Talk:Homophobia/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Archived material from some point late in 2005 to 24 September 2006. This archive was set up because an unresolvable discussion arose about the page in October 2006, leading to an editing war, for which mediation was requested. Note that there is a significant chronology disruption due to replies to the first comment, which was added out of sequence.

POV pushing

The entire article is nothing but pro-homosexual POV pushing. I have only been editing on Wikipedia for a short time, and I have noticed a bit of hypocrisy here. That is, those perspectives related to Critical Theory are more than able to push their opinions without being flagged, but those contrary to Critical Theory are POV pushing. What gives? --68.45.161.241 14:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Look at this POV bit, taken right from the article:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word homophobia was originally used to mean "fear of men, or aversion towards the male sex". However, from 1969 the term has been more frequently used with its present meaning.

Or this hardcore one:

As behaviors and thoughts that are frequently considered homophobic are often not fear based but instead reflect a disapproval of homosexuality, recent psychological literature has favored the term homonegativity.

Or this inexcusable lapse of NPOV:

Disapproval of same-sex love and of homosexuals is not evenly distributed throughout society

HOW CAN THEY SAY THAT? Oh, right, all your "wikipedia loves critical theory" aside, someone WENT OUT AND DID SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, and THIS WAS THE RESULT. Anyway, I'm obviously being a little sarchastic here, my point: Your claim, "the entire article is nothing but pro-homosexual POV pushing" is obviously an idiotic, whiny, "I-want-my-POV-in-there-too!" generalization. If you want to change things, you have to list exactly those claims that you have a problem with, and then say what the problem is. Otherwise, no one will know. So, and this goes for all you anons who come here from time to time whining about POV when all you really want to do is skew the article toward a different POV: Either give specific examples or shut the hell up. As for my tone, sorry, haven't had coffee yet and I'm a bit cranky (especially when confronted with the same idiotic nonsense every other day). I just checked your contributions, and actually, the following also apply:

1. Based on your edits, I'm fairly sure you are User:Pravknight. You really need to sign in. Not doing so (or, at least, not doing so and not making it clear who you are) is borderline sockpuppetry.

2. I don't appreciate you basically spamming the talk pages of homosexuality-related articles multiple times with the same nonsense. This goes for all of the pages you have commented on: do not just say "blah blah blah this article is POV" if you actually want to get it changed. Instead, copy sentences or paragraphs from the article and say EXACTLY what your problem is (and no, "this is POV" wont cut it). If you just want to whine, get lost. -Smahoney 18:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

for my part, i have had disputes with people on both sides of the fence. i have not been monitoring the internal content debate as much as the first paragraph and first sentence and i have generally insisted that the opening sentence simple state the dictionary definition (since practically any deviation of that was a POV of one side or the other) and i was resisting any normative use of "homophobia" to describe political opposition to the "gay agenda" even though there is disparaging, pejorative use of the term to define political opponents (that use should be mentioned, but not as normative use). i've had it out with User:Exploding Boy about this and on the other side with User:Di4gram who kept insisting that gay people suffer no deficit of legal rights in comparison to heterosexuals, even in states with no civil unions or other legal remedy. i can't say how biased the article is, and biased in what direction, but not all of us is pushing a POV of one side or the other. r b-j 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Usage

I hope I do this right. I am new to Wikipedia. I don't even remember how I came across the "homophobia" page. It is not a subject that is of any particular interest to me. But I noticed that the opening paragraph misuses some words, and thought, what the heck, I'll improve it. The chages have been removed twice, and called "nonsense." My point, if it matters to anyone, is that 'literal' means 'judged by the text (only)'. For example, one might say that 'hydrophobia' is a word for rabies, but it literally means 'fear of water.' In the text of the word 'homophobia', there is nothing at all to be found about sexuality. Literally I guess the word would mean 'fear of sameness' or something like that. I did not intend to vandalize the page, as I was accused of doing. I only intended to make it a little more literate. Again, it does not matter to me one whit. I just wanted to plead not guilty to vandalism.

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end. I agree with you regarding use of the word 'literally' here. I'll go ahead and change it again - maybe it will stick this time. -Seth Mahoney 02:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now it's clear what happened. I've been having trouble with web stuff. I haven't figured out whether the problem is with the proxie server or the ISP. In any case, sometimes text that should be rendered as html gets rendered as text. I thought it just affected the way IE displayed things. I didn't know it could affect things that I post.

Jive Dadson 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Jive

I agree, if we are going to label something, we might as well label it correctly. Whatever idiot originally said "Homophobic," obviously wasn't an Enlish major, and for all the people that continued calling it that... well, idiots abound. It's a reflection of the people that are anti-"homophobics," inaccurate and false. Anyway, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not an idiot-corrector, if the term widely used is actually "homophobic," that would be the most accurate one to use.

I disagree. The "homo" in homophobia is obviously a contraction of "homosexual." To say that "homophobia" literally means "fear of the same" is only to muddy the waters and to give credence to the small but vocal minority of idiots who claim that the word has no meaning. Exploding Boy 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Will you idiots please stop calling eachother just that? Oh, eh, I mean… Bromskloss 16:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Jkid4 (at 3 april? "(I don't know who misdefined homophobia.)") correction of NPOV formula (from Googlee Scholar) - becouse this term is not only for using to definitions of homo- heterosexual relations! Alexandrov 11:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Exploding Boy: I think it was indeed intended to mean fear of the same, fear of what is similar to you, i.e. people of the same gender. It makes perfect sense to me. Homophobes avoid getting too close to their own gender. Homophobic boys and men are often unable to hug, comfort or show affection for each other, for the irrational fear of becoming or being perceived as "queer" and "unmanly". Of course this word stems from one specific theory about the origin of the strange cultural phenomenon it describes. It has since been adopted by the mainstream, and many people who use it are unaware of the psychological theory it was meant to convey. If you don't agree with that theory, a more neutral synonym could be heterosexism.--84.188.197.114 23:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Slight misunderstanding: it was intended to mean a fear (or hatred) of homosexuals, but to suggest, by its literal meaning, that the sufferer was afraid of his own nature, (not gender) it being long suspected that homophobic people are hiding their own latent homosexuality. This has since been shown to have a grain of truth about it. In studies, men who had previously volunteered homophobic sentiments were subsequently shown a series of images, including gay pornography, and this group consistently registered penile arousal.

Nuttyskin 23:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think that to say that my repulsion to the thought of sexual acts with people of the same sex is stemmed by fear is generalizing quite heavily. I have no fear of other males, I do not even find it terribly uncomfortable to see one naked (in a locker room or other appropriate setting). My repulsion is fueled by one fact, and one fact alone: that I find two men or two women engaging in intercourse to be outside my criteria for a normal relationship. There's that normal word that we like to avoid, but don't throw labels just yet. I base my normal on what is logically and anatomically correct. Additionally, homophobia, "fear of the same", would imply that I find things of the same to be frightening. This seems rather POV, since homosexuals are different from myself, and thus not "the same" (in fact, to me, being homophobe would be to have a fear of heterosexuals). From my point of view, I am not even intimidated by homosexuals; they are certainly not "homo" (same) to me.

Additionally, let's look at the extremes that other phobias seem to represent. I don't like spiders, but I certainly would not flee at the sight of one. Am I still an arachnophobe? I generally do not even care about homosexuals (though I find some rather annoying, when they start acting flamboyant and trying to get a reaction). I don't care for their lifestyle. Am I still a homophobe? Hell, if I didn't like them because of what they did, how would that make me "fear" them? It all smells incredibly prejudiced to me. Neither sides like eachother, but one side is using straw man tactics under the guise of psychological analysis, by calling a disliking and criticism (no matter how intense) of their lifestyle a "fear". I do not see fundamentalist Christians using some ridiculous label such as "Godophobe" or "Jesusphobe", or even "Moralphobe". Di4gram 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Di4gram, you have done a fine job of compiling a number of misunderstandings that present themselves here frequently. A few points: homophobia does not mean "fear of same", it derives from homo(sexual) + phobia, as you will see if you check the article or a dictionary. Second, it's not a clinical definition of a "phobia", and doesn't pretend to be: It describes intense or irrational dislike of, or antipathy towards, homosexuals. Simple enough. If you have an intense dislike of spiders, yes, you are an arachnophobe: we don't need a clinical psychologist to tell us so. Do not read too much into the etymology of -phobia; etymology is a very poor way of understanding what words mean in common use. bikeable (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am confused. If we aren't holding words to their literal meaning, why are we writing encyclopedia entries about them? I don't think that someone who hates spiders because they look disgusting is an arachnophobe, maybe they are just arachnocidal. The ones who are actually scared of spiders are probably the ones that should be diagnosed as arachnophobes. Likewise, I know very few people who flee in terror of the garden variety homosexual. What I am arguing is not what the common use is, it is whether common use overrides technical and scientific terminology. In science, we still have to deal with misnomers made in centuries past. I don't see why propogating yet another misnomer is a good idea in the name of "common use". Maybe there are people who are terrified of homosexuals. Is it fair, or even more important, accurate, to classify people who could be terrified of homosexuals and people who just passionately disagree with their lifestyles in the same group? At best, it seems like it would be a slang term. Di4gram 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

listen, Di4gram, just as the gay advocates (or whomever the group is that wants to denote as "homophobes" political opponents to certain legislation that some in the gay rights movement are advocating for) don't get to hijack the word for political advantage here at WP (without also identifying such usage as pejorative labelling and not as the clinical and dictionary use), you don't either. we know that the common usage (and the dictionary agrees) of "homophobia" is an intense aversion to, dislike of, and/or discrimination against homosexual persons simply because they are homosexual. a usage beyond that is colloquial (in your case, your literally deconstructing it differently than common usage) and should be identified as such.

i'm a straight guy, married, kids, a few (not many) gay acquaintances (one friend), politically very liberal (as in Howard Dean and civil unions supporter living in Vermont), and when i think of male gay sex, i am also repulsed. probably about as much as any of my gay acquaintances are when they imagine sex with a woman (i dunno what they think of it). but, according to the dictionary definition, i don't think i am a homophobe. just a straight male with no aversion to gays simply because they're gay. (one of the other gay acquaintances, not the friend, i don't particularly like because of a certain rudeness we both perceive of each other that is unrelated to sexual orientation.)

Not being aroused by homosexual activity is not the same as not liking homosexuals.

Look at it this way: you aren't aroused by canine sexual activity, either, but it does not follow from that that you don't like dogs, does it?

Nuttyskin 23:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

if your usage of "homophobe" was common (i don't think it is) i would support including it as another alternative usage and identify it as such. r b-j 02:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Di4gram, listen to what you're saying: "diagnosed as arachnophobes"? No one is "diagnosed"; don't let the medical-sounding term fool you; it simply means "fear" or "distaste". As Rbj says, you are deconstructing these terms by etymology to what you think they should mean from the roots, but that's not how language works. You have to look at how the words are used, and the usage of homophobia is quite clear. Etymology can be very misleading. Must a book be made of birch? Must a bear be brown? bikeable (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet arachnophobia is taught in some educational circles as an anxiety disorder. Again, I'm not arguing that "homophobia means fear of same". I am arguing that it is a misnomer that is used to try to smear an opponents image in a debate, or something like this. Even in the Phobia article it is noted that phobia is a term used medically, while it does have other uses (which I think are also misnomers). It is simply a rather obvious attempt to legitimize an idea by giving it an appearance of authority. For example, does "You are afraid of homosexuals, which is why you don't want them to marry!" sound as powerful as "You are a homophobe, which is why you don't want to marry!"? Notice that these arbitrary phobias are created by persons of the opposing viewpoint, and rarely (if ever) created by the persons holding the viewpoint themselves?

It is because the suffix "-phobia" carries with it a connotation of weakness or irrationality, which is not necessarily present in people who dislike homosexuals. As far as etymology: it is in my opinion crucial that etymology is the primary method of evaluating words and their meaning. As a student of science, it is far more appreciable to me that, in most areas of science, there are certain etymological properties which undoubtedly make learning the language much easier. For example, did I ever have to look "hydrophobic" up in Wikipedia? Did I think it was "water hating", or "fear of water"? Likewise, if I were a student of the English language, that is, learning it, I would probably find equal comfort in unambiguous terms with logical origins. If I saw someone called a homophobe without any knowledge of its "common" use, I would probably think that they were actually afraid of homosexuals. Di4gram 07:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

listen, the English language is full of so much bullshit. weird rules, exceptions to the rules, exceptions to the exceptions, that being a "student of the English language" one would have to have some Listerene hanging around just to rinse the taste out of thier mouth. i heard that the Korean language is very efficient and logical. maybe your complaint of usage would be more sympathetic there. r b-j 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have listened to what many have said in here about this term. I agree--its a loaded one. But hating people simply because of who they are does boil down to a deep-seated fear of something. Either fear that we'll take-over, rape your sons, burn down churches or somehow be treated like the humans we are... sorry, I'll still keep using the term homophobic. --Julien Deveraux 09:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you will avoid the word on Wikipedia as much as possible. In the article it is defined to be "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". These are all different things, and are better expressed by using the words used in the definition instead of "homophobia", which has multiple interpretations and apparently varying or undesirable connotations. Clarity begets trust, muddying the waters begets suspicion. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 14:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fear of being identified as a homosexual

This section is completely messed up, there is some sort of code in it.

It was some bogus edit that has since been reverted. Feel free to do the same yourself, in future. --Aim Here 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

________________ Please help me find some way to source this so this can be included for consideration to a reader of the article

"It is also likely that the theory that someone is a homophobe is probably a closet homosexual was created so that people, who were homophobic or disliked gay people, would be afraid to admit they were gay people. Considering a large group of people in this world dislike gay people for various reasons (whether it be religion, moral values or a simple dislike of the gay stereotype) it is ludicrous to believe that all of them are in fact homosexual themselves. It often comes up in conversation however, when anyone admits they are homophobic, that they are probably gay themselves. This seems like a way to avoid persecution and in ways is denial that people simply can dislike gay people or be intolerant."

It is important so that the myth that anyone who dislikes gays is probably gay themselves is extinguished. There is no proof nor can their be conclusive proof of such a claim. There are claims of studies but in any valid scientific community there is no basis for this. _______________

Quotations

I've gone ahead and reworked a couple of instances where just about the entire body of text consisted of quotations (quotations by somewhat obscure figures as well, as far as I can tell, which is besides the point, really). Namely:

According to theorists including Calvin Thomas (2000), quoted here, and Judith Butler, "The terror of being mistaken for a queer dominates the straight mind because this terror constitutes the straight mind. It is precisely that culturally produced and reinforced horror of/fascination with abjected homosexuality that produces and maintains 'the straight mind' as such, governing not so much specific sexual practices between men and women (after all, these things happen) as the institution (arguably antisexual) of heteronormativity itself." He continues, "Homophobia entails not only the fear of those who are abjectly identified (and depended on) but also the fear of being abjectly identifiable onself: the fear, as the word most literally means, of being 'the same as'. This latter fear is arguably a much stronger component of homophobia than of, say, sexism or racism (despite the mechanisms of projection and abjection doubtless at work in those forms of hatred), because the sexist male or the racist white is in much less 'danger' of being 'mistaken' for a woman or a nonwhite than the straight is of being 'mistaken' for a queer".

(previously in Fear of being mistaken for a homosexual)

and

Extremist far-right conservative and religious groups use anti-gay bias to further their political goals. Anti-gay bias leads everyone compromise their morals and treat others badly. Anti-gay bias causes everyone to avoid or have trouble forming close relationships with friends of the same sex. Everyone's behaviour is restricted to rigid gender-roles or punished for variance by anti-gay bias. Even if people are in actuality straight, they may be silenced or ridiculed into not fulfilling their potential by avoided the creative fulliling but stigmatized activity. Anti-gay bias causes young people to engage in sexual behaviour earlier in order to prove that they are straight. Anti-gay bias contributed significantly to the spread of the AIDS epidemic. Anti-gay bias inhibits the ability of schools to create effective honest sexual education programs that would save children's lives and prevent STDs3.

(previously in Opposition to homophobia)

In both occasions, the points are made entirely by those to whom the quotes are atributed to. Though quoting is a useful means of exemplifying and backing up certain points, to explain entire concepts through them isn't really what we should aim for when trying to establish an Wiki article. Also, there's not really anything that particularly distinguishes the individuals quoted as authorities, in that they don't seem to be particularly relevant as to their knowledge on the matters discussed. So, I've rewritten them for the most part, though still including references to these theorists, and I'm reproducing them here in case anyone has a) something against this or b) an interest in taking these and trying to better include them in the text; not as absolute sources, but potentially as ilustrations of the points made. Anyway, yes, that was it. Will also try and see if I can help some more as to other parts of the article. Zeppocity 22:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

OH!, right, just remembered: maybe including the specific pieces of legislation as to homophobia wouldn't be a bad idea either...? Oopsy, Z. again!

