However there is no such commandment against same-sex relations. Perhaps one reason for this is that it is easy to establish that deliberately misleading someone causes harm. It is easy to establish that taking something away from the person who owns it causes harm. However it is not as easy to establish that two people of the same sex loving sexually loving each other causes harm.

Regardless, it is not Wikipedia's place to state whether something is right or wrong. Correct me if this is wrong, but it sounds like you are saying that defining homophobia as a prejudice is, itself, prejudiced. I would have to disagree with that. This position would require Wikipedia to take a moral stance in the appropriateness of homophobia, by defending it as inherently "not prejudiced" and as "a legitimate moral stance". It is not Wikipedia's place to do so. We can't say whether it is correct or not correct to be homophobic. To put it perhaps too basically, we can only say that some people have decided that they don't like gay people, and list their reasons for it as their own reasons, not as empirical truth. Joie de Vivre 16:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No such commandment? How about Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."? This does not refer to two people of the same sex loving each other in (as you imply) a general way; on the contrary, the Christian tradition insists on this. You'll no doubt recall that Jesus said, "Another commandment I give to you: love one another, as I have loved you." (paraphrase).

The Bible forbids homosexual relations (i.e., SEX!).

But the point is not whether any particular religion has a principled objection to homosexuality. My point was that homophobia is being used to lump moral objections to homosexuality in with prejudice and irrationality. Wikipedia should rather say that some people regard such objections as irrational or as manifestations of prejudice. Wikipedias should not take sides in the controversy of homosexuality, but describe what the various sides say about the topic. --Uncle Ed 16:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, no such commandment. See Ten commandments. The reason I brought it up was not to launch a discussion of Biblical opinion, but to counter the point you made about stealing and lying. The harm caused by stealing or lying is so obvious and significant that prohibitions against these two acts were written into the Ten Commandments. The possibility of harm caused by sexual love between people of the same sex was not included in that list. Rather, it's listed in the same area as "don't wear blended fabric" and "don't cut your beard" and "don't eat lobster", the last of which is also labeled "an abomination". In the Judeo-Christian traditions, moral decrees against same-sex sexual activity did not make the top ten, but stealing and lying did. I bring this up to illustrate my opinion that lying and stealing are more universally defined as wrong than are same-sex sexual relations.

But, frankly, my opinion, or your opinion, or anyone's opinion on what is right or wrong does not matter here. In a Wikipedia article, it is not appropriate to frame any moral opinion as more "legitimate" or "appropriate" or "correct" than another. We may state facts, and we may also list opinions if they are relevant. But we must make it explicitly clear that they are opinions. We cannot refer to what "some people" think without citing what WP defines as verifiable sources. Joie de Vivre 17:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

if one is in a debate regarding the bibical position regarding homosexuality, it's basically a loser to deny the multiple references to homosexual behaviors and that in no single case is the text neutral or ambiguous about the subject. ("Nope, no such commandment. See Ten commandments." is quite laughable.)

but that shouldn't be the issue here anyway. if a person's behavior or attitude displays "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" or "prejudice against homosexual people", that person is, by the dictionary definition, homophobic whether they believe (rightly or not) that such expresses "legitimate moral objection" or not. this is a secular encyclopedia and one's "legitimate moral objection" is not an issue to define or refute the meaning or application of the word. the reason i got involved a while back with disputed usage is that some versions implied that the words homophobic or homophobia could be used to label political or social opposition to the goals of the LGBT movement and that was an abuse (a POV use) of the term like me labelling every Republican a fascist or something similar. r b-j 04:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the question is whether expressing moral objections is de jure discriminatory or phobic. There is a lot of use of the term "homophobic" which implies that the only rational, non-discriminatory attitude toward homosexuality is tolerant acceptance. It's still okay to condemn bestiality and incest, but condemning homosexuality is becoming a Hate crime. --Uncle Ed 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue of consent is important here. Adults can consent to sexual behavior with one another. Most people agree that children and animals cannot consent to sex with adults. While an individual may find the idea of adults of the same sex having sex to be distasteful, the wholesale condemnation of such acts doesn't hold the same weight as condemning child rape or the abuse of an animal. In the same vein, people may find the idea of adult relatives engaging in sex to be disgusting, but it doesn't pack quite the same horror as an adult raping a child relative. Again, the issue of consent is at hand.

