Talk:Homophobia - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William Avery (talk | contribs) at 19:11, 27 November 2011 (→This article is a confusing POV & synthesis mess by blending in off-topic items). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:11, 27 November 2011 by William Avery (talk | contribs) (→This article is a confusing POV & synthesis mess by blending in off-topic items)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homophobia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Homophobia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Homophobia at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

See Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-24 Homophobia for mediation.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homophobia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Pro-homosexual Bias

This article has great examples of homophobia, and homophobic persons, and the definition of this article is so broad that anybody disagreeing with homosexuality is labeled a homophobe. Homo-meaning same, phobia-meaning fear. Or taken from fear of homosexuals. Many people against homosexuality do not fear it, and have many homosexual friends. They just do not agree that one male having sex with another male, or a woman having sex with another woman, is right, and of which both actions are unnatural, even in the animal kingdom.

The article also displays a picture of gay protesters at church, stating "Kansan" but whatever that word means is not easily known. They also appear to be from a radical church that church goers are also against.

The entire article seems to be written and guarded by pro-homosexual attitude people. Describing people as having a "negative" attitude towards homosexuality simply because they do not promote it or agree with is also just rhetoric, and is not negative. Negative and positive are words based on opinion.

Where in the article does it differentiate between disapproving of gay acts and not gay people? Which those against homosexuality frequently admit, as many have gay friends.

Also see the article about xenophobic. The definition is much better and more specific than the definition in this article. The fact that one talks about race, and one about homosexuality, yet both are so different, points to the fact that the article discriminates against those with opposing viewpoints, and is highly subjective.

It might suprise you to know that phobia also means aversion to. Not all words mean exactly what they are supposed to mean etymologically. Antisemitism only refers to Jews because at the time the word was created they were the only semites outside of the Middle East. It still retains its definition as being only againist Jews while Anti-Arabism and Islamophobia are used againist Arabs and Muslims. Xenophobia also states that it is hatred or fear of foreigners not just fear. Everyone has a right to agree or disagree with certain prejudices including but not limited to racism, antisemitism or homophobia. However it is when these create results that others can see such as not hiring someone or denieing one group the right to adoption that suddenly it goes from prejudice to discrimination. Where this article does mess itself up however is that it states these attitudes can be put towards transgenders, transsexuals and intersex which is no longer homophobia or even sexualism but a form of transphobia which is more properly a form of sexism. There is already a section about opposition to the term.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well then I'd advise you to take the link to the article "Homophobia" in article "List of phobias" off of the header "Psychological conditions" as it no longer is (or) was never about the phobia in the psychological sense, defined as; "irrational, disabling fear as a mental disorder", and is a "common usage" of the term outside the scientific terminology (as you have elaborated on yourself)... To further strengthen my case, I will give the example of the terms "Gynophobia" and "Androphobia" and point out how they are not being classified under "Sex Discrimination", not even under the umbrella