9/5/05 - Why is the page title "homophobia", when it describes something much different? Homophobia is a fear of gays, not a dislike of them. There needs to be a different label for this page. Posted by User:205.188.117.69

Please pick up a dictionary. Exploding Boy 17:43, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I know a guy who was bum holed as a kid and he totaly fears gay people.Mabey sum mention of sexual abuse as a cause for homophobia?

So does that make women who have been sexually abused "heterophobic"? I doubt it. And next time, sign your comments, IP. -- AlexR 04:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

A gay woman sexually abused by a hetero man may fear strait guys. So yeah, that would make her heterophobic,good thinkin son.

I completely agree with the guy that says homophobia describes something different, fear of gays. Even though the dictionary defines it as something different, it's silly to categorize every type of notion against gay people into one word.

moralityphobia

I have seen the term moralityphobia used in various places, and so I figured I would write an article on it. I believe it is as POV as the homophobe article.MPS 16:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You linked to deviance and sodomy as see also links.. classy. If you have specific criticisms of this article, please discuss them here. Otherwise please don't make articles for neologisms in order to prove a point. Rhobite 17:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

as it turned out, the effort was unnecessary; heterophobia already exists as an article. Homophobe is on the List of political epithets so I am going to return the category label Category:Pejorative political terms to Homophobia. I am not trying to lose street cred here; homophobia is, in the most NPOV sense, a pejorative term and an intensely political term. Nobody calls themself a homophobe; it is a label foisted upon people by others who who don't like what they think or say. MPS 20:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've known a few homophobes who openly label themselves as such. I wouldn't say "nobody" calls him-/herself a homophobe. Jeff Silvers 02:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not until we discuss it. I'm removing that category until we can reach some kind of consensus here. Exploding Boy 20:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Te he... wouldn't that mean that they were homophobes who are so afraid of heterophobia that it took them this long to "come out of the closet? Yes, I personally know a few self-proclaimed homophobes. Even though it's obvious most homosexuals falsely over-label various groups as homophobic, there's nothing wrong with the *feeling* of homophobia. It's the acting out (name-calling, violence) that's the problem. However, even the *true* homophobic persons very rarely act out their feelings. The falsely accused homophobes just sit idley by and pretty much try to help homosexuals out of their own form of expression of love.

I mean, why do you think "nobody" calls themself homophobic these days? ...they're terrified of what will happen if they're victim of heterophobia. I've seen the outcomes, and it's not pretty. Homosexuals and their activists will essentially tear you to shreds in any way they possibly can, sometimes resorting to physical violence.

These links are *absolutely* worth visiting:

[1]

[2]

On the topic of homophobic hate crimes, check out [3]

Techron 17:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pejorative political terms

Ok. Topic starter... Homophobe is a pejorative, political phrase and should be given the Category:Pejorative political terms. True/False and why.MPS 21:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

True. Homophobia is, in the most NPOV sense, a pejorative term and an intensely political term. Nobody calls themself a homophobe; it is a label foisted upon people by others who who don't like what they think or say. Some agree with me [4] but some dislike what we have to say, and so consider me and others like me to be merely expressing our homophobicness. I also think that we should add the category Category:Pejorative_terms_for_people MPS 20:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm against including the category; it's rarely used in a political context, and it doesn't really have a hidden meaning. It's true that some people insist on interpreting the word literally as "afraid of gays" but that isn't the generally accepted or correct definition. People tend not to self-apply negative labels such as "homophobic", "bigoted", "anti-semitic", etc. That doesn't make them into political terms. Rhobite 21:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Calling something what it is is not pejorative. Exploding Boy 21:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

that is the stupidist, weakest non-argument masquerading as an argument. of course the disagreement is whether or not people who oppose the political aims of homosexuals are, themselves, homophobic. r b-j 03:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. I see how it can be perjorative, but in the same sense that terms like racist and sexist are. Tom 17:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

the word is often used as a pejorative in the political context. a person can be opposed to the action (or even existence) of the Israeli nation and not be anti-semite. to use such a label for an anti-Israel political position is to use it as a pejorative. r b-j 03:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Most definitely, the term homophobia does not cover a psychological disorder anymore than an aversion to smoking is a psychological disorder. The term homophobia is a fighting word aimed at associating the opponents of homosexuality with being mentally ill. Considering the founders of the "gay rights movement" were verifiable Marxists, they simply ended up doing what the Communists would do to their political opponents: label them as mentally unstable.

The issue of whether or not homosexuality is normal, natural, etc., is a rational plane of debate, and the term "homophobia" is a canard aimed at stifling debate. The article is biased and one-sided, and is in need of an overhaul to remove the pro-homosexual bias.User: Pravknight --64.93.1.67 17:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue of whether or not homosexuality is normal is far from being a rational plane of debate. Discussing it at all is predicated on the possibility of it not being normal, which is absurd. Further, the subject is never raised unless the person raising it has already reached that conclusion.

Nuttyskin 23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Duck Test

I have so far seen nothing to indicate that this opposition to treating gays as equal to heteros is based on anything more than fear. Having lived in some small towns with large Fundie Christian populations, I can attest to the fact that these opponents invariably display symptoms of fear, whenever the subject of homosexuality is raised. You know the cliché, if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck etc. I have yet to enounter any argument against homosexuality that was not based on fear. I would have to say the suffix "-phobia" is an apt one.Smiloid 20:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

controversial term

I used the phraseology is an extremely controversial term used in many English-speaking countries. because there are many who reject this label. The website religioustolerance.org, arguable a left-leaning POV source, acknowledges that conservative Christians deeply resent being called homophobes. The many many attempts by others to attach a NPOV label to this article, and the fact that this word is on the List of political epithets attest to the fact that many people think that diagnoses of homophobia may not all be seen as entirely innocuous and academic. To some degree, calling somone a homophobe for their political opinions has the feel of calling somone an Arab-hater or a Jew hater based on their stance towards or against Israel. In the same way, democrats have been called America haters for opposing the Iraq war even though most of them love American democracy. I have changed the opening to is a somewhat controversial term based on Rhobite's objection to extremely MPS 22:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not a "somewhat controversial" term either. The fact that some people don't like being called homophobes doesn't make it controversial. For example, we don't say racism is a controversial term because some racists don't like being called such, or because they deny that their views or pronoucements are racist.

Homophobia is not a "diagnosis," as you probably well know. Stop trying to muddy the waters. Calling someone a homophobe who exhibits homophobia is not controversial.

And please stop reinstering such statements. You are thus far the only user who supports the claims you are making. Until some kind of consensus is reached, leave them out. Exploding Boy 22:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what "controversial" means. It is only that minority of people who object to the validation of homosexual expression who also object to being labeled homophobes, and retort that they are simply being reasonable and aduce various arguments to substantiate that claim. As Exploding Boy correctly pointed out, the same claim could be made by racists, who used to "justify" their position by waving the Bible, with all its many pro-slavery passages. The fact that there may be a controversy going on does not make the term controversial. There is a controversy over evolution too, but no follower of reason (vs. dogma) will ever accept that evolution per se is controversial. Haiduc 22:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Haiduc is absolutely correct. It is true that homophobes dislike being identified as homophobes, but homophobes ARE homophobes. It is also true that most racists dislike being identified as racists.--71.192.239.26 18:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Calling someone a homophobe who exhibits homophobia is not controversial." This statement sounds to me as absurd as this one "Calling someone a nigger who exhibits nigger-like traits is not controversial." Prove to me that a majority of people celebrate to the validation of homosexual expression. Last I checked 48% is not a majority

When asked if homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal or not legal, a slight plurality of adults (48%) said such relationships should be legal, while 42% said they should not be legal. One out of every ten adults did not have an opinion on the matter. [5]

Also, the ratio differs tremendously among countries. In the US, it's politically correct to be pro-gay, even more so in Netherlands, but on the other hand, in Poland the general public tends to view gay activists with contempt. You can't homogenize the statistic over cultural boundaries. 83.11.31.222 09:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You can't argue with Barna MPS 22:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Why I'm even responding to that last post I'm not sure. Such a ridiculous argument can only have been posted to stir up shit. The words "nigger" and "homophobe" are hardly equivalent. One is a disgusting racial epithet the history and significance of which does not need recounting here. The second is a term that describes an attitude or way of thinking. Additionally, whatever source you've quoted is meaningless, since I presume it covers only America, which does not equal the world. Exploding Boy 02:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact remains that homophobe is an epithet [6] a word used to characterize a group of people. IT is controversial [7]. I agree that it is not as disgusting an epithet as as the N-word but it is disgusting (or shall I say resentment-inducing) to people labeled with it. Even the words Liberal and right wing are controversial even if they aptly describe a group of people. MPS 17:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Added--even if it did, your claim that "homophobia" is a controversial term would still be baseless. Exploding Boy 02:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Barna is also a Christian research group, so they're not exactly unbiased here. Rhobite 02:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Pew research center [8] "Americans are divided – a thin majority (51%) believes homosexuality should be accepted, while 42% disagree."

University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (ISR)[ http://www.umich.edu/news/Releases/2003/Feb03/r022503.html] "For example, 53 percent of those surveyed in Western nations express some degree of tolerance for homosexuality, compared to just 12 percent of those surveyed in Islamic societies"

"Hate speech is a controversial term" wikipedia article

"Neoconservatism is a somewhat controversial term" wikipedia article

"Nigger is an extremely controversial term"" wikipedia article

""Smooth jazz" is a controversial term." wikipedia article

"Failed state is a controversial term " wikipedia article

"Since the last quarter of the 20th century, there have been few in developed nations who describe themselves as racist, so that identification of a group or person as racist is nearly always controversial." wikipedia article "racist"

There is significant NPOV evidence to demonstrate that (a) only about half of US citizens tolerate homosexuality and (b) Wikipedia has a significant precedent for identifying things as 'controversial terms' simply because there is some form of controversy around their usage. I have shown that Conservative Christians especially bristle at being called homophobes, as well as showing that wikipedia editors have come to a consensus that "identification of a group or person as racist is nearly always controversial" which directly contradicts Exploding Boy's example that identifying racists as racists is not controversial" quod erat demonstrandum. I will add "controversial back in unless anyone has anything else to say. MPS 15:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

>only about half of US citizens tolerate homosexuality

Doesn't speak well for the Americans at all. Anyway, the Wikipedia is not an American project, I am sure that the worldwide figures would be quite different. Haiduc 15:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's some worldwide stats on whether people think homosexuality "should be accepted by society" [9] "Globally, agreement with the idea that homosexuality should be "accepted by society" varies wildly. The 2002 Pew Global Attitudes Project reported the following results:

Country	Support	Oppose
North America
United States	69%	26%
Canada	69%	26%
Mexico	54%	39%
Guatemala	44%	50%
Honduras	41%	55%
Europe
Germany	83%	15%
France	77%	21%
United Kingdom	74%	22%
Italy	72%	20%
Czech Republic	83%	16%
Slovak Republic	68%	30%
Poland	40%	48%
Bulgaria	37%	36%
Russia	22%	60%
Ukraine	17%	77%
Middle East
Turkey	22%	66%
Lebanon	21%	76%
Jordan	12%	88%
Uzbekistan	10%	66%
Pakistan	9%	56%
South America
Argentina	66%	26%
Boliva	55%	40%
Brazil	54%	42%
Venezuela	46%	51%
Peru	45%	49%
Asia
Philippines	64%	33%
Japan	54%	34%
South Korea	25%	69%
Vietnam	13%	84%
India	7%	63%
Bangladesh	7%	87%
Indonesia	5%	93%
Africa
South Africa	33%	63%
Angola	30%	62%
Cote d'Ivoire	15%	84%
Uganda	4%	95%
Nigeria	4%	95%
Ghana	4%	93%
Mali	3%	96%
Senegal	2%	98%
Kenya	1%	99%

Individual religious sects vary widely in their views on sexual orientation, from acceptance of people of all orientations, to advocating of the death penalty for homosexual and heterosexual people who violate certain other norms." Gosh, not everyone agrees. Can you spell C-O-N-T-R-O-V-E-R-S-Y? MPS 16:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that you do not find the term 'homophobia' controversial. You appear to find homosexuality controversial. Otherwise, you would have used statistics showing how many people found the term homophobia to be offensive., instead of the number of people who find homosexuality offensive. Since your POV is ooposed to homosexuality and not to the the term homophobia, it would make more sense for you to state your case in a forum dedicated to discussions of homosexuality than this forum, which does not deal with homosexuality, but rather with homophobia. I will therefore remove the NPOV tag. Wandering Star 14:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Still doesn't make the term "homophobia" controversial. Exploding Boy 17:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sez you.I have lived up to my burden of proof. What is your NPOV standard of "controversial term" are you using, where you allow for smooth jazz being a controversial term but not the term homophobia? MPS 17:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You haven't proven anything. Your logical argument, if I can sum it up, sounds like this: 1. Many people around the world believe that homosexuality is wrong. 2. Other Wikipedia articles claim that terms are "controversial". Conclusion: The term "homophobia" is controversial.

Obviously your two premises do not support your conclusion. Neither of your premises addresses the term "homophobia". For every case you listed, I can explain the controversy behind the term. For example, people disagree over whether it's appropriate for blacks to address each other as "nigger". That's a controversy. I can't explain the controversy over "homophobia" because the term is not controversial - there is no prominent debate about whether it's an appropriate term. Rhobite 17:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's my argument: P1: Opponents to homosexual acts are not a "vast minority" and are in many cases in the majority of a country's attitude about homosexuals or about sodomy activity. P2: Proponents of homosexual tolerance often use the word "homophobe" to describe these opponents P3:People who are described as homophobes react very very negatively to this characterization of them and then people argue back and forth about whether this labeling of them was appropriate; in other words this label is offensive to the people labeled and usually starts an argument or controversy. P4: Wikipedia lists many other terms as "controversial terms" that are controversial because people disagree with their proper usage. P5: The term "racist" when applied even to racists, is controversial.

Do you disagree with any of these premises? If not, continue...

C1: P1 + P3 --> there are a lot of people who disagree with homosexual acts and who take offense at being described as homophobes

C2: P2 --> there are a lot of people who, regardless of C1, continue to use the word homophobe.

C3: P4 + P5 --> wikipedia's own standards suggest that labels such as "racist" and "homophobe" can be considered "controversial terms" because there is significant disagreement as to the meaning and applicability of these terms EVEN IF THE TERM IS IN FACT WELL KNOWN AND APPLICABLE.

Now let me describe your argument: "the term 'homophobia' is not controversial because it correctly describes people who are homophobic." This tells me that you are assuming that there is a worldwide community consensus about the meaning and applicability of the term. It is precisely this meaning and applicability that are the source of controversy.

Short version = many people think the word homophobia is an offensive epithet, many others think it is a a useful noun, there is no universally shared opinion on this matter, leading to arguments and debates between different opinions about its meaning and applicability==> it is a controversial termMPS 18:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

MPS, you are a skilfull debater but debates can also be vehicles for making a point rather than establishing the truth. The one thing I can agree to is to have a formulation that asserts that "homophobia" is a term that in the eyes of some, particularly an indeterminate proportion of those who persist in opposing the normalization of homosexuality in those societies that problematize it for whatever various reasons, has been used in ways that they consider controversial because it refers to their own attitudes and unvalidates their own position. Deal? Haiduc 10:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

re:truth "But human beings disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false and therefore not knowledge. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. " Wikipedia NPOV policy No deal. You are asking me to say, "the only people who disagree with this term are self-righteous bigots," which is not an NPOV characterization of that side of the argument. MPS 14:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it can be considered controversial because the way it is often used is different from the way the word is constructed. I think it can be misleading. Are they afraid of them or just dislike them? I know the article makes some mention of this. Maybe there should be more suggestion of more appropriate terms for the current popular usage. --Kalmia 17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Random page break for ease of reading

You are clearly having difficulty with certain of the terms you are basing your arguments upon.

To begin with, "homophobia" means "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."

I have to completely disagree with this statement. And it's not a result of "refuse to accept its definition", stated 3 paragraphs down. You seem to completely miss the point that a word means whatever a person wants it to mean when they state it. You suggest that a word can only "mean" one particular thing, but your definition has three distinct and seperate definitions. A better sentence would be "To begin with, "homophobia" can mean "irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals," "Aversion to homosexuality or homosexuals," or "discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." Just because a dictionary lists a word as meaning one (or three) things, does not make it so. I can see how ambigious words hurt a cause, not help it. Nothing is gained from lack of clarity other than confusion. --SpydyrMan 14:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

An "epithet" is a term that is disparaging or abusive.

A "pejorative" is something that has negative connotations; especially, tending to disparage or belittle.

"Homophobia" is neither an epithet nor a pejorative. Nor is it controversial. The only people who object to the term are those who refuse to accept its definition; this is not acceptable in an academic environment like an encyclopaedia.