The violence and hate that homophobic people have for adults engaging in this consensual sexual behavior is comparable to the violence and hate people display when someone small and weak is attacked. In the public sphere, their hate is not viewed as an act of outrage or revenge at wrongdoing, as in the case of rape or abuse. It's seen as violence borne of disgust for an adult's personal choice or state of being. It's easy to see the harm that rape or abuse cause, it's easy to understand why people would be angry and disgusted at it. It's not so easy to discern whether others are harmed by consensual sex between adults of the same sex, so the hate and violence towards them is not tolerated. Joie de Vivre 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that too much circular logic is in play to defend the word "homophobia" as a valid term (as defined here). Circular logic is usually evidence of an emotional, and therefore irrational, argument that the circular logician is attempting to hide. Homophobia's meaning (as defined here) is not logical. The reasons given for its definition do not hold water. The true definition of the word homophobia is that it is used solely as an excuse to deflect logical criticism. It is a shield under which those who desire copulation with a like-gender person hide. It is an attempt to childishly point the finger away from ones own feelings of guilt and play the victim in hopes of attracting enough pity and sympathy that someone else will drive away the criticism and comfort and reassure the "victim". Homophobia is a mind game that short-circuits logical examination of homosexuality. It is double-speak. It is propaganda. It is an attempt at brain-washing the hearer into thinking its usage is a foregone conclusion, but in fact it is a castle built in the air. One can describe it, and one can write about it, but in the real world it cannot exist. Its use is evidence that the speaker does not live in reality and has no desire to. The speaker hides within the complexity of the verbal smokescreen in an attempt to frighten away any who would use logic to dissect the merits of homosexuality. Its use against others is, by definition, a hate crime (though the term "hate crime" is equally illogical). The third rail of emotional logic (an oxymoron) is when one finds two equally emotionally charged terms (such as: Homophobia and Hate crime) that cannot coexist at the same time. This results in the “matter/anti-matter” like mutual self-destruction phenomenon known as "hypocrisy". Hypocrisy is always evidence of deception, indoctrination, or lunacy. I suspect all three are at play here among the defendants of the term. Britcom 06:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a circular argument just because you heard it elsewhere. WP:CIVIL; read it. Joie de Vivre 14:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My above statement does not refer to a circular "argument", it refers to circular "logic" used to defend one side of the argument. The two terms have different meanings. Also, the above reference to WP:CIVIL is not applicable, and is apparently being used as a way to cast my above statement as somehow a violation of Wikipedia. One must first comprehend a statement before one can judge it. The above detractor has misread the proposed definition. It is the usage of the word Homophobia (as defined) that is uncivil, not the defining of it. One must not get caught up in associating an editor with the edited. Editors are supposed to be neutral. Just because a definition is perceived as negative, one must not attack the editor who wrote it, one must debate the definition. Unless one has an agenda other than correct definition of course. In which case, such agenda is not allowed on Wikipedia.Britcom 18:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, Wikipedia supports my interchangable usage of the terms, because "circular argument" and "circular logic" both redirect to Begging the question. Perhaps you were thinking of Circular definition. Joie de Vivre 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is unlikely that others will patiently sit through your proclamations and denouncements, in order to hear what it is that you want to see changed in the article. Whether you see it or not, your wording is accusatory, emotional, and borders on ranting. Your attitude precludes rational discussion and makes you unapproachable. Please try to clarify what changes you wish to see. Joie de Vivre 19:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you have uncovered that "begging the question" is poorly defined here on Wikipedia. I took your phrase "circular argument" to mean a dispute between persons, which does not resolve; not in the arithmetical sense. I think a far better definition can be found here: [1] ...but the point that I was meaning was there is a difference between a never ending emotionally charged dispute that travels in circles re-covering the same ground over and over again; and flawed reasoning for defending a position on an issue.