Characterising someone who opposes homosexuality as homophobic is not an epithet; it's not pejorative; it's not controversial. It is an accurate description. As with slander, truth is an absolute defence. Exploding Boy 03:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"The only people who object to the term are those who refuse to accept its definition" Reread this sentence about 4 times and you will realize it is meaningless. Of course people who refuse to accept its definition will object to the term. That's what it means to disagree about a definition. I will agree with your statement if you will agree to this statement: "The only people who accept the term are the people who agree with its definition. Different people disagree about whether term homophobia is acceptable/useful/applicable, which is precisely why it is controversial. I think if you look at the definition of failed state, you will realize that it is controversial precisely because Side A wants to call something a failed state, and Side B thinks this is a loaded term and that Side A is only claiming that it's a "failed state" for political purposes. I have shown that this is the case with homophobia as well. I have provided many links above to people who consider it an epithet and who consider it pejorative. Show me some sources of people claiming "it is a unbiased term". You don't consider it negative or offensive, but I have shown that many other people do. MPS 13:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm quickly growing tired of this discussion because it's going nowhere. I suggest you pick up a dictionary and look up the word "homophobia." It exists, it has an accepted definition, and those who "don't believe in it" are free not to, but they cannot alter the meaning of a word, and they cannot claim it is a controversial word because they don't agree with its definition.

To parallel your analogy above, a totalitarian state my not like being called a totalitarian state; many totalitarian states call themselves "democratic." But if it is a political regime that exerts total control over its citizens lives and the nation's production, especially by force, then it is a totalitarian regime.

In other words, as I've said before, if a term is one that accurately describes at type of thing or person, then its use is not controversial. If the shoe fits...

To parallel your ridiculous example from further up, calling someone "Chinese" is not controversial if they are in fact Chinese. Calling them a "chink," on the other hand, will always be controversial because, rather than being an accurate description it is a racial epithet. MPS 16:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, calling someone who opposes homosexuality a homophobe is not controversial, whereas calling them a fascist would be. Exploding Boy 15:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You have again reverted my quality, NPOV edits and called them sneaky in the edit line. You have again avoided my request that you provide a POV besides your own. I'm going to the village pump to see if anyone has any NPOV opinions. MPS 16:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, calling someone Chinese when they live in Taiwan may be controversial. See? Different people have different views on whether labels apply. My edits no longer say, "homophobe is a controversial phrase" they say "people opposed to the label think it is an epithet" This is their opinion and it is well documented here. I would like someone to revert your revert so that I don't violate any rules. MPS 16:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the first part of your response: good. I've listed it on the LGBT notice board too.

As for the second, you are now just nitpicking while ignoring my objections.

Exploding Boy 20:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Your objection: if a term is one that accurately describes at type of thing or person, then its use is not controversial. If you tell me I'm afraid of mice and I think I'm not, then I may think your assessment of me is controversial even if science can prove to everyone that I am afraid of mice. What is wikipedia's definition of controversial? If I take out the word controversial and say "some people think 'homophobia' is a loaded term ... will this make you happy?. btw I think the Taiwan-China dispute is relevant and not nitpicking. MPS 21:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

summary of what we are arguing over now

here's the diff link]

MPS's version

Many opponents of homosexual acts feel that the terms homophobic and homophobia are controversial terms because this accusation is often offensive to people who think they have rational or moral reasons for opposing homosexuality. Others disagree with the use of the root -phobia use because the the phenomenon described is generally not so much a fear of but an aversion to homosexual acts. Pro-gay supporters, on the other hand, argue that aversion to homosexuals transcends mere intellectual terms and thereforean aversion to homosexuals should validly be seen as sheer prejudice and unjustified aversion.

versus

Exploding Boy's 's version

As to the validity of the term, it is sometimes argued that the term suggests an irrational, instinctual fear, as other phobias would, which they feel mischaracterizes "homophobes"' opposition to homosexuality in that it is often based on religious beliefs and/or reasoning as to the nature of sexual relationships. Gay-rights supporters, on the other hand, argue that homophobia does not stem from mere intellectual terms and thereforean aversion to homosexuality should validly be seen as sheer prejudice and unjustified aversion.

MPS 19:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The new version would be fine, with the following changes:

Many of those who view homosexuality as characterized purely by sexual acts feel that the terms homophobic and homophobia are offensive. These people often think they have religious, rational, or moral reasons for opposing homosexuality. Others disagree with the root '-phobia' because they believe the phenomenon described is generally not so much a fear of homosexual people, but an aversion to homosexual acts, though this distinction may be moot, since phobias can manifest as aversions, and even as a fear of or aversion toward acts. Gay rights supporters, on the other hand, argue that aversion to homosexuals transcends mere intellectual terms and thereforean aversion to homosexuals should validly be seen as sheer prejudice and unjustified aversion or fear.

Here's my reasoning: the first version characterizes homosexuality as a set of acts, which is a particular POV. Noting that people characterize homosexuality as a set of acts, and how they view homophobia, however, helps to avoid this POV. This distinction is further clarified in the "Others disagree with the root '-phobia'" sentence. Finally, gay rights supporters are gay rights supporters, whether a person agrees with the concept of gay rights or not. Using their term for themselves does not contstitute a POV. -Seth Mahoney 20:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

LGBT?

This article is riddled with references to "LGBT people", which I assume means Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transsexual?

I have removed these references, as they are unencyclopedic. This acronym is certainly not in general usage in the heterosexual and asexual community, and I am not entirely certain of it's usage in the homosexual community. It simply makes the article look (more?) biased towards a homosexual reader.

Anyway, it's just lazy to put LGBT instead of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals. Trip: The Light Fantastic 13:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a very widespread and extremely useful abbreviation. I have defined it in the first paragraph for the benefit of anyone who may not have encountered it before. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 13:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You cannot simply replace "LGBT" with "homosexual" because not everyone who is LGBT is homosexual. Bisexuals are not homosexual, and the transgendered can be of any sexual orientation. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 13:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

But the point of this article (Homo-phobia) is to discuss the word that uses "homosexual" as it's root. Logically, the discussion of sexuality persecution against "the transgendered" would require a seperate term. The term "homophobia" can only be applied to discussions of reactions against homosexual behavior (or perceived homosexual behavior), regardless of whether that behavior is engaged in by a person identifying themselves as "bisexual", "transgendered" or whatever). This is just another example of why the word "homophobia" itself is not very useful in discussing the social problems centered around sexual orientation. - Libertas 16 October 2005 (02:30 UTC)

Libertas is incorrect. Heterosexual bias against both bisexuals and trans-gender folk is ultimately rooted in homophobia.--71.192.239.26 18:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's true the term biphobia exists and is distinct from "homophobia". There is probably also a distinct kind of "trans-phobia", though I don't know what it's called. Nevertheless I think bis and transsexuals can be the targets of homophobia by people who don't know or don't care what the difference is. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

There are articles on both biphobia and transphobia. Since bisexual people are attracted to both the same sex and the opposite sex, many aspects of homophobia and heterophobia apply to them. Guanaco 19:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Heterophobia does not exist. Biphobia results from an ideological aversion among some gays and lesbians to the notion of fluidity within the complicated process of sexual identity construction.--71.192.239.26 18:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To what extent are the terms heterophoiba, biphobia et al. really used? I agree that the term LGBT is unencyclopedic, because I find it to be simulatenously overly simplistic and too specific. By expanding upon the term homosexual by specifically referencing Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people it suggests that these are the only non-heterosexual sexual orientations that exist and also inconsistently uses terms that reference both sexual orientation and biological sex alongside terms that only reference sexual orientation. Further, it references specific groups unnecessarily because the relevant fact is that the groups are all non-heterosexual. Granted, non=heterosexual suggests that heterosexuality is the norm and is thus inherently POV, but there is no other term that usefully describes what non-heterosexual means in a non-negative manner other than perhaps genderqueer. That said, I do think LGBT is a relatively common term, although it's possible that it's a regionalism and as such might be considered to be replaced on those grounds. Theshibboleth 10:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Heterophobia is practically unknown both as a word and as a concept.

As a word, conceivably there might be prejudice against, say, a bisexual being seen as using heterosexual privilege as a cover; but in that instance, it would be far easier to simply say, "This bisexual is unjustly accused of using heterosexual privilege as a cover", than "This bisexual is a victim of heterophobia", which most people wouldn't have heard of.

As a concept, as on even rarer occasion a white person might be the subject of a racist attack, so is the likelihood of a heterosexual being abused or discriminated against.

Nuttyskin 00:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition of bisexual

It was said above that bisexuals are not homosexual. But if I understand generaly English usage, bisexual means engaging in both heterosexual and homosexual erotic acts, e.g, a guy who has sex with girls and guys.

Is there an "identity" issue involved here? Uncle Ed 02:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I hesitate to even bother responding here, but the statement "bisexual = homosexual" is as false as "bisexual = heterosexual". We don't even need to discuss issues of identity (though if you like, we can bring them into the mix as well). -Seth Mahoney 03:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Engaging in homosexual behavior is not the same thing as considering one's self homosexual. See Men who have sex with men, for example. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as a bisexual person, I think a lot of bisexuals do identify as homosexual, not straight or "..and straight". It's more of a cultural thing, not only to do with the "identity" of gay men/women but also because (at least in North America) society often tries to polarize these identities, so someone could hardly escape a gay-bashing by saying "But wait, I'm bisexual!" However, many bisexuals are also quick to assert their difference when it comes to someone expressing disbelief or prejudice against them. Dan Carkner 12:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that most who self-identify "heterosexual" in point of fact actually have bisexual orientation. The stress of living within a compulsory heterosexual society warps the Bell curve.--71.192.239.26 19:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of bisexuals of my encounter identify as "anti-homosexual", if not outright homophobic, and do NOT associate themselves with gay culture, and will behave decidedly homophobic if their closet is challenged. And these are RAMPANT bisexuals who, when alone and "in the act", are NOT in denial; they just have families, girlfriends, buddies, hockey teams etc they have to remain part of, and for whom the baggage and trappings (and accessorization) of gay-hood do not fit and can not. The pretense of LGBT theorists and politicians to speak for such guys just cannot hold, as LGBT ideological main-think doesn't allow for the validity of their existence/ it wants to "out" them, and the reality of the social and personal backgrounds involved just doesn't allow for them to be ABLE to discuss it. And yeah, homophobes are often closet cases; but, remember, homophobes are people too, and to boot they're often guys who deserve more sympathy than condemnation. And less judgmental thoughts that "well, you're really gay, but you haven't accepted that yet" and other crock like that. That last line about self-identified heterosexuals actually being bisexual is a given in mammalology; especially in male alpha-beta relationships, whether with lions, giraffes, whales or marmosets. But this is about culture/psychological identity, not biological predispositoion (unless you are happy with the biological predisposition thing, or hormonal imbalances, or other bio-mechanistic explanations of human love/lust (which I'm not)..Skookum1 15:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I myself am bisexual and identify as neither homosexual or heterosexual. In my oppinion, I'm no more both gay and straight than the straight male (for example) is both only attracted to blondes and only attracted to brunettes (and only redheads, etc). I don't know what the official word for that might be, but in my oppinion you shouldn't define something so huge by gross similarities to something else. It's like saying a house is like an ant except an ant's alive, smaller, has six legs... sorry for the strange metaphors everyone, but that's my POV. --Anoma lee 00:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A Bisexual, like a homosexual or a heterosexual, is not defined by sexual activity. (Much like a 15 year old boy who is attracted to a girl sexually but has never had sex is still straight). A person who is actually sexually attracted/aroused by the same sex as well as the opposite sex is bisexual.

Portmanteau?

I'm not convinced that homophobia is a portmanteau word (a blend of two words that blends their meanings as "chortle" for chuckle and snort). It seems like more of a back-formation or other kind of folk etymology, where phobia retains it's normal meaning, but homo has acquired the meaning of "gay" thru its use in homosexual (perhaps interpreted as gay-sexual). Any disagreement? It just doesn't feel portmanteau to me, since it doesn't overlap any sounds or--the morphemes seem to retain their separateness, as in a normal compound word. NickelShoe 16:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess it's really homo- as a clipped form of homosexual plus phobia. The point is, that it isn't formed directly from the Greek root homo- meaning "same", otherwise (as pedants love to point out) homophobia would mean "fear of the same". --User:Angr/talk 17:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

One of the key points I see missing from the etymology section is that homophobia ALREADY WAS A WORD, albeit a rarely used one - used either as "fear of monotony" or "fear of one's own sex." Homoerotophobia was a sensible new word; homophobia was a new meaning for an old word. I won't argue that the new meaning is much more common than the old one - but I think it's a shame we aren't acknowledging that it is another word that, like gay and queer, had a meaning that got hijacked.

So couldn't the intro just say it's a word derived from homosexual and phobia, instead calling it a portmanteau? NickelShoe 17:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, it is a back-formation from homophilia, which itself is a euphemism or replacement word for homosexuality. So my opinion is that people changed the word "homosexual"" and said "homophilic" instead in order to assert that homosexuality has to do with love (philia) not sex. It would only be natural to negate homophilia to get homophobia. Right now, homophilia is a redirect to homosexuality, so I am not sure of the etymology of that word. I have not sources for my opinion so I will go back and check... here are some... [10] [11] MPS 17:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that MPS has no idea what he's talking about, or at the very least knows nothing about gay and sexology history. Exploding Boy 21:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are some more links corroborating the term homophilia as preceding the coining of homophobia(1967) (1968)(1961)

from 1961 link: I have chosen the term homophilia (which, according to Mr. Westwood, is current in high-minded homosexual circles in Switzerland and Scandinavia) to describe the situation where the object of the homosexual's desires is another homosexual, to a greater or lesser extent a mirror image of himself. The relationships between homophiles seem to approximate very closely to the relationships between adult heterosexual men and women (with the obvious difference that both partners have male genitals) running the gamut between settled and prolonged monogamous cohabitation and complete promiscuity. One of Mr. Westwood's contacts said: 'Most of my friends are in what might be called the young married set of the homosexual world'; and some two-thirds of his contacts have had, or are enjoying, affairs, which are defined as 'a strong emotional relationship between two men which has lasted over a year'. It is probably a pair of homophiles The article goes on to distinguish three forms fo "the homosexualities," namely pederast (pederasty), homophile (homophilia), and pathic (pathicism). [12] this article goes on to say that "gay leaders in the 1970s rejected the term "homophile" as conformist, and as a deliberate elision of sexuality. " Now I am off to find sources for the coinage of homophobia... MPS 22:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Bingo. George Weinberg: was speaking at a 'homophilia group' meeting. George Weinberg: Homophobia is just that: a phobia. A morbid and irrational dread which prompts irrational behavior flight or the desire to destroy the stimulus for the phobia and anything reminiscent of it. Because human beings are the stimulus, a common homophobic reaction is brutality in many cases, as we all know. We also know its consequences. I am very proud of being the one to have coined the word. I remember the moment in 1965 when it came to me with utter clarity that this was a phobia. I was preparing a speech for a homophile group, which set me to thinking about "What's wrong with those people?" [13] MPS 22:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The word homophile was around before the 1960s. And what does it have to do with the word homophobia? Exploding Boy 17:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The question on the table is what the origen of the word homophobia is. It is pretty clear from the sources I provided that "homophobic" was coined in reaction to (as a negation of) the term homophilic, and that "homophilic" is an older euphemism for "homosexual". Exploding boy, do you think we should start a section in the homosexuality article to develop the history of the word homophilic? MPS 21:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, the word was around from way back, but so what? The word faggot used to mean a bundle of sticks, but it doesn't any more (and in the UK, you can eat one!). If you say homophilia now, people will assume it's a back-form/portmanteau of homosexual and haemophilia. Buggers who are bleeders?

Nuttyskin 00:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, what's your point? I am not sure I understand. Please explain your comment more. Nuttyskin, were you just trying to make a joke or do you think we need to change something in the article? MPS 00:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research

Two points: The section titled "'Homophobia' as applied to political opponents" constitutes original research; it claims that people are frequently labeled as homophobes by their political opponents if they do not support gay rights. It doesn't cite any sources. It also specifically claims that Rick Santorum was labelled a homophobe by critics. It doesn't name these critics. Unless the term was used by Santorum's opponent in a political race, or in a political ad, Santorum shouldn't be mentioned here. If all you can come up with are some partisan blog references, that's not enough.

The third paragraph of the section says "In some cases, it may be possible to oppose one or more of the pro-gay legislative issues listed above without it necessarily being due to visceral antipathy toward gay people, i.e. homophobia." This is original argument, not suitable for an encyclopedia article.

The category "Pejorative political terms" has also been removed from the article, no evidence has been provided that the term "homophobia" is used by politicians or notable commentators to label their opponents. Rhobite 00:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

MPS continues to revert the article but hasn't provided any citations and hasn't bothered to discuss the issue here. Rhobite 02:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The Concerned Women for America, a political lobby group, issued a press release following the Rick Santorum affair because they claimed that "The Rick Santorum controversy has illuminated a serious problem in the Republican Party: Its leaders seem woefully ill-prepared to defend the pro-family position on homosexuality." in their advice to "fellow Republicans," they issued several points, including #3..."expose the deceptive terms, such as "sexual orientation," diversity and "homophobia," which are used by pro-"gay" proponents to confuse the issue and control the debate. This requires nothing but making them define their terms at the start of argument, then focusing the debate on clarifying the definitions and exposing their illogic and hypocrisy. " The Press release goes on to say ..."Ask them to identify some examples of non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality. They can't do it because they define all opposition as "homophobic." Do they really believe that disapproval of sodomy/rimming/fisting/sadism is irrational bigotry? You get the idea. You'll find that this technique derails virtually every pro-"gay" argument because each one relies on deceptive rhetoric. " ...

So there you have it, a bone fide prominent political group decrying the politically charged use of deceptive terms, such as "sexual orientation," diversity and "homophobia," as related to the Santorum affair. [14] Show me a non-blog source where a prominent person uses the word "homophobia" or "homophobic" in a way that you would consider appropriate/non-pejorative. I would be interested in seeing whether you can identify a non-pejorative use of this term in a reputable source. MPS 20:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding my "continuing to revert"... I had not edited this article for at least a month... since October 12th by my rough recollection. I figured that our discussion above had resolved the issue, but when Rhobite deleted the category the other day I changed it back with comments in the edit summary [15] that reiterated that it is on the list of political epithets. It is clear from the I just source provided that some groups on the political right consider it to be a political epithet. MPS 20:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for citing sources, that's all I was asking. I still think you were editing anonymously yesterday but I won't press the issue. Rhobite 21:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

No Prob. It's people on all sides working together that makes wikipedia better. On the record, I can honestly say have no affiliation with User:205.188.116.202 [16]. MPS 15:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Religioustolerance.org is definitely not NPOV, but it is a source of one brand of opinions, as with blogs. MPS 04:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's less than a "brand of opinions". It's just one person's opinion, which then leaves us with the discussion as to why we should in particular care what that person (rather than anyone else thinks). But then any more conventional blog is usually just one person's opinion too, jguk 09:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Dual associations and usage controversy

If the discussion about "homophobia" not being the best parallel to "racism" or "sexism" is worthy of inclusion, then I believe that some mention of "homohatred" as a better parallel is warranted. The construction homo+the word for hate/hatred not only exists in English, but in related languages as well: Danish, Dutch, German, Swedish, and Norwegian. This is not some flash-in-the-pan American or English-language neologism. I have heard/seen it used in the US since at least the mid-1980s; however, it has clearly not gained widespread use or acceptance, as evidenced by the low number of Google hits--in the 300s. Of the languages that I mentioned above, the Dutch version of "homohatred" has the highest number of Google hits--in the 19,000s. Ghumpa 00:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, feel free to put a homohatred entry in the Dutch version of Wikipedia. It is multilingual for a reason. I recently did a Google Search for the word "homophobophobia", and came up with 633 entries. Clearly homophobophobia is far less a neologuism to the English language than homohatred. Keep in mind, a very large number of neologuisms have very similar foreign-language equivalents, but they are still neologisms.

Sections moved to talk

I moved the following sections here. There's an explanation for each.

Moved from the dual associations section:

Some users of the term "homophobia" simply mean prejudice against homosexuals or LGBT people. But others use the word to associate the idea of prejudice with fear. One implication of this association would be that a lack of familiarity or comfort with openly LGBT people causes prejudice; some might even go so far as to claim that all prejudice arises from some kind of fear, possibly related to one or another "us vs. them" division.

Who are these people? Let's get names, people! Also, this "some/others" nonsense is just bad style.

As to the validity of the term, it is sometimes argued that the term suggests an irrational, instinctual fear, as other phobias would, which they feel mischaracterizes homophobes' opposition to homosexuality in that it is often based on religious beliefs and/or reasoning as to the nature of sexual relationships.

Who are these people? Who, specifically makes this argument (I know its common, but come on, someone must have actually made the argument)? Also, I removed the scare quotes from 'homophobes'.

Gay rights supporters, on the other hand, argue that homophobia does not stem from mere intellectual terms and therefore an aversion to homosexuality should validly be seen as sheer prejudice and unjustified aversion. However, a counter-argument would be that this is a similar attitude to the "choice" debate at the heart of homosexual persecution.

Not all gay rights supporters make these arguments. So who does? Which organizations or prominent individuals have said this?

A minority argue that homophobia itself stems from a clinical condition, suggesting that the term should be taken literally as a medical definition of ill aversion to homosexuals. Many, including many in the scientific community, are not supportive of this notion, though some still speculate on the pre-cultural roots of homophobia in today's society. The study claimed that ""Discrimination could be an after effect of the ancestral need to protect a group from danger." it went on to say that "key emotions were targeted at different minority groups, with gay men likely to elicit feelings of disgust." The study concluded that "the scientists behind the study say the hard-wiring of our brains should not act as an excuse for homophobia or prejudice, since we can now learn to "dampen down" our fears."

Who are the minorities who make these arguments? Some inline reference to what, exactly, is being referred to is necessary here, including what the study is and who did it. Who are these people in the scientific community who don't agree with this view? Who still speculates? If there's no reference to be found, this is arbitrary original research. Also, I've done some copyediting. -Seth Mahoney 23:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"homohatred"

This term is a neologism at best, and is certainly no more accurate than homophobia. Exploding Boy 02:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Darwinistic Homophobia

Is there anything covered on homophobia regarding darwinism? Im sure there has been some people in the world who believe that homosexuality meant having a defective gene or undesirable social darwinist characteristics (gender role reversal). Dont take offense to my question but i'm sure it must of been pondered before. --80.2.175.184 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC) -Homosexuals have existed since the dawn of man it seems, so according to Darwin's theory, homosexuals like hetrosexuals are naturally selected, otherwise we would have died out by now.

You can maybe thank all the closeted bisexuals that ardent homosexuals like to snipe at for that one, maybe......Skookum1 15:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This piece seems to imply that homosexuality is inherited or adopted. Are smokers naturally selected too? They have been around a long time too. This is junk science at it's best. Homophobia would actually imply (through darwinism), that homosexuals are rejected by at least some parts of society, and not naturally selected, or deemed healthy to society. Although, you can successfully argue the interference of religion as promoting homophobia (a loaded_term). But then you'd have to argue the adoption of religion as a naturally selected trait, since eighty-seven percent of respondents say they consider themselves to be part of some religion. http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/millennium15.asp --SpydyrMan 14:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

WHOA, can we really say that Homophobia derives from "homos" meaning "man"? What about "homo" meaning "similar or uniform"?

"homosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see same) + Latin-based sexual (see sex)." -- http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=homosexual

--AlanH 03:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I just ran across this article and was about to raise the same issue. The etymology given is obviously bogus, as can be checked in the pertinent article. (Cfr. Heterosexuality.) - Andrés D. 02:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed this earlier today. Thanks for pointing it out -- and next time, feel free to fix it yourself! bikeable (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Homophobia, Controversial or Not?

A controversy is an opinion or opinions over which parties are actively arguing. Controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements.

Anyone that can read the above responses and think that the word Homophobia is not controversial, is using the the term controversial subjectively. There is an obvious debate going on over the word itself, and it's validity. A definition in a dictionary does not end the debate. Not even the word controversy is free from debate, because it is subjective, and subjectively used. You may divide it's various definitions and usages into seperate and distinct terms, but sometimes it is just better to explain what you mean, rather than use a loaded_term like homophobia, which is ambigious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Controversy --SpydyrMan 14:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that much of this article would better belong in an article entitled "Opposition to Homosexuality", where the moral, ethical, social and medical arguments against homosexual behaviour and the homosexualist movement could be presented. I will create the article at some point today, unless anyone else would like to.Ros Power 10:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually don't see that very much in this article would be better in Opposition to Homosexuality. I also think you will have a very, very difficult time making that article (which I see you have created as essentially empty) WP:NPOV. bikeable (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, how is an article with a pejorative term like "homophobia" considered NPOV? That's insane, given that it has no accepted definition. It seems that a lot of people have termed moral, ethical, ideological and medical opposition to homosexuality "homophobia", where really it's nothing of the sort.Ros Power 19:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to address content for the moment, but keep in mind that this article is about homophobia, what it is, what the term means, and the like, whether or not homophobia itself is a POV term. Keep in mind (I know this is an extreme example, but its meant to illustrate, not to confound) that for some The Holocaust is a POV term. -Smahoney 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Homophobia" has no accepted definition?? It most certainly does have an accepted definition. And I strenuously object to this article being moved to either of the above-mentioned new names. Just as some people object to their homophobic views being called "homophobia," some people think their racist views aren't racism; we still have an article called Racism. Exploding Boy 03:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, what do you call moral, ethical, ideological and medical opposition to homosexuality? Where's Wikipedia's article on that?Ros Power 05:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's called "homophobia." Exploding Boy 05:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Added: the same way that moral, ethical, ideological, scientfic and religious racism is (now) called racism. Exploding Boy 05:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, right. So you're trying to compare the way that people choose to behave with the colour of their skin? Do you think that stands up to much in the way of intellectual analysis? And you're also trying to suggest that labeling people who oppose certain moral and behavioural choices as "mentally ill" (which is what "homophobia" implies) isn't pejorative? Am I right? Anyway, thank you for clarifying. I had always suspected the word "homophobia", apart from being etymologically unsound, often meant far more that "fear of homosexuals". I'll be padding out the "Opposition to Homosexuality" article later. Unsigned comment added by User:Ros Power.

Exploding Boy doesn't have to argue that, because we are not advocating the way the term "homophobia" should be used; we are describing the way a term is actually used and widely accepted in practice. I see you are hung up on the etymology; but many, many words in English have an iffy etymology, and it is not our job to correct their usage. People widely use and understand the word "homophobia" to describe much more than "fear", and that is what the article very correctly says. bikeable (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

But much of the article isn't about homophobia, it's about perfectly legitimate, sound, rational opposition to homosexuality. Where on Wikipedia is this covered?Ros Power 15:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing no such thing. And we don't need an "oppposition to homosexuality" article. We have plenty of similar articles already. Including this one. Which discusses homophobia. Exploding Boy 15:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The reversion by Exploding Boy (unexplained also) is reducing the Neutral Point of View expectation of wiki. Much as I might personally favour that prevoius version (which attempts to define religious objections to same-sex relations as homophobia), and I do, the word is so new, and difficlut to define because it is part of a modern movement (culture war in fact), the definition becomes purely partisan if exploding boy has his way. I linked the term to one of our National Pubic media pages at [17], and the story there itself demonstrates why the definition needs to be as neutral as possible to be useful.

Cor Unum 01:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, your reversion was unexplained, not mine. My edits were cleanup that made the article more neutral, not less; I really didn't remove any valid information, I simply tidied and improved the prose, and removed some outrageously unencyclopaedic nonsense.

Second, I'd like to request that you alter your signature so that it more accurately matches your user name, per our guideline at Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Your signature and user name are currently so different as to be very confusing. Exploding Boy 01:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with adding the {{npov}} tag back on the page, reason being that the word itself is probably one of the most know loaded words. Ergo, I suggest that the tag remain up until the article reaches a neutral level, without any bias.--Piemanmoo 03:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere, it has to be accepted that the article is about the word and the word has certain usages, so it doesn't in itself matter at all if 'homophobia' is one of the most loaded words. What matters is that the article report the word's usages without editorial comment. There is where any NPOV discussion about this article should start. -Smahoney 03:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

still not NPOV

Exploding Boy, you should look at the change tags. My change was explained from the beginning (NPOV), and I could not even find an edit summary on yours. I might add that your suggestion about me changing my own tag is indicative of an editorial attitude. Any of us can use any tag we want - and it is all traceable by clicking on a link. Simple. If I want to use Charles Manson or Maryline Monroe, I can do that too. You might also note that my identity on wiki uses my own name- and there is no attempt on my part to do anything other than be on the record. Google me. Noel Debien. Very public. I just like Cor Unum. I don't think it is reasonable to say that, definitionally, religious objection to homosexuality is homophobia. That's just a view, and a very loaded one. You are making the article on definition less useful. And I say that as someone who has (google it) worked on our State Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby for years. I personally think religious objection is often homophobia, but that's not the point here. For the moment, I'll remove the ABC connections to the article tomorrow because your own definition of the word view lacks neutrality by the standards of public broadcasting (which I suspect wiki would agree with. You're looking from the inside out. We can take up the neutrality matter further. Keep editing. I will. I think we need to notify a dispute here.

Cor Unum 12:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here, but if it's your signature you're discussing, no, you can't use famous people's names as your signature either. It's simple: the guideline states that "It is common practice (and common courtesy) to use a signature name that is either identical or closely related to your account name. Likewise, signatures that obscure your account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive."

Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Exploding Boy 15:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Point Missing

I think the Etymology section is missing the point. Homophobia literally means 'fear of same' or 'sameness'. Homophobia i also used in the context of 'fear of monotomy' not just 'fear of homosexuals'. You have to look a the root words here. Homosexual is 'same sex'. I think a small section should be added to show Homophobia's literal use. Mishy dishy 01:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your interpretations qualify as original research, since they differ widely from accepted definitions (which are to be found in reputable dictionaries). Exploding Boy 01:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Phobialist classifies Homophobia as both, and, since it is listed as an external resource, it is most likely reliable by Wikipedia's standards. On the article: List of Phobias. Mishy dishy 01:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Deriving "literal" meaning of words by looking at their roots is a pointless endeavor. Doing so results in silly conclusions like hysteria only existing for women (from Greek hustera 'womb'; cf. hysterectomy), true hamburgers only coming from Hamburg, a hippopotamus being a horse, etc. Many people mistake etymology with meaning, but they are not the same thing. The etymology of a word only tells us its history, not its current meaning. Thus, regardless of its history or apparent morphological decomposition, homophobia refers to a concept that need not include actual fear. Ludling 04:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because Hippo skeletons ressemble horse skeleltons, woman are more likely to suffer from hysteria, true hamburgers really do only come from Hamburg etc. Mishy dishy 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Lies and urban legends do not belong on Wikipedia, except when labeled as such. The hippopotamus is in fact more closely related to whales than horses, you'll be hard-pressed to find modern statistics showing that women are more likely to suffer from hysteria (it's a nebulous term that has no official medical definition), and while true Hamburgers (capitalized) may come from Hamburg, true hamburgers (lowercase) can come from anywhere with ground beef and a grill (or frying pan, if you prefer). To head you off at the pass, ground hogs' skeletons do not resemble pigs', people named Adam are not more likely to have Adam's apples, and true Russian dressing is an American invention. The fact is, etymology and literal translation is largely irrelevant to the actual meaning and usage of a word. Ludling 15:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where it's linked in the article, but even if it is, that doesn't make it a reliable source. Having looked at the site, I wouldn't say it was, particularly. It's a hobby page, not an academic site. Exploding Boy 01:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

But if it was incorrect, it wouldn't be listed in an enyclopedia. It is listed as: "Homophobia- Fear of sameness, monotony or of homosexuality or of becoming homosexual." You interpretation of it being innacurate is just as much as an opinion as mine is. Mishy dishy 01:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In what encyclopedia? -Smahoney 01:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This one. Wikipedia is encyclopedia. Also, the point is that homophobia is used as 'fear of monotony' and 'fear of homosexuals'. I asked both my psychologist and my psychiatrist, both who graduated from URI. Mishy dishy

Where in Wikipedia? Also, "my phsychiatrist said so" counts as original research. Exploding Boy 00:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I already said that the Phobia LIst website was listed under the 'Lst of Phobias' article. I'm pretty sure I rad a thesis on the history fo the term on Google Scholar. If I can get the article, will that be better? Mishy dishy 13:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Pop culture and the Eminem example

Not that I listen to him, but is it really true that Eminem's lyrics express a fear of homosexuals/homosexuality? If they don't, how can they be justified as an example here? Expression of repugnance, however crude or violent, is not the same thing as expression of fear.