Re: "Whether you see it or not, your wording is accusatory, emotional, and borders on ranting"; I think you are exaggerating. I did not direct my definition in anyone’s direction, and my definition was very thorough in covering the points that I wanted to cover so that the reader could have several to consider if one was not well understood. How that could be considered a negative I do not know. Again, I fear you are being upset by the subject matter of the definition. There is nothing in the definition of a personal nature, nor is any of it directed at any editors here. Now if you disagree with my definition, I can accept that as an honest opinion, but if you are saying that I should not offer my definition for comment here, then what am I to say to that? If that is what you are saying, then I would consider such opposition to be... well... "intolerant".Britcom 14:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Britcom has been violating Wikipedia guidelines by deleting inflammatory material from their comments. At Talk page guidelines, under "Behavior that is unacceptable", the following guideline is listed:

"Don't change your text: Obviously you can edit or delete your own words, while you are still composing the initial text, but afterwards, you should not do so, as this will put others' comments in a different context. Even if no one has replied, someone may still have read what you have written — so think before you speak! If you wish to amend your statement, use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration. Strike-through is typed <s>like this</s> and ends up like this."

User:Britcom had previously spoken in an inflammatory and accusatory manner, the content of which they have since changed.

Frankly, I don't see any point in holding a discussion with you, since you seem to feel free to edit what you have said, making others' comments look unfounded. You certainly did make inflammatory comments towards others, which you have since changed. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines and policies so that you might have a better chance at becoming a worthy conversational partner. Joie de Vivre 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. See my comment above under the Homo-phobia thread. Britcom 23:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not rubbish. Anyone who wishes to spend their time doing so is welcome to check the edit history for the rude material that Britcom deleted. It's plainly visible. Joie de Vivre 01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. See my comment (again) above under the Homo-phobia thread. Britcom 23:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Homophobia is just a sham to have a reason to hate someone and not get blamed or be prosecuted in any serious way. It is cruel and unjust, against freedom, and just plain wrong. It's like having an article about heterophobia (I don't think is a real word)! Me, being a heterosexual man myself, does not fully approve of, but do not hate or banish homosexuality. I'm sure that there are people with heterogeneous emotions about this subject, and if I offended anyone in thes comment, send me hate mail at [[email protected]].

Actually you might want to check out Heterophobia :-). WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 14:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy shit! The Queer Industry stikes again. Homopohbia is a nonsense term, and Heterophobia is equally nonesense. I'm all for inclusion in WP policy, but this is deceitful editing.--Shtove 02:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We need a section on "objections to the term homophobia". I'll quote the anon in full, although he does belabor his point:

The problem is see here is that too much circular logic is in play to defend the word "homophobia". Circular logic is usually evidence of an emotional, and therefore irrational, argument that the circular logician is attempting to hide. Homophobia's meaning (as defined here) is not logical. The reasons given for its definition do not hold water. The true definition of the word homophobia is that it is used solely as an excuse to deflect logical criticism. It is a shield under which those who desire copulation with a like-gender person hide. It is an attempt to childishly point the finger away from ones own feelings of guilt and play the victim in hopes of attracting enough pity and sympathy that someone else will drive away the criticism and comfort and reassure the "victim". Homophobia is a mind game that short-circuits logical examination of homosexuality. It is double-speak. It is propaganda. It is an attempt at brain-washing the hearer into thinking its usage is a foregone conclusion, but in fact it is a castle built in the air. One can describe it, and one can write about it, but in the real world it cannot exist. Its use is evidence that the speaker does not live in reality and has no desire to. The speaker hides within the complexity of the verbal smokescreen and attempts to frighten away any who would use logic to dissect the merits of homosexuality. Its use against others is, by definition, a hate crime (though I find the term "hate crime" to be equally illogical). The third rail of emotional logic (an oxymoron) is when one finds two equally emotionally charged terms (such as: Homophobia and Hate crime) that cannot coexist at the same time. This results in the “matter/anti-matter” like mutual self-destruction phenomenon known as "hypocrisy". Hypocrisy is always evidence of deception, indoctrination, or lunacy. I suspect all three are at play here among the defendants of the term.¶

Those who object to usage of homophobia assert that:

• it is used solely as an excuse to deflect logical criticism
• It is an attempt to ... play the victim in hopes of attracting enough pity and sympathy that someone else will drive away the criticism and comfort and reassure the "victim"
• Homophobia is a mind game that short-circuits logical examination of homosexuality
• The speaker hides within the complexity of the verbal smokescreen and attempts to frighten away any who would use logic to dissect the merits of homosexuality.

Now, I am not asking Wikipedia's Homophobia article to adopt or endorse this anon's viewpoint. On the other hand, I would not like to see this viewpoint omitted from the article. Quite a few people feel the same way. We need to identify and quote them.

Because the term "homophobia" is used in three senses:

1. irrational fear of homosexual people or actions (rare)
2. hatred and hate-based hostility to homosexual people, e.g., beating up "fags" because they are "gay" (all too common)
3. opposition on principle to homosexuality, on religious or sociological grounds

Most people's position (in the US anyway) is that #2 is "bad".

The dispute (outside of Wikipedia) is over whether #3 = #2. That is, whether "principled" opposition to homosexuality, such as moral or "Biblical" objections are de facto "irrational". Thus:

• One side says, any "discrimination" arising from objections to homosexuality => "homophobia" (either #1 irrational or #2 hateful)
• The other side says, it is possible to object to homosexuality without being irrational or hateful

I hope our article on Homophobia can avoid taking sides on the issue, and describe both major sides fairly. --Uncle Ed 14:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Skimming that pontification once was enough, thank you, and it was not made by "an anon", but by Britcom. -- Joie de Vivre 16:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The above quoted statment was indeed originally anon for a few minutes as I forgot to login, I corrected this almost immediately, but some may have read it before I corrected it. I did write it. Britcom 19:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I only just skimmed through the lengthy debate here. In short I think Ed is right. Those who criticise homosexuals tend to be labelled as homophobic. It is similar to a growing habit of characterising those who object to e.g. Israeli foreign politicy as anti-semitic (see the Criticisms section of New antisemitism). Wikipedia does not have to decide whether all incidents of opposal to homosexuality is homophobia, but the article should neutrally state that there is an objection to labelling all people who oppose any element of homosexuality for any reason as homophobic. I am surprised the article does not do so already. WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 19:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced that a detailed account of this phenomenon belongs here, rather than in an article related to sexual morality. Nevertheless, perhaps you could prepare a summary of the changes you wish to see, and present them on the talk page. Joie de Vivre 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This article really dosent seem to have a neutral point of view and looks like it is biased towards pro-homosexuals. For example "According to UK HIV/AIDS charity AVERT, low educational level and social status are strongly associated with such views" dosent seem very neutral in my opinion. It makes homophobic people seem like white trash. --Dallin Tanjo22 19:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This given quote isn't particularly bad, but you're right, the article could definitely use some work: terms like "gay-bashing" are just going too far: the gay-bashing of boys seen as eccentric (and who are not usually homosexual) is claimed to be endemic in rural and suburban American schools,. There are other examples too. Patstuart^talk|edits 18:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that, while well sourced, it seems to only cite one side of the sources. It doesn't give any opposes points of view (the above comment is also America-centric: see {{globalize/USA}}). Patstuart^talk|edits 22:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The coiner of the term meant it that way:

• "Homophobia is just that: a phobia. A morbid and irrational dread which prompts irrational behavior . . ." (cited below by bikeable)

So it amounts to a use of terminology to make a point, i.e., that opposition to homosexuality is crazy. Thus it deserves no response other than wiping it out. No way does it merit debate.