If the regular meaning of the word is this repugnance, then the article should primarily reflect that, and then as a secondary point reflect the belief that this represents a phobia (and of course conservative objection to that implication). Mangoe 23:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Homophobia does not necessarily suggest "fear." While repugnance and fear may not be the same, repugnance is still homophobia. Exploding Boy 00:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's part of the dispute over the word: that it does suggest fear even as it is being used to categorize any negative expression as prejudice. In any case, it would be clearer, I suspect, to give a better idea of the content (e.g. use of slurs). Mangoe 04:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, but there is no controversy over the word's meaning. It can be found in any reliable dictionary. Exploding Boy 04:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

perhaps there is little controversy over the word's meaning and it can be found in reliable dictionaries. e.g.:

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
homophobia
One entry found for homophobia.
Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against
  homosexuality or homosexuals
- ho·mo·pho·bic /-'fO-bik/ adjective

to apply the term to a person who stands against the political aims of gay activism, is to use the term as a pejorative. Exploding Boy is simply exploding with POV. r b-j 03:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Exploding Boy - what you are saying here is just not very reasonable. Have you read the discussion page above? I would have though it is very clear from the discussion that there is controversy. Hello??? Cor Unum 09:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There can be no controversy over the definition of words found in reliable dictionaries. That is original research. Exploding Boy 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a matter of opinion. Did the press call it homophobic? If so then state that. If the only assessment/assertion of Eminem lyrics being "homophobic" that it is Explodigboy's opinion, then that violates WP:NOR. Cite sources, or delete the Eminem comment. Heinous is in the dictionary, but that doesn't in itelf prove that Eminem's attitudes are "heinous." MPS 20:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with me. I wasn't involved in writing any of that section. But since you ask, I do recall his lyrics being called homophobic. That's why there was such a scandal when Elton John decided to perform with him. Exploding Boy 20:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the wiki NPOV and verifiability about citations and footnotes? Maybe if we stick to these ways of verifying then the discussion here may have clearer solutions. Dictionaries are not sufficient sources to cite for the meaning of terms with such heuristic force. Dictionaries lack the contextual nunaces thata term like homophobia acquires. John Boswell's (now somewhat old) book 'Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality ' is a good start for finding out how the term has emerged in religious discussion in particular. You won't find his stuff adequately represented in a dictionary definition. Dictionary definitions are helpful starting points for clarity, but far from adequate for defining meaning and usage in social context - particularly with new words.

Cor Unum 11:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Back to where I started with this: The issue of his lyrics being called "homophobic" leads right back to to the controversy, because it seems it's enough for someone to call his lyrics "homophobic" for them to be so. In other words, it expresses exactly the sort of all-purpose pejoration that you are so dilligent in excluding from this article.

Hmmmm... got a CNN article with some actual content, so I'll be fixing that example. Mangoe 11:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV definition and usage of the term

again, i cite:

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
homophobia
One entry found for homophobia.
Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against
  homosexuality or homosexuals
- ho·mo·pho·bic /-'fO-bik/ adjective

when the usage of the word is extended beyond that of "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals", that usage is colloquial at the very least. when it is used disparagingly to identify or describe people who oppose a political agenda mostly associated with gay activism (this could mean many different agendas that are, in my opinion, perfectly legitimate and supportable agendas, such as anti-discrimination laws, civil unions, etc), that is a misuse of the word, but such a common misuse that it deserves some mention in the article. however, when homophobic, homophobe, or homophobia is used as such, it is decidedly as a pejorative. when some gay basher calls a gay person a "faggot" or "fag", homophobe might be an accurate label for him. when some parent diverts or prohibits contact between their child and someone they know or believe to be gay - solely because of that reason, that person might be accurately called a homophobe. but when a person doing nothing of the sort (above) simply opposes extending the definition of legal marriage, opposes the addition of the class "sexual orientation" to anti-discrimination laws, opposes changing of historical theological teaching regarding homosexuality in the church or religious group of which they are a part, when such persons are labeled homophobes, that is decidedly pejorative since it does not fit the dictionary definition of the term and no one that i know of likes to be called that term. that is the meaning of "pejorative".

people like User:Exploding Boy are the ones clearly injecting bias into the article. that particular editor is also provably dishonest by the manner he characterizes someone he opposes. that was born out by the fact that it was E.B. who was blocked and not me (i stuck very closely to the rules). simply accusing your opponent with doing the very same violation and recalcitrance that you, yourself, are guilty of is the oldest trick in the book. it won't work here. r b-j 15:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is laughable. I was blocked because the blocking admin didn't do his job very well. Not only are you clearly guiltly of a 3RR violation, but my reversions were justified as removing vandalism -- your inclusion of the term "pejorative" was done without consensus and without citation, and makes the article non-neutral. It's bad enough that someone has categorized this article under Pejorative political terms. Your interpretation of the definition of "homophobia" is original research and has no place in this or any other Wikipedia article. Exploding Boy 22:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

you were blocked because you don't play by the rules. there is no 3RR violation regarding me and the blocking admin (who "didn't do his job very well") said on your talk page that as far as he could see, i violated no 3RR. i'm playing by the rules and you are trying to skirt them. that is ostensibly because you are apparently not particular honest:

you demand NPOV but you, yourself, are full of POV. you are demanding that "homophobe" means "anyone who opposes the gay agenda" in whatever political sphere. you demand citations, but you provide none. when i provide the simplest and most authoritive citation other than the OED, you ignore it and then later demand citations. you pretend to be ignorant of refuting evidence when it serves your purpose. you accuse other people of precisely the recalcitrance you, yourself, are guitly of.

it's the Karl Rove forensic model: 1. frame the debate by defining or redefining the terms ("opposition" = "homophobes"). 2. you claim (falsely) that the evidence is on your side, demanding that people just accept that without burdening you with a requirement to produce. you expect to have the benefit of doubt. 3. then with your false terms set, you simply point to the opposition with the names that you defined ("opposition" = "homophobes" very similar to "opposition to Bush war policy" = "unpatriotic" or "terrorist" or "treasonist", ect.) 4. keep chanting the Big Lie until everyone forgets what a lie it is.

you're just a hard-core POV pusher, trying to use Wikipedia as your soapbox (and then childishly accusing whoever gets in your way as having the POV). people have been putting up with you until now. but we're not stupid and you are to think that your whining tactics will let you have your way.

and you're right - this is laughable. we're laughing at you. r b-j 00:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

RBJ, please No Personal Attacks. I believe calling someone "not particularly honest" and "stupid" qualify. Try to keep it civil. --Chesaguy 00:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

the main point is not to underestimate the intelligence of the other editors, which EB's "arguement" does. oh, boo-hoo:

RBJ is "clearly guiltly of a 3RR violation" (untrue)

EB is just "removing vandalism" (also untrue, the admin didn't buy that little fib either)

RBJ's "inclusion of the term "pejorative" was done without consensus..." (also untrue, there have been at least 4 editors wanting to fix that on this very talk page and EB was insisting on not letting their changes stick)

"...and without citation"' (also untrue. i twice posted the simple Webster's dictionary definition and anyone can look it up to see if i misrepresented it. adding further that political opposition is "homophobia" without qualification is the statement that needs citation and EB does not submit himself to that standard.

i added one word to the sentence where "homophobia" is applied outside of the dictionary definition which still has been fully justified as simple application of the English language and EB says it's "interpretation of the definition of "homophobia" [that] is original research"

i say to all of that: "bullshit". he thinks he can bullshit his POV onto us. his record of actions speak clearly of his intentions and his integrity. "not particularly honest" was a qualified remark. "stupid" was originally meant to apply to the rest of us with "not" preceding. but i agree, we should keep it civil, but this mendacious and immature POV grinding editor has to quit insulting the intelligence of the rest of us. r b-j 04:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

RJB, your justifications for the personal attacks are irrelevant. The point of WP:NPA and WP:Civil is to keep this a place where articles can be worked on without personal animousity. Discuss the points, not the presenter. It doesn't matter if you feel calling someone dishonest is completely accurate, it is still a personal attack, and does nothing to improve the article.

From WP:Civil:

 Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:

   * Rudeness
   * Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling," "snipped rambling crap")
   * Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
   * Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another
   * Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."
   * Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.

Emphasis mine. --Chesaguy 04:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

just to be clear with everyone what level of maturity and integrity we are dealing with: User:Exploding Boy is trying to stretch my 3 reverts that i did yesterday into 6 (one edit wasn't even mine and 2 were non-revert content changes) to get back at me for tattling on him (for his technically clear 3RR violation) which got him blocked for an extremely lenient 12 hours. he's evidently fuming at this (sorta like my a recalcitrant child when they are caught red-handed and forced to curb their behavior, trying to blame everyone else except himself: "blocking admin didn't do his job very well", etc.) for the consequences he received as a result of his very own indefensible actions. you can see the all the fun at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR . enjoy. r b-j 16:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's about time all this nonsense is removed from this page, and I invite Rbj to do it himself. Exploding Boy 06:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Homophobia and Religious objections

r b-j - All I can say is that with exploding boy, all I can give is a long, slow shake of the head. He doesn't appear to be very reasonable on this particular point or academically inclined to try to sort it, so I sort of gave up, and removed any public links I had made to the wiki article. I think it remains unfortunately biased (and therefore not very useful -though there is a lot of good information in there), and exploding boy doesn't seem to get either that a dictionary is not the finite end of knowledge, nor that his attempt to define religious objection to homosexuality implicitly as homophobia is simply not valid. Some of it is no doubt (well maybe a lot!), but some of it is principled objection based on Biblical authority and natural law theory and so on and so forth, and an opinion held by honest people of integrity. Not that I personally agree with those objections (I prefer John Boswell's re-evaluations), but rather I think there are other issues here being played out. I'll be interested to see how this comes down. I vote the word pejorative should be inserted back in. This would fix most of the reservations that I have about the article. Just one word added.

Cor Unum 10:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please take your personal remarks to email. Exploding Boy 22:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer on public record Cor Unum

"Pejorative"

I've added specific references to the Eminem incident and to the issue of pejoratives. I left the "NPOV" and "Accuracy" tags in place for the moment though I think there's no cause for them. The specific objection to "pejorative" has been overcome and I really expect that the word should remain in the first paragraph-- especially as the coupling with "bigotry" is undeniable. Mangoe 00:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

two things. in one sense, the usage of the word should not be too broad or strong. when applied to "fear of, aversion to, ... hatred of and disparagement of homosexual people", the word (perjorative) is not accurate. in that case, the use of "homophobia" can be purely clinical. it's only applicable in the last sentence. when it is applied to"Opposition to same-sex activism on religious, moral, or political grounds..." in and of itself, then the usage of "homophobic" is pejorative. not simply believed to be pejorative by those it is directed to. it is, by the very definition of the word, pejorative. so in that sense, the weaker qualification is less accurate. r b-j 03:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both things r b-j has written here. Cor Unum 03:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree

What you have added Mangoe makes sense to me, and I think is eminently reasonable. Cor Unum 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Haiduc (talk · contribs), take it to the talk page.

"sexual freedom within the bounds of the law, like integration, is mainstream in the West, and opposition to both is marginalized. Calling a racist "racist" is not pejorative."

calling a racist a "racist" is a tautology. it has to be true. i guess that's the nice thing about tautologies. but the problem with a tautology is that it doesn't say much. then to use that to "prove" your point does nothing. calling a tomato a "tomato" is true, too, but it says nothing to support or refute your assertion that political opposition to an agenda put forth by gay activism is equivalent to homophobia. not just those getting called the name see those as two different concepts (i don't get called "homophobic", and, in fact, being pretty far left of center, i'm usually on the same political side of gay activism), and they are semantically different. there is no way that you can parse the phase: "political opposition to an agenda put forth by gay activism" apply the dictionary definition of "homophobia" to it, and get equivalence.

so, if it isn't equivalent and the term "homophobia" is used by someone to apply to "political opposition to an agenda put forth by gay activism", what can that usage be? perhaps if it was considered a kind term for someone: "Hey, ya big lug, you're just a homophobe. I love ya!" in that case, you could call it a colloquism or something similar. but the usage is decidedly disparaging. no one, other than those sick gay bashers from whatever church in Kansas, that i can think of likes being called a homophobe. so if the usage is not technically accurate (it is not the dictionary definition) and if it is decidedly disparaging, pejorative is precisely the correct English word to describe that usage.

to put into the article, without qualification, that "political opposition to an agenda put forth by gay activism" is equivalent to homophobia and to insist that this usage is not pejorative, ignores the accepted dictionary definitions of the words, and is POV. you're trying to characterize a political opponent with a disparaging term that is not techincally accurate. WP is not the place for POV. the Homophobia article is not anyone's soapbox on which one can stand and define their political opponents as "homophobes" simply because they are political opponents.

if no one else fixes Haiduc's POV edit, i will at 4:10 UTC (i'm counting my R's). r b-j 03:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel as though I must be doing something right, the way my edits are being chopped up by both sides. But 'calling a racist "racist"' most certainly is pejorative. It may be justified, but it isn't a neutral evaluation. Mangoe 03:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Another attempt at the first graf

I've tried rewording this from a different angle. Neutrality demands that the dispute over the legitimacy of the term be mentioned up front, so just clipping off everything but the reference to the dictionary will not do. Mangoe 04:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

i agree, since the use of the word "homophobia" has been used to apply to political opponents to the agenda of gay activism, that usage needs to be brought up here, in this article. to leave out any mention of that usage would be simply to leave something out. but to put in that usage without qualification as if it were normative, what one would accurately say to describe such political opponents, then that is clearly POV. to imply that it is only those getting called that label that think it's pejorative, that is not accurate and is POV. since defining political opponents to the agenda of gay activism as "homophobe" is clearly outside the dictionary definition and since it is disparaging, the accurate word for that usage of homophobia is "pejorative", not merely that those being called it think so. "racist" = "racist" by definition. but "political opposition to the agenda of gay activism" is not the same words as "homophobia". to equate them technically requires changing the dictionary. to equate them any other way is a colloquialism if not disparaging and is pejorative if it is disparaging.

the article needs to say this simply and to the point. anything else that weakens that is POV or giving in to strident POV pushing. r b-j 04:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality has been satisfied, for now. For further improvement of the introduction, I suggest that "lifestyle" and "culture" be written singularly, and that "sexual behaviors" be removed, as certain sexual activities are assigned to homosexuals by definition, right? GilliamJF 04:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mangoe, you changed the subject a little bit

" moral or religious criticism of homosexuality." is not the same as "Opposition to same-sex activism on religious, moral, or political grounds".

some might argue that "pejorative" applies in one case and not the other and i didn't want to have to fight both fights. can we change it back to the usage of homophobia toward political opposition? r b-j 04:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

defensive text

This material, "When the term is applied to political or religious opposition to specific sexual acts or political positions, it has been criticized as a pejorative, loaded term intended to discredit moral or religious criticism of homosexuality." makes no sense, since presumably the only ones "criticizing" such use are the very people who are the target of what may well be a justifiable use of the term. We need some evidence of impartial third parties criticizing such use of the term, so if you have such references, please provide them. Haiduc 13:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Haiduc, you are not paying attention to or responding to the main issue of POV that got this started. i agree that Mangoe's text of "When the term is applied to political or religious opposition to specific sexual acts or political positions, it has been criticized as a pejorative, loaded term intended to discredit moral or religious criticism of homosexuality" changed the issue a little bit.

but for weeks, the text "Opposition to same-sex activism on religious, moral, or political grounds may also be referred to as homophobia." existed on the introductory paragraph without qualification. that implied that it was normative to label someone who would oppose the political goals of same-sex activism as a "homophobe", but that is misleading. it is not normative to do that no more than it is normative for me to call every Bush supporter a right-wing warmonger. but that non-dictionary definition into the top paragraph and refusing to allow the accurate qualification of "pejorative" is POV. you are trying to get this article to take a side on the issues of the political goals of same-sex activism. one side (the "pro-same-sex activism" side) is normative, the other side are "homophobes".

i am a 50 year old, long-haired, liberal, pro-Howard Dean supporter that supports inclusion of sexual orientation as a class in anti-discrimination laws and civil union legislation but i can see that that characterization of people who oppose such things is simply a POV labeling. it is obvious. but it is common and the mention of colloquial uses of "homophobia" deserve mention, but when it is mentioned as such, it must be identified as colloquial rather than leaving the implication that it is normative. this article must reflect that otherwise it is just a POV hack job for the extreme gay activists. you are simply not allowed to label political opponents whatever you want in a NPOV article.

do you "get it" yet? r b-j 16:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Rbj, sorry if I made you mad. I am afraid though that you are trying to create a middle ground that does not exist. You are trying to create a category of people who are against homosexual expression without being homophobic. What is that, a koan?! That's like positing a group who oppose interracial marriage but are not racists. Leaving aside this or that formulation, since they obvioulsy change from one day to the next, what we ned to determine is who or what can be labeled "homophobe." I have to say at this point that I do not know, and that I will restrict myself to using published material in the construction of this article, and I will reference my contributions. Haiduc 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

i'm glad that you plan to use published materials and to reference your contribution. in the introductory paragraph, where basic definitions are being put forth, an important published material is the dictionary. certainly in an encyclopedia article, there will be treatment of the word beyond what is in the dictionary, but when implications of the meaning of the word is stretched beyond the dictionary definition, we must be very careful to avoid POV. to simply stretch the definition beyond the dictionary without qualification is to make an original contribution and can easily skirt the limits of NPOV or, even, surpass those limits.

the category already exists (and always has existed). i did not create it (or "try" to create it). there simply are people in the world that are not frothing at the mouth, gay bashing, homophobes that do not support the political aims of the LGBT social movements. if you cannot recognize that fact and you build your point upon that, it is a logical fallacy called argument by lack of imagination. i think your example of positing a group who oppose interracial marriage but are not racists is apt. a racist is a much broader term and the two are not equivalent. there are racists who could care less that some white guy marries some black woman and there are people that have different reasons than a belief that some races are inferior to others that may oppose (or better, "disapprove of") interacial marraige because of a belief that "it doesn't work" or "causes more problems than it's worth" or similar that are not racists. they might not at all think that their race is superior but still disapprove of interacial marriage. i do not understand it completely (my sister is married to a Palestinian and one of my brothers is married to a woman from Sierra Leone he met in Peace Corps) nor do i take their position (i oppose it) but i do not presume that anyone who disapproves is a de-facto racist and superficially labeling such a person as "racist" without any other evidence is a form of prejudice on my part. if you insist on labeling anyone who disapproves of homosexuality as a homophobe and certainly if you insist on labeling anyone who takes a different politcal position than that proffered by the gay-rights political block a "homophobe", that is an application of the word that is beyond the basic, fundamental definition of the word thus making it, at the very minimum, a colloquialism. but since the label "homophobe" is clearly disparaging, then the use of it outside the strict (clinical) definition of it, is pejorative. that is simple English. r b-j 18:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Again we are back to the controversy, and its two parts. We're never going to get clear of the "phobia" issue, even though the relevant reference has been removed (I figure in a couple of versions it'll be back). But perform the official substitution, and the koan goes away: "You are trying to create a category of people who are against homosexual expression without being bigoted against homosexuals." I expect that someone will appear to say that this is still impossible (and maybe it is) but it's rather hard to say that moral objections represent bigotry without overcoming them as moral objections.

R B J, it would be easier if you would quit trying to make the article-- well, actually only the first graf-- represent your POV. I brought in the Boggs citation to give non-participant opposing POV. You would be putting me in the position of wanting to revert a lot of your changes if others didn't get there first. Find a reference to support your position. Mangoe 17:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that some people mask religion-based positions under the rubric of "morality" does not a moral argument make. And the koan remains. How can you possibly make a moral argument against a natural pleasure-seeking activity innocently and harmlessly enagaged in by hundreds of animal species, including man??? By the way, I notice that those who are ignorant of facts are trying to trump those who study them, as in the recent deletion of the properly referenced middle paragraph of the intro. I hope that is not allowed to stand. Haiduc 17:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A similar argument is made by pro-pedophilia activists - i.e., since they're just giving pleasure to the child and receiving pleasure, and since a percentage of animals have sex with their young, therefore there is no legitimate moral argument against pedophilia and therefore all opposition is motivated by irrational bigotry. In the case of both issues, no moral argument will ever be deemed acceptable to supporters of these types of sex. 64.12.116.8 16:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

however 64.12.116.8, there are two somewhat different (or at least slightly different) issues. calling someone who disapproves of homosexuality, per se, (essentially disapproving of or condemning the sex act or lifestyle) say for more or less the moral or religious reasons, calling that person a "homophobe" is one thing (it may or may not be applicable, i dunno and i don't wish to fight that fight). but calling someone who opposes a court ruling or ballot initiative that legally equates heterosexual marriage to homosexual, or somewhat that opposes adding the class sexual preference or orientation to hate-crime or discrimination laws, calling that person a "homophobe" solely because of that is outside the definition of the word and is disparaging. it is appropriate for this article to make that association because, i think we all agree, that this association is done commonly. but it is POV for this article to make that association without qualifying it as colloquial and disparaging. it needs to be mentioned and it needs to be qualified to be NPOV. r b-j 17:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking for such third parties, and wonder whether such a person even eixsts. Nonetheless, the fact that the complainers are the target of the word in question is not a good enough reason for this deletion. The problem isn't just that they are being characterized pejoratively, but that the word is constructed to imply that their opposition can be discounted as merely an emotional reaction. The article cannot remain balanced without admitting this up front. It would be nice if those criticized would quit trying to up the ante and turn the first graf into a denunciation of the word, but the controversy needs to be mentioned in that summary. Mangoe 14:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure where it should be mentioned, but it cannot be given equal weight with the rest of the material, any more than suggestions that Jews drink Christian children's blood can be given equal weight with opposing views in an article on anti-semitism. Haiduc 14:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was an offensive analogy. in fact the two situations have little in common. The issue as to whether homosexuality is properly the subject of moral criticism remains controversial; opposition to homosexuality is more than just the province of a lunatic fringe (which is essentially how you just characterized it in your analogy).

This article must, for now, have a dual purpose. It must explore bigotry against homosexuals as a topic, but it must also explore the word itself as a tactic within the larger societal controversy over homosexuality. As it stands, the topics do not get equal weight anyway. The body of the article hasn't changed much of late, and criticism of the term is limited to one shortish section and one quotation, a relatively small part of the whole. The dispute has focused almost entirely on the summary paragraph. Yes, it should not be written so as to condemn the term, but it needs to acknowledge that the usage is controversial. Doing so is not giving it equal weight. Mangoe 14:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

not only is the analogy somewhat offensive to some folks (i don't give damn) but it is not an applicable analogy. a more applicable analogy would be suggestions that anyone opposing Zionism or the actions state of Israel regarding Palestinians are anti-semites. r b-j 17:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but we need to look very carefully at what the term "controversial" means. The theory of evolution, for example, is not controversial in the least, despite the fact that some religious dogmatists attempt to stir up controversy around it. The controversy created by these same religious dogmatists, who have obviously been marginalized in most developed countries and only really hold sway in a few pockets of recidivism such as Iran, Somalia, the American midwest and some Easter European backwaters does not make homophobia-as-bigotry controversial. Same with condom use and AIDS prevention - it is not at all controversial, but the Catholics don't like it. So yes, controversy exists, no it is not controversial. Haiduc 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You say they are marginalized, and yet in the context of this topic the word "marginalized" is not a safe term either, because of its use by LBGTQ activists to refer to their exclusion from society. Their opponents claim that "homophobia" is used in an attempt to marginalize them from public discourse in that sense, and not because they only occupy small pockets of society (which in any case isn't true), because it is a loaded term intended to portray their thinking as pathological without having to confront it on its own terms. The recent addition of by another referring to a specific condition of anxiety (which I personally think is too suppositional, but at least reflects the etymology better) gives a better picture of the problems with the word.

You've tried two analogies, the first offensive and the second inaccurate. Is it too much to ask that this issue be discussed on its own terms? Mangoe 17:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

trying to clear the waters a bit

Well, Rjb, since I first polarized this discussion let me try to unpolarize it. First let us separate fact from fiction, fact being what is published and fiction being what you and I think. On the fiction side, a homophobe does not need to froth at the mouth. In my travels I have met highly educated, suave, sophisticated people who just happened to be fascists and antisemites. We dined together and enjoyed wonderful food and conversation. But they were still fascists and antisemites. Please do not equate my use of the word homophobe with personal animosity or with caricaturing anyone. These people can be kind, reasonable, affable individuals, but they still find it in their hearts to look down on those who have tastes other that theirs when it comes to desire. Sad to say, that makes them homophobes. And the test for homophobia is not whether you support the aims of the LGBT social movement, it may be as simple as not letting your son hang out with the boy next door anymore because you think they are falling in love with each other and you do not want your boy to grow up to be a fag. So while you are correcting my slants, please do not engage in straw man arguments (like the two I just pointed out) otherwise we will never get to the bottom of this.

On the fact side, promoting a dictionary definition in an encylopaedia article is pointless, by definition this is not a dictionary. And allowing an argument ab nihilo to trump academic discourse makes our work here into a farce.

As for the existence of people who reject legal homosexual expression in principle but are not homophobes, please give me some examples so I can see what you are talking about. Haiduc 19:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, how likely is it that you will characterize them as homophobes because they reject "legal homosexual expression in principle"? What about the Boggs article I added?

Your use of the word "fiction" in this context is novel, and your scenarios and testimonies might as well be declared fiction under your usage. I submit that it is not a useful definition. And while I'm on the subject of the dictionary, your invocation of WP:WINAD is completely at variance with the statement of the policy. Indeed,

an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic.

Right now I see a struggle to define the issue out of existence. Mangoe 19:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"A good definition or a clear description of the topic" should not be hobbled by what a dictionary may or may not include. Our goal here should be to cover all aspects of the term, political, slang, dictionary usage, and academic exploration of the topic. But it stands to reason that the academic work is our foundation, since it is professionally carried out and subject to peer review.

I looked at Boggs. Are you suggesting that she is not homophobic? If she came across two college boys kissing do you think she would not try to get them to mend the error of their ways? She certainly comes across as a kind homophobe, somebody you could hold a conversation with, but as long as she is opposed to "legal homosexual expression" she is de facto and de jure a homophobe. Let's not fall into the trap of only calling "homophobes" the rabid bible-munchers, that would really be a fiction. And I do not understand what you mean by "defining the struggle out of existence." Haiduc 20:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The above is a good example of precisely what these two editors were accusing you of - you have again responded to requests to justify your definition of "homophobia" merely by repeating that definition. This is little better than a standard Usenet-style discussion. 64.12.116.8 16:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

the encyclopedia will have treatment of the word "homophobia" (and derivatives: "homophobic", "homophobe") that is beyond the terse definition in a dictionary. i understand that. in fact, i never suggest nor supported removing descriptions of other common uses of the word(s) in the article. i want the fact that the word "homophobe" is sometimes used to identify political opponents to the gay rights movement to be mentioned in the article. i know at least one editor tried to remove the whole thing completely in an effort to obviate the dispute of this issue. of course, this is not a dictionary. but it is also not a soapbox.

the issue is most simply whether or not identifying political opponents to the ostensible pro-gay agenda as "homophobes" without qualification (thus implying that such association of terms is normative) is POV or NPOV. i have made the case that no one has been able to touch that this is POV. now User:Mangoe has also put forth (by his/her edits) the issue of whether or not identifying persons who disapprove of or criticize homosexuality are, by definition, homophobes. i didn't want to move this dispute of meaning and usage to that and i have told Mangoe as much.

but in the first "graf", it is very important to not expound far beyond the root meaning of this single-word topic unless it is done to point out a common usage of the word, which is fine. but that common usage is clearly pejorative, by definition (of both words). mentioning this common use of the word "homophobic" (that is outside of the root definition) in the first paragraph of the article is fine, but if the usage is controversial (it is, people are objecting to it) the article must say so, or it is POV. if the usage is colloquial (it is until you show me a dictionary definition that includes political opponents) the article must say so and, in that case, if the usage is disparaging (i don't know of anyone except hateful gay-bashers like the Westboro Baptist Church who would wear such a label proudly), and colloquial, then that usage is pejorative and the article must say so, particularly at the first mention of such usage or it becomes POV. it is POV because it serves the forensic interest of one side at the expense of the other and is not supported in the root definition of the word (i.e. a "stretch" of meaning).

you have done nothing to refute this. (and, indeed, you cannot.) r b-j 19:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This article needs serious work

Take the following: "it has been criticized as a pejorative, loaded term intended to discredit criticism of homosexuality" - criticised as discrediting criticism? How bizarrely convoluted. I know there's been this long, drawn-out debate here on the talk page, and in an editing tug-of-war, but really, I think we can manage better than this. Let us try and remove ourselves from what we consider the rights and wrongs of homophobia to be, and focus on trying to document what other primary sources state on the subject - since there are plenty, we might as well circumvent the whole matter of how homophobia is to be described simply by directly referencing it all. The dispute is actually comparatively empty in content, since it seems to revolve around semantic quibbling. I call on all editors here to please remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia, and not debate the nature of homophobia. for of course Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite sources, I think, applies well here. Personally I wish to avoid editing this article directly due to my personal POV, but I call on the regulars editing this article to please try and make this article look respectable. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, 100%. -Smahoney 01:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You are completely off-track. The perhaps somewhat mangled form of the article is due entirely to an edit war (now in abeyance) that breaks out whenever someone dares to say much about the word's history as a term of disparagement, and especially criticism of the word as a faux-clinical term. An encyclopedia (a neutral one, anyway) would be bound to address that controversy. Calling that external controversy semantic quibbling is a POV failure.

The quoted sentence is not great rhetoric, but I think part of the reason nobody changes it is because attempts to put in something clearer (and therefore stronger) get reverted far enough back to edit out mention of the controversy altogether. And I think it's inelegant, but not that obscure. Mangoe 02:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Mangoe, i dunno if the wording that survived the "great compromise" was yours or a mix of some other editors, but i have to agree with Nicholas that it is convoluted. i was basically the bomb-thrower that came in here insisting that the article not list as normative the use of homophobia to describe political opponents to some political aims of the gay rights movement or of some gay activists. i thought the clearer edit that i made (and was supported by only one anon editor) survived reversion once Exploding Boy was restrained a little. further, i know Nicholas from an earlier controversy and have a lot of respect for him. we (you and i) agree that the word "homophobe" is a term of disparagement but that it sometimes has legitimate and nearly clinical application. when some neanderthal utters "kill the fags", labeling him a homophobe might be quite valid. when someone else says "no, i don't think the legal definition of marriage in this state should be changed to include homosexual relationships" and political (or legal) opponents call that person a homophobe, that is a cheap and simple method to silence sincere opposition (by labeling such opposition as bigotry) without having to really take on the debate. some differentiation of usage needs to be identified and described in the article. i am not sure how and have backed off asserting my solution, but something should be done. r b-j 04:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need to look beyond our own opinions or the various diatribes in the political forum. We also need to look beyond dictionary definitions if we are to produce here a reputable article. Perhaps we need to establish whether there is academic consensus on the use and meaning of the word. "The Classical Origins of Modern Homophobia" for example suggests that homophobia is "almost universal," supporting an interpretation which leaves no room for "principled opposition" to equality for homosexual expression. That is not to deny the contention that "homophobia" can be used as term of abuse, but we should heed the academics on what constitutes such use, and not the complaints of interested political players. Haiduc 06:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The academics are "interested political players", as exemplified by George Weinberg himself. Mangoe 04:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

and i must say that, certainly for the very first paragraph, anything beyond the dictionary definition or a purely semantic rewording of it must be approximately common usage and if that usage is a colloquialism, that must be pointed out and if, additionally, the term "homophobe" is used as a negative label (or "loaded word" or pegorative or whatever), that needs to be pointed out. any other exposition of the word, particularly in the first paragraph, would come from POV: "ah, this is what i think the word 'homophobe' should mean." r b-j 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to register that I feel the current version [18] has a good, acceptably NPOV intro graf. Also want to throw in my preempotive $.02 that I feel Homophobe is comparable to the word Asshole. [19]. It is often used to describe Republicans, but primarily in a pejorative sense. MPS 15:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

if someone else doesn't delete User:152.163.100.12's addition to the intro, i'm gonna tommorrow.

... i think it should be obvious why that incident is not special nor defining of the appropriate or inappropriate use of the term. i would revert it now but i'm trying not to appear to be POV pushing. (reverting it increases NPOV.) so please, someone else nix that, will ya? r b-j 02:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Another cleanup attempt

I've made an attempt to reduce the redundancy and leave the remaining mentions in the appropriate sections. I also cut out Phelps; he probably ought to be mentioned as an epitomizing figure, but he was mentioned in a sort of sidelong way in the wrong place and I couldn't really figure out what to do with the material except remove it.

Opposition to homophobia

I'm afraid to touch the section on "Combatting homophobia", but it seems to me to be a section on homosexual activism which has wandered in from the wrong article. There's no mention of the innumerable training programs, and there's a lot of mention of confrontation tactics which to me seem to have a rather different intent. At any rate, this section needs some attention to keep it on topic. Mangoe 15:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"gay rights"

We've had a few edits/reverts today over "homosexual activism" versus "gay rights". I had supported the sentence,

When the term is applied to political or religious opposition to specific sexual acts or political positions, it has been criticized as a pejorative, loaded term intended to discredit or silence opposition to the political or social goals attributed to the gay rights movement.

152.163.100.12 came up with the compromise wording,

When the term is applied to political or religious opposition to specific sexual acts or political positions, it has been criticized as a pejorative, loaded term intended to discredit or silence opposition to any of the political or social issues connected with homosexuality.

I reverted this because I thought it talked around the subject. 12's last edit note reads, "Opposition to gay rights" is a loaded phrase which implies opposition to any and all rights for homosexuals, although the debate usually concerns sodomy and other such issues, not rights in general.. I disagree, but I won't revert again right now. Note that the sentence did not say "opposition to gay rights"; it said "opposition to the political or social goals attributed to the gay rights movement." that's very different. I do not think that that sentence is particularly loaded. Comments from other editors, please? bikeable (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's going to be very hard to maintain neutrality with "gay rights" in the sentence; the phrase is presumptive. On the other hand, the "issues" one simply isn't coherent. How do you silence an issue? I think we were better off with "homosexual activism", which has some hope of neutrality. (The ref back to gay rights behind that was, I admit, not the best idea.) I suppose homosexual agenda would probably be an accurate turn of phrase, but I'll bet it would get reverted immediately. Mangoe 03:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right -- I reverted it :-) sorry. "Homosexual agenda" is a zillion times more POV than the mealymouthed nonsense (I think we both agree) which preceeded it.