So I'd like to see an article split into Opposition to homosexuality and Discrimination against homosexuals which distinguishes between (1) various reasons people oppose homosexuality (like I shudder at the sight or my religion says it's immorl) and (2) selective mistreatment of homosexuals (like can't be a chef). --Uncle Ed 20:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Tree hugging is a real phenomena originating IIRC in the Far East as a practical means of protesting deforestation. I think it has Buddhist roots; I recall that some Buddhists wear respiration masks to avoid accidentally inhaling and thus killing any tiny life forms.

The (slightly) perjorative or (more often) casual usage of the term tree huggers to describe a certain kind of enviornmentalists is a figurative use of the term.

Similarly, there has existed a significant minority (at least in the U.S. and Western Europe) who harbor an unreasoned prejudice and hostility toward homosexuals. Conservatives concede that this group are "phobic" and that terms like homophobic & homophobia apply to them. For instance, if some guys deliberately seek out and target some homosexuals to beat them up, this would be Gay-bashing; conservatives join the mainstream in condemning this.

However, conservatives disagree with gay rights supporters on another point. When people condemn homosexuality as sinful (in a religious sense), or harmful (in a psychological or sociological sense), conservatives often assert that such a viewpoint need not stem from unreasoned prejudice or hostility. It can be dry and clinical, like an educational reformer asserting that school voucher programs benefit urban blacks, based purely on an analysis of educational statistics.

The article's intro and title and much of its text blur the distinction between:

• Opposition to homosexuality
• Discrimination against homosexuals
• Gay bashing

Thus it actually adopts the viewpoint of a major current in the gay rights movement. It asserts that all opposition to homosexuality is "phobic".

Ed, i want to answer this point (below):

It is my position that the article should not take this position but rather describe the situation as a conflict between one side which makes, and and another side which denies, this viewpoint.

I would like to discuss how we can rearrange, split and/or rename some articles to clarify this matter. --Uncle Ed 20:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

it may be a misnomer to label what we commonly think of as "homophobia" as a phobia when what it really is about is a form of bigotry, at least as perceived by LGBT folks and allies. now whether or not someone who disapproves of homosexuality considers themselves a bigot or not (and whether or not they really are, which is partially what this culture war is about), if the dictionary definition fits, that is what it is. the text: "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" and "prejudiced against homosexual people" came right out of the dictionary. people who feel that they legitimately discriminate against homosexuality (in a similar way that people might discriminate against some recalcitrance as they define it) simply must accept the dictionary definition. they might be homophobic and if they don't like the label because they believe their discrimination is legitimate, they need to take it up with Merriam-Webster and the other dictionaries. the second line: "It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to assert bigotry" is, i believe, a valid and NPOV extension of the dictionary definition to the common use of the word, whether or not such common use is valid.

now, there was a big edit war here a while back about whether or not it is pejorative (it's obvious that it is, i simply cannot imagine its non-pejorative use) and i think that issue is settled for the time being. the other big issue was if, in the lead, there was implications that opposition to any of the political or social goals of the LGBT movement meant de facto homophobia and here is where i got into the fight. it's okay for gays or allies to label political opposition to something they want as "homophobia" in their own discussion and on their own media, just as i like to label all things Republican as hypocritical and corrupt. but just because i think that doesn't mean i get to go to Republican party article and define Republicanism in the U.S. as meaning hypocritical and corrupt (but i could set up my own web site and say it). in the same way, we must not allow this Wikipedia article about homophobia to simply label opposition to the LGBT agenda as homophobic without, at the very least, saying in the same or immediately adjacent sentence that people who may oppose some particular legislative or political goal of the LGBT movement (including outside of civil government, say in their church denomination) do not consider themselves as homophobic merely for that opposition. there were some editors here that equated homophobia to racism and wanted to, without qualification, cite such political/social opposition as homophobia and that is where i resisted. as it is, i think that things are okay, but i agree that the article must not "adopt the viewpoint of a major current in the gay rights movement [and assert] that all opposition to homosexuality is 'phobic'" in the sense that "phobic" means either phobia or bigotry. to do that would be to slant this to the POV of LGBT and allies. r b-j 21:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would add to the above that the article should not infringe upon the Wikipedia policy: WP:NOT#SOAPBOX with regard to LGBT political propaganda. Britcom 21:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Shall we say then that the term homophobic means "opposed to the gay agenda", and that it carries a connotation of bigotry? --Uncle Ed 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