To be honest, I see "homosexual activism" as more POV than "gay rights". But if we need to go back to "homosexual activism" to find agreement, it may be better than any of these other options. thanks~ bikeable (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

ya know, Mangoe, maybe the simple insertion of "pejorative" was the simplest thing we could do. i've had some trouble with all the variations meant to be spelling out explicitly what a loaded, pejorative use of "homophobia" is because i wanted to limit it to the use against "principled" political opposition (which some deny exists, but that's a POV) of some gay political agenda. i didn't want to include any mention of the use of "homophobia" toward those who disapprove of or condemn the gay sex/relationships/lifestyle under the same tent as the use toward certain political opponents. do you see why i was trying to do that? it was to step away from an unnecessary fight. to make this more NPOV. r b-j 05:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Since homophobia itself is a loaded term, I don't see why "homosexual activism" is significantly more loaded. I really dislike that all of these very POV terms are being used just because we hear them all the time in the media. "Gay rights"? What about "lesbian rights"? Just because we're used to hearing it doesn't mean it is suitable for use here. To me, homosexual activism pretty much encompasses what is trying to be described. Di4gram 14:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, we should call it "homosexual civic activism"... makes it sound more civilized. MPS 14:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Homosexual activism" sounds like a term used by someone who has read about homosexuals in books but can't quite believe they exist -- it's terribly stilted. How about "LGBT activism"? It's more inclusive, it's more formal than "gay", and it's more correct. bikeable (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

'Homosexual activism' is also a term used exclusively by those who oppose gay rights, while 'gay rights' is used by all sorts of people. There's probably a better term than 'gay rights', but 'homosexual activism' is not it. -Smahoney 16:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, of course, Seth. So what do you think of "LBGT activism", since there seems to be a fair bit of opposition to "gay rights"? bikeable (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As one who made the original edit, I wanted to say how jarring and POV "homosexual activism" appeared to me. This prompted me to use the term that "homosexual activism" linked to - "gay rights." If gay rights is what you mean, gay rights is what you should say. So far, I haven't seen an adequate rationale for opposing the term "gay rights." The criteria for naming conventions on WP may be instructive here (while recognising that this speaks to article naming): what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. The "Gay rights movement" is the term used to refer to so-called "homosexual activists" in common parlance. If the concern is that mentioning it implies opposition to "any and all rights," the use of a simple modifier like "some or all goals of the gay rights movement" would eliminate that concern. "Homosexual activism" is an uncommon term and its use implies that the rights sought by LGBT people are the province of clinically-defined agitators. Let's focus on the rights themselves. Fishhead64 16:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we here to not offend people? Commonly used terms are polluted with connotations set up by the media. Uncommonness is not necessarily a bad thing.

As far as oppositing to the term "gay rights": are you suggesting that gay people are different than straight people in that they are not afforded the same rights? Legally, the rights of both persuasions are equitable. I'll throw marriage out there as an example, for convenience purposes. Can a homosexual man marry a woman? Yes. So he can get married, just not to who he wants to. If we are talking about words and their actual meanings, the homosexual man and the straight man can both marry women, and neither of them can marry men. The difference is, of course, that the homosexual man doesn't typically want to marry a woman. Can an unmarried man see his dying girlfriend in the hospital? No, and neither can an unmarried man see his boyfriend in a hospital. Is the fact that no legal accomodations exist to unionize two men and prevent the latter from happening an injustice? I'd say so. However, what is being fought for are not rights, but extensions to existing rights, or, at least (and what I personally believe), a seperate-yet-equitable union to marriage.

So, "gay rights"? No. Homosexuals do not get their own rights, and they never will; nor will heterosexuals get their own rights, nor should they. Nobody should be restricted rights, nor should they be afforded rights, because of sexual orientation in a secular society such as ours claims to be. Di4gram 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly with your last sentence, but the rest is, I am afraid, conservative doublethink. Gays cannot (in all states except mine) legally marry someone they love, nor do they have most of the other rights associated with being in a lifelong relationship. In a great many cases, gays (or, more broadly, queer folk) are denied all sorts of expression that others take for granted. The gay rights (no quotes) movement exists not to extend new rights, but to even the playing field, just as the civil rights movement did, and does, for people of color. (Think carefully about your marriage argument, and apply the same logic to interracial marriages, and you will see how wrong it is.) This is not really the place for this discussion -- we're supposed to be talking about the article -- but I don't want you to think that I agree. bikeable (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"As far as oppositing to the term "gay rights": are you suggesting that gay people are different than straight people in that they are not afforded the same rights? Legally, the rights of both persuasions are equitable." that is decidedly not true. hasn't been true over the centuries and is only becoming addressed in the present age.

"I'll throw marriage out there as an example, for convenience purposes. Can a homosexual man marry a woman? Yes. So he can get married, just not to who he wants to." but the heterosexual man does at least have the chance of marrying the person (a woman) he wants. i, myself, am no big advocate for changing the legal definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships. wouldn't kill me if it were changed but i think that civil unions are sufficient.

here is one salient counter-example to your claim:

in states that do not have civil union statutes or similar, if one's homosexual partner is hospitalized (and perhaps on his/her death bed) the non-hospitalized partner is granted no next-of-kin rights. the "immediate family" of the hospitalized person would be that person's parents who could legally bar the partner from visiting and the partner has no legal authority to make any "living will" decisions on behalf of their loved one. this could also be the case for non-married heterosexual relationships but even there most states have "common-law" which does eventually grant to the never legally married partner the same rights as to a spose. of course, the legally married spouse has complete legal authority over their the life/death issues of their spouse (lacking a living will) and the parents of their spouse cannot override that as in the Terri Shiavo case. if Terri was a lesbian, her lover would have lost the legal dispute to her parents long ago and she would still be vegitating in Florida today (unless some natural cause eventually ended her life).

r b-j 18:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I've been misinterpretted, or some parts of my explanation were not understood.

Bikeable, homosexuals are allowed to marry. Like I said, who they choose to marry may not fall in line with what rights they have, but to say that they have fewer rights than heterosexuals is wrong. How much you love someone has nothing to do with getting married; the legal definitions of marriage have no inclusion of "love", or necessary amounts of love required to perform the ceremony. I am not arguing whether or not they are allowed to marry who or what they want, I am arguing that they are allowed to marry the same gender, age, race, nationaly, etc., that everyone else is allowed to marry. Therefore, their rights, at present, are equitable (legally). Emotional ties and so on are a different story, but not relevant to what I'm talking about. I am simply saying that it is an extension of existing rights (to extend the gender option to both instead of just the opposite), not the creation of new ones.

Rbj, I think I addressed this in my original statement. I am not against civil unions or anything like that, and this isn't really the article to discuss that matter. I am simply saying that this is not so much about homosexuals lacking rights as it is homosexuals wishing for their wants to be included in existing rights. Di4gram 18:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

you have not been misinterpreted. we know fully well what you are saying. we simply do not follow nor agree with your line of reasoning. one class (hetero) has the opportunity of legally marrying their sexual partner, the other class (homo) has no such opportunity (except Massachusetts or some countries outside the U.S.). it is simply not correct that "Legally, the rights of both persuasions are equitable." unless there is specific legislation to make some functional equivalence in rights. Gay couples cannot file federal joint tax returns (which is only an advantage if their 2 incomes are disparate). without explicit living wills, gay partners have no inherent gaurdianship rights or responsibilities. we know what you're saying, we have interpreted it correctly and you are simply wrong and cannot support your statement with fact. r b-j 18:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I understood the argument; I just disagree. Saying gays have the right to marry is utterly empty. Furthermore, I would point out that at least the Massachusetts Supreme Court disagreed with your takein Goodridge:

"Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law."

Of course, other courts have seen it differently; I am just saying that there's a solid legal argument for saying that gays are, in fact, being deprived of rights under current conditions. bikeable (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And there is a solid legal argument for saying that they aren't. It's disputable, which is why the word "rights" should not be included in this instance. Also, Rbj, it is not for you to decide that I am wrong. You're turning this into a completely irrelevant argument. I do not care about homosexuals or their plight, and I will not pretend to. I care about the loaded terminology in this article. A black person who can't vote is different than a gay man who can't marry another gay, or bisexual, man. One is denied rights that others have, while the other is denied rights that others are denied. Love has nothing to do with legal marriage.Di4gram 19:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

it is for me to decide whether or not you (or more specifically your point-of-fact or arguement) is wrong. just as it is for any other WP editors here. we blew your argument away. it's dead. "marraige" or not can become a semantic issue so i will not claim that equality must mean the availability of legal marraige to both classes. but until both classes have equal community property rights, equal survivorship and guardianship rights, equal treatment in taxation, explicit protection against employment/housing discrimination (there are legitimate venues, particularly church employment where such discrimination may have to be allowed just as churches may discriminate on the basis of religion), there is a clear counter-example to disprove any claim that there is equality.

I consider homosexuals and bisexuals to be people, just like you or me. Therefore, I do not consider them a seperate "class". I consider them to have an alternative lifestyle (and if you ask them, a fair number say the same thing). Currently, laws do not provide for their lifestyles. I am not saying this is good or bad. But this is completely off-topic. I won't argue with you any longer, because you are so determined to say "NO UR RONG" that anything I say is going to be pointless anyway. They have the same rights I do: to marry someone of the opposite sex. If you looked at this objectively, and not sympathetically, you would see what I mean. You can marry someone for any reason you want. It doesn't have to be love, or that would be in the definition. If marriage were accomodated to include men, I could easily marry a man. My little right to marry someone would be a little bit more encompassing, but it wouldn't be a new right, it would be an amended one. Therefore, this is not an issue of "gay rights", it is an issue of activism. Gay rights are another way of playing with emotions, rather than the actual issues, and if people stopped insisting on doing that, I bet that both sides would have a much easier time with progression. Di4gram 02:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"Love has nothing to do with legal marriage." is bullshit. i see you're from PEI in Canada. you try to find an American "convenience spouse" to marry so you can quickly immigrate to the U.S. (not sure why a Canadian would want to immigrate to the US, i might want to do the opposite with assholes like Bush in power). if the Immigration and Naturalization Service finds out that your legal marraige is a sham (that is, that you two married each other not out of love but for some other purpose) they will send you back to PEI real damn fast.

your argument is unpersuasive because it is factually incorrect. r b-j 20:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a security issue. It's easy to see why they wouldn't want foreigners using laws created for honest people to get into the country. It has nothing to do with moral principle, nor does it have to do with basic legal principle. We're introducing a completely irrelevant topic, national security, instead of introducing a real working example. If I wanted to marry a Canadian woman, and didn't love her, nobody could say anything. Same goes if I were an American who married an American woman. Immigration is a totally seperate issue from homosexual activism. Di4gram 02:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

listen, Di4gram, you're a smart guy in college. a lot of us used to be there. that being the case, you have to recognize that as you get older you'll learn a few things that you don't know now (if you don't recognize that, then you're a dumb guy in college). one of those things will be forensics: how to make and debate an argument effectively and fairly. the thing is that, unless you can hold a gun to my head, you cannot persuade effectively without arguing fairly. check out list at Argumentation_theory#See_also. especially Informal_logic and Logical fallacies. one of the problems is that you continue to side-step the refuting points put to you: you say: "Love has nothing to do with legal marriage." which is a sweeping statement. alls i have to do is come up with a single counter-example where love has something to do with legal marriage and your sweeping generalization is proven false. those sweeping statements are hard to defend! so when i do that precisely, you try to change the subject and say it's "a security issue". whether or not it is (i don't think the INS is worried too much about an invasion of Canadianism even though we share the world's longest undefended border with a country whose northern border just extend indefinitely) is immaterial. the fact is that the government on this side of the line is sometimes legally interested in whether or not there is bona fide love in legal marriages. (Divorce court or family court is another such venue, but i already proved your assertion wrong with a counter-example, i don't need another.)

your other sweeping statement that needs only one counter-example to disprove is "Legally, the rights of both persuasions are equitable.". the fallacy of logic you keep repeating is ignoring the multiple examples we have put forth were homosexual couples quite clearly have a legal disadvantage in the law compared to heterosexual couples unless there has (in some states, maybe also in your good country) some specific legislation remediating it (such as civil unions). these are tangible legal disadvantages, particularly next-of-kin, survivorship, and gaurdianship rights if one gay "spouse" dies or is incompacitated and needs the person that he or she loves and loves him/her (and is most authorative to represent his/her wishes) to represent him/her. the spouse of a married couple (or the partner in a legal civil union) is next-of-kin, not the parents. but if there is no legal recognition of this homosexual union (the gay couple have to do as much as an eloping hetero couple and go to the courthouse to get this legal recognition), then the incompacitated gay person is simply considered "single" by the law and the parents become next-of-kin. it's different and it's tangible. you made your points. they don't stand up. we told you precisely why they don't stand up. try not to be like User:Exploding Boy and offer a little respect for the intelligence of the people you're debating with. you may not believe it, but i am. otherwise i wouldn't have gone through all this typing for you. r b-j 05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim to be a smart guy in college. Where I'm from and what I do has nothing to do with my argument. I am not making a sweeping statement, in any way, shape or form, and I surely won't let that be used in what is obviously an ad hominem attack against me. I am not saying "MARRIAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOVE". I am saying that in purely legal terms, love is not a requisite for marriage. Love is a very subjective issue. To govern marriage with "you love a person THIS much, so you can get married" is rather stupid. Therefore, it is fully possible for a homosexual to marry, just not to someone they would presumably love. Do you see, yet? The relevance of this point is fairly obscure to the article, but the point I'm making is that homosexuals are not denied a right, they are simply forced to follow the same laws as heterosexuals. Allowing marriage, or a sub-branch of marriage, to encompass those of the same sex would be an extension, not a new right; therefore, nobody is fighting for "rights", rather they are fighting for extensions to rights. You are straw manning my argument.

I am not saying that homosexuals are not at a legal disadvantage. Again, you're straw manning me. What I'm saying is that they currently have the same rights available to you and I, but choose not to make use of them. There is no right, anywhere I have read anyway, that says "you have the right to marry someone you love". An amendment to marriage laws would fix this issue, but such an amendment would not be "adding rights", which is my argument. You are completely removing this conversation from the argument by making it about idealism and not about semantics. This is about "gay right" v.s. "homosexual activism". Di4gram 04:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing specifically about the legitimacy of the claims of the gay rights movement, at least as they pertain to marriage. First of all, this isn't all about the United States - sometimes "gay rights" can mean access to marriage, sometimes it can mean not being stoned to death for kissing someone of the same sex.

With regard to your specific objection, your claim is that rights aren't being denied, since gays and lesbians could conceivably marry people of the opposite sex. By the same token, 50 years ago in the United States, whites could have chosen to marry whites and blacks could have chosen to live in states unaffected by Jim Crow laws, but this did not make so-called miscegnation laws and the denial of the vote to blacks any less civil rights issues. Limiting marriage, pension benefits, military service, etc. to those who are heterosexual or prepared to enter into heterosexual arrangements likewise falls within this ambit. The situations are entirely parallel. Likewise, laws prohibiting or restricting same-sex sexual activity, which exist in many parts of the world, is also an aspect of the movement (recalling that "gay rights" means different things in different parts of the world).

In other words, an extension of existing rights means rights are being extended to those formally denied them. How this is anything other than a movement for rights, ie., the "(fill in the blank) rights movement," I fail to see from your argument. Fishhead64 19:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To me, amendments to existing rights are less drastic than creating new rights. Also, it isn't only homosexuals who might benefit from this. Maybe a couple of guys who don't really want to marry yet live together would like to grab some of the tax benefits or something like this. Are they homosexual, or do they just want to make use of the law? I think "gay rights" sounds far too possessive. Di4gram 19:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, amendments to existing rights are less drastic than creating new rights. I suppose not executing people in a same-sex relationship could conceivably be an extension of rights accorded those in opposite-sex relationships, but are you saying this isn't a rights issue?