we say that the word means what the dictionary says it means (and "prejudiced" is in the dictionary definition). we then write about the usage of the word as usage. if the usage is pejorative, the article reflects that. if there is objection to a certain usage of the word, the article both cites the usage and cites the objections to that usage. r b-j 23:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideally we should avoid saying the term means anything. We can report that its widely accepted use is in reference to those who hate or are irrationally opposed to homosexuality. We can also report that some groups use it in the wider sense of anyone who opposes gay rights or a perceived gay agenda. As Ed has remarked in other contexts NPOV is sometimes best achieved by documenting a difference of opinion rather than trying to solve it. WJBscribe 22:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the phrase:"...is generally used to assert bigotry" in the beginning of the article, should be replaced with: "is generally used to insinuate bigotry." Britcom 22:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

it seems the same to me, so i have no objection. i only object to removal of the pejorative implication of the word or to define that the word means something that serves one group's purposes if that meaning is not explicitly in the dictionary. r b-j 23:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted. These do not seem the same to me. I am not sure that "assert" is completely correct, since the word may be used in different ways, but certainly if I call someone "homophobic" I am not just insinuating that they are bigoted. It's much stronger than that. bikeable (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing homophobia, not homophobic. The word Homophobia is insinuative that those who oppose homosexuality, even if on moral or intellectual grounds, do so because they are bigots or are irrational through the use of the pseudo-psychological sounding suffix: "-phobia". To insinuate means: to introduce (as an idea) gradually or in a subtle, indirect, or covert way. That is exactly what the coiners and users of this word mean. I think most editors here would agree. So far bikeable is the only one who has objected to this change in the last three days. Britcom 06:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it has been six days and no one has seconded bikeable's objection to the use of the word "insinuate", and r b-j has said the he does not object to the use it, and no one else has stated any previous objection, then I am going to put it back in to the article. Britcom 04:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Ed; Perhaps you would like to review the article *here* to get an idea of how I think the Homophobia article could be split into two articles, and still work logically. The referenced article is one that I think covers the third type of opposition to homosexuality that we discussed above, that of moral or political opposition. --Britcom 08:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The move requested above, to misohomo, has been discussed for a couple days by many of the regular editors. By my count, there are 11 opposes and a single Support from the nominator (who has not edited wikipedia since). Two editors have taken a "support in priciple" position that the article should be renamed, but neither of them have asserted that misohomo is a likely target. It is clear that there is no consensus for a move to misohomo, whether or not this article is moved elsewhere. Consequently, I will suggest that an administrator remove the entry from WP:RM and delete misohomo.

I am not suggesting that Homophobia should not be renamed. I am asserting only that there is no consensus that it be renamed misohomo As for alternate names and page organizations like those described above (e.g., Discrimination against homosexuals, Anti-homosexualism), we should of course continue to discuss them on this page. bikeable (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and closed out the move request to "misohomo". After 3 days, it was pretty clear that there's no consensus to rename the page in that way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about misohomo, but the term homophobia has nothing to do with human sexuality. And it seems to have given birth to a brother, used in the same introduction: homophile. The Greek philosophers must be mud-wrestling in their graves. Don't move it - demote it to a slang section of the homosexuality article.--Shtove 00:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Homophobia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10