And, of course, heterosexual marriage has long been used to derive economic benefits or social status or clan alliances. The point is not the motivation, the point is that they've always been heterosexual. This is not about possessiveness, it is about what gay and lesbian people (either as individuals or in intimate relationships) can or cannot legally do, that straight people in similar situations can. Fishhead64 19:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is about what any person can do, regardless of sexual orientation. If I'm bored and want to marry a guy just for the hell of it, maybe a few benefits and stuff like that until I find a woman, I can't do that either. Like you said, nothing to do with motive. The ability to marry someone of the same sex is just as barred from me and other heterosexuals as it is from homosexuals. Di4gram 02:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

repeating an empty argument does not make it more persuasive. gay people don't want to marry people of the opposite gender (except, i s'pose for sham or image reasons if they're in the closet). bi might. r b-j 05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to burn an American flag, but I still have the right to do it.Di4gram 19:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

good for you (and i wouldn't discourage you from doing so). currently i still have the right to do so also, but that right is not gauranteed for long with the current assholes in power and the assholes the put in the courts. (i am confident a legit admendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban buring the flag will never happen, but the Supreme Court might someday say that legislation banning it is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.) r b-j 15:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"can mean"

dammit, my edit note has been cut off twice now. sorry. I reverted "...can mean..." (and also "...is used to mean...") back to "means". "...can mean..." is redundant, since the next sentence gives another meaning, so it's clear enough. and "[word] means [primary meaning]" seems like the most sensible construction here. bikeable (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If it "means" one thing then it can't mean anything else. "grandma" means your dad's mom? ... but it also can mean your mom's mom??? No! It has multiple senses, either of which is a legitimate sense. It can mean the first but it can mean the second. I am going to change it back to "can mean" as soon as you agree with me on this. Not to assume of course ; ) MPS 17:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

hmmm... I can't agree that quickly, sorry :-) See, for example, Hit. To paraphrase, I can say, Hit means to strike, cause to come into contact with forcefully, or deal a blow to an object. The word hit can also mean the act of safely reaching first base. Using "can also mean" in a subsequent sentence is evidence enough that the use of "means" in the first sentence is not absolute. This would be a good time for other editors to chime in...! bikeable (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if a third opinion is needed here, but I agree with bikeable here. The hit example is relevent. The use of "means..." followed by "can also mean..." is grammatically accurate. --Andrew c 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that both of the suggested options are gramatically accurate... but I submit that can mean is more appropriate in this case since the word "homophobia" has multiple senses, none of which is dominant. It means different things to different people, I guess is my point. Not just one main meaning. MPS 20:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

MPS, i think your last edit is fine. but we have to be careful with any deviation from the dictionary definition in the very first sentence. "homophobia" means what the dictionary says it means. as for other usage, we get to write about that, and only there is any qualification appropriate. r b-j 21:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Different meanings can be covered in depth in the "Etymology and usage" section. If this article covers one meaning more than another, then I think its fine to use bikeable's suggested format. However, if the article covers both meanings equally, I can see MPS's side for having "can" used twice. However, I think there needs to be more focus, because it seems a weak way to introduce an article with "can mean".--Andrew c 21:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, we've trodden these grounds recently (see above). from WP:WINAD:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WINAD), and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong: But, an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic.

because there is contention over the use of "homophobia", to allow one side or another state, in the very first sentence, what they think that "homophobia" should mean, rather than just what the dictionary says (or a semantic equivalence), is allowing one POV into a critical place (the first sentence). other common uses can be mentioned and should be (because this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary) but there has to be qualification in such mention, particularly regarding usage of the word, common or not, that is colloquial and controversial. to not do that is POV. r b-j 21:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So, is the topic of this article the controversy surrounding the term? Should the article start off: Homophobia is a controversial term that means different thing to different people. To those who hold POV A, it can mean.... To those who hold POV B, it can mean..." Because that seems like the only way to do it neutrally. However, the article would need to be about the term controversy. If the article is about one of the two definitions, then I see nothing wrong with that one definition being made prominent, with a side note saying there are other uses of the word... --Andrew c 22:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

the first sentence should be the dictionary definition or a semantically equivalent rewording that no one objects to (although that would be hard to do in the current case). if it's the dictionary definition, no particular party can complain that some other party has injected POV. r b-j 22:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would start out with andrew C's "Homophobia is a controversial term that means different thing to different people" and then say "the american heritage dictionary defnies it as X" and then Other uses people use it more harshly as Y and objectors to the term have been cited to say that for them it means Z. MPS 14:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"The fear that makes men straight"

I recently found (and lost) a reference to that definition of homophobia. If anyone knows who said it, please post it here. Haiduc 13:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Homphobia (term) versus Homophobia (prejudice)

I think this article conflates two different ideas and is not unequivocally clear about either idea. I keep on trying to add "Homophobia is a term used to describe hatred and rejection of gay people" but other editors revert and say that this duplicates "Homophobia is aversion/fear/etc" The issue seems to be a failure to distinguish whether this article is about anti-homosexual bigotry or about the controversial word "homophobia" that is used to describe/assert anti-homosexual bigotry. I think if we settle this it will be a lot easier to agree on the intro graf. MPS 19:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

MPS, i think you have misrepresented what has happened. you put into the very first sentence: Homophobia is a term used to describe hatred and rejection of gay people. which i said duplicates It can also mean hatred of and disparagement of homosexual people,... (the third sentence). i didn't say it duplicates Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. so there is where the duplication is (which increases POV of the two sentences that duplicate each other).

the other problem is that of what makes the very first sentence.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WINAD), and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong: But, an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic.

since the word or the usage of the word has controversy, we have to begin (the very first sentence) with the dictionary definition or some wording that virtually everyone agrees is sematically the same. otherwize, if we begin with a definition that one POV or the other thinks homophobia should mean, we have POV. since i can't see virtually everyone agreeing on a semantically equivalent rewording of the dictionary definition, the only NPOV opening sentence can be the dictionary one. but qualifying that with saying: "well, the dictionary says it's the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals..." is itself injecting POV. just let that opening definition be. we all recognize that there is other usage for the term and that should be put in here, but not as the normative, principal definition. r b-j 15:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

RBJ with all due respect you have completely missed my point. I accept that the beginning of the article should clearly define the topic in neutral terms. The point of my post is that the topic of this article ought to be about "homophobia(the term)" rather than "anti-gay prejudice." If this article is about "homophobia(the term)" then I believe almost all editors would agree on how this term is used, namely to describe hatred and rejection of gay people the article can talk about the genesis of this term from the 1960s and how it is used today in various contexts. OTOH, if this article is about anti-gay prejudice then we rename the article to that more accurate title. MPS 18:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who has edited this article for a decent amount of time, I encourage you you to consider how much time has been spent arguing whether homophobia is a term or an aversion. People (generally the more conservative among us) come to this article and bristle over the fact that the article identifies homophobia as homosexual aversion without acknowledging that this is a controversial usage. A lot of time could be saved (and this would still be an excellent encyclopedic article) if we simply forked the article into one about the controversial usage of the term "homophobia" and another dealing with anti-gay prejudice and its sources. Another option if we don't want to fork is to remane the article and have a sectio ntalking about the term homophobia and how it is used compared to terms such as homonegativity MPS 18:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Article lacks balance

Psychology is in many respects and exercise in philosophy as much as it is an exercise in science. The reliability of psychological studies can be invalidated due to poor controls and researcher biases. Counterexamples need to be provided. User:Pravknight--64.93.1.67 17:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved this section down to the end; otherwise it will not be seen. I'd also suggest logging in and signing your posts with ~~~~. thanks. As for the content of your comment... what do you mean? Psychological studies are as subject to biases and confounding as any other human-based sciences -- but I don't see the relevance for this article. Can you be more specific? bikeable (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Describing Homophobia as Perjorative

While I don't disagree with the belief that 'homophobia' is often used as a perjorative term, it seems ridiculous to me to go to such lengths to make such a disclaimer. The paragraph immediately preceding recognizes that it is often used to assert bigotry, and this should be sufficient recognition of the perjorative nature of the term. Continuing at length on the subject is not only clumsy, but is, in my opinion, NPOV. Jamincan 04:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you meant to say POV. MPS 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Clinical Depression in Homosexuality

Considering that clinical depression is known to be caused by a chemical imbalance, why should the article say that homophobia causes clinical depression. I have often wondered if homosexuality could be caused by clinical depression because people who are clinically depressed, especially as children and adolescents end up doing things that most people who aren't depressed wouldn't. Even groups I think it would be an interesting thing to research, but it would require tracking several thousand pre-pubescent children, including samples of those treated for depression and those considered non-depressive to find out. It's the old chicken and the egg scenario because we know that behavioral patterns, whether its smoking, drinking, looking at pornography, etc., affect the brain's development. All of the brain studies of gay men and lesbians have been of adults who have been practicing homosexuals for many years by the time of their participation. Consequently, brain studies cannot reveal whether they are a product of behavioral concerns or if they are congenital. I suggest rewording the section saying that homophobia causes clinical depression because the latter is a congenital disorder, not something that is caused by x stimuli. --Pravknight 02:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There are multiple causes of depression - inherited chemical imbalance is only one (and even that one isn't known, it is strongly suspected). -Smahoney 03:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the drug companies are making a killing on a chemical imbalance that doesn't exist. Clinical depression's being caused by a chemical imbalance is the consensus of the psychiatric community. That's a theory and the gay gene is a fact. Silly.

The politics of so-called Gay Pride never cease to amaze me. You know sethmahoney, if depressed people became as militant as the homosexual movement, depression would come of the DSM tomorrow. The reasoning for declassifying homosexuality from the DSM is as solid as ice on a March day in the South.

Start a riot and threaten the docs, and maybe then your mental illness could be cured with a stroke of the pen. Maybe depressed people need to stand up for their rights too.--Pravknight 03:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -Smahoney 03:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, I was a little tone deaf here, but I wasn't attacking you personally. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek.

Perhaps, you are unaware, but that's exactly what the Gay Liberation Front did back in the early 1970s to get homosexuality removed from the DSM.--Pravknight 04:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That is, really, only part of the picture. Another part is that researchers within the APA found no reason for maintaining that homosexuality was a psychological disorder. Nonetheless, most people will agree that referring to a person as mentally ill ("your mental illness") because they are gay qualifies as a homophobic attack, which is specifically covered under Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you want to talk about issues with the article, fine, but don't talk about my personal life. -Smahoney 04:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That is, really, only part of the picture. Another part is that researchers within the APA found no reason for maintaining that homosexuality was a psychological disorder. Nonetheless, most people will agree that referring to a person as mentally ill ("your mental illness") because they are gay qualifies as a homophobic attack, which is specifically covered under Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you want to talk about issues with the article, fine, but don't talk about my personal life. -Smahoney 04:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The very concept of homophobia is political. An honest review of the literature favoring the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders would reveal they are so riddled with sampling errors, researcher prejudices and other faults to render them unscientific and useless.

You seem to have missed my point, homosexuality only ceased to be a mental illness because the homosexual activists intimidated the researchers into towing the party line.

I was being critical of the unscientific basis of homosexuality's removal from the DSM. People can cry homophobia all they like, but it still doesn't change the fact none of the studies cited in the removal were subject to peer review, nor were they properly vetted or reproduced. They fail the scientific method horribly if evaluated objectively and dispassionately. At the end of the day, all homosexual apologists have on their side are feelings, not facts.

I don't accept the validity of the 1973 declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder as one bit based upon scientific evidence. It was/is pure politics, and I consider it irrational to argue otherwise. The removal of homosexuality from the DSM is what I would consider emotivism in action because from what I have been able to gather from reading the original studies is their objectivity is virtually nonexistant. As I see it, "gay pride" is like the ostrich effect because it amounts to ignoring objective facts and accusing the other side of having the problem. Feelings are irrelevant because the facts are all that matter.

Since 1973 the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have

become little more than an arm of the homosexual lobby. I would imagine there would be hell to pay for those organizations if they reversed course and looked at the facts and weren't caught up in a appeal to pity or an appeal to emotion.

The other side of the coin from what I can see is something I would call homofascism, or the belief that no one has the right to dissent from the pro-homosexual party line. Whether or not homosexuality is in the same ballpark as heterosexuality is a matter that is open to debate and interpretation. All I care about is what it true.

I have had homosexual acquaintances before with whom I have agreed to disagree with, but I will say I have nothing personal against you or any other homosexual for that matter. In fact, at one time, I wrote a series of articles trying to get help for HIV+ gay men in San Francisco because they couldn't get the medication they needed.

We need more toleration of divergent views and less postmodern tolerance.

I simply find every pro-homosexual argument unconvincing and illogical. If homosexuals had to fight fair by reason alone, the war would be lost.--Pravknight 19:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In criticizing the science of removing homosexuality from the DSM you miss a very basic point. There was never any good science to put it in the DSM in the first place. It had just always been traditionally taken for granted, without question, like cupping or bleeding. Fan-1967 20:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, I think we're getting caught up in something that is inappropriate for a talk page. It doesn't matter what you, Pravknight, Fan, me, or anyone else thinks. We don't get a voice here. (WP:NOR) Your reasoning may be impeccable (it isn't, but whatever), but it doesn't matter, because you are not a notable authority on the subject. If anyone wants to discuss, specifically, the content of the article and ways to improve it, that's great (so long as we stay clear of original research), but anything else is just a waste of time. So, I ask everyone paying attention here to answer this question before continuing: Is this really related to the article, and will my response make the article better? -Smahoney 20:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Smahoney on the fact that we are editing an encyclopedia not deciding what should be in DSM. If the APA is a crooked, biased arm of the pro-homosexual lobby, then we need to find some to say this for us. WP:NOR] prohibits us from defining this conclusively by ourselves. On the other side, we wikipedia editors are also not going definitively decide that homophobia causes depression. again, WP:NOR. Either we do have a source or we do not. If we do we quote it, and if we do not, we don't speculate. Is there a source that says "homophobia is not in the DSM"... let's quote that. MPS 00:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the DSM be the best source for whether or not homophobia is in the DSM? -Smahoney 19:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(a) it's hard to prove a negative (b) reporting what is not in the DSM borders on WP:NOR (c) It is somewhat POV-couched-as-fact to assert "facts" like "MPS is not a monkey in the zoo", "MPS is not in the dictionary between meathead and mustard-face," and "MPS is not in the DSM under mental diseases." In fact asserting that homophobia is not in the DSM sounds to me like somoeone's POV is that it should be there. MPS 20:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe you're expressing some hypersensitivity (which is understandable). However, this article does (last time I checked it) deal with the usage of homophobia as a phobia, and pointing out that it isn't in the DSM (if, indeed, it isn't) is a worthwhile fact to note as a contrast to that usage. My point above was just that, just as the DSM is a reliable source regarding its own contents (ie, what is in there), it should be a reliable source as to what it doesn't contain, so if anyone agrees with me that pointing out that homophoba is not listed in the DSM is worthwhile, the DSM seems like a perfectly acceptable source for that. Finally, as to your point (a) above, with closed sets (like, say, a list of mental disorders in the DSM), it is perfectly easy to prove a negative: Simply examine every member of the set (every mental disorder listed in the DSM) and make sure that your expected negative (homophobia) isn't a member of the list. -Smahoney 22:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

MPS, this is a little silly. How can reporting what a primary source says be original research? And if it's not in the DSM-IV, it's not, philosophy aside. In any case, I stopped off at the reference shelves today and can report that there are no words beginning "hom-" in the index of DSM-IV at all; nor did I see any mention of homophobia under sexual or under anxiety disorders. But we knew that already, of course. bikeable (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Seth... I agree that it is a worthwhile fact whether or not homophobia is in the DSM. The problem is sourcing the research you propose. I could also claim that the Bush Family is not on the Social Register ... and claim that I checked... but that act of "checking" is an original research project that involves more than just going to page 5 of the Social Register (i.e., citing a source). For me to verify that you are correct, I would have to read the entire book... and therefore essentially repeat your research. That is very different than citing sources. As a side project, I want you to verify for me that there are no umlauts in the DSM. Some people MIGHT CLAIM (even though I have no source to back this up) that there are umlauts in the DSM, but I want you to demonstrate that there are not. See why this might sound to me like original research? (pause) Bikeable... I agree with your statement that "stating what a primary source says is not original research." The difference in this case is that we are stating what the primary source DOES NOT SAY. My main point is that if "homophobia is not in the DSM" or even "some people think homophobia is in the DSM" is a notable, significant, relevant fact pertaining to this article, then surely someone important, sourceable, and quotable could be cited as claiming this. MPS 13:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I Googled DSM homophobia [20] I found this: Dr Kantor has analyzed homophobia and did not classify it separately but as a symptom of other disordersDSM some people want all forms of prejudice added to DSM some people want to add homophobia to DSM . What do y'all think? MPS 13:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

......There is a rather easy way to solve this....go to the bookstore or library with a pen and pencil. Find the DSM and look for where homophobia WOULD be were it listed. Write down the page number. Come back and cite the page number that evidences homophobia's ABSCENCE from the DSM...

This is not OR...this is just plain R... CaveatLector^Talk 03:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-homosexualism

Regular editors of this page may be interested in the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-homosexualism. bikeable (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Latent Homosexuality

I'm surprised that no mention is made of Latent homosexuality, which could be used for the section Fear of being identified as a homosexual or as a See also link. - Ashadeofgrey 13:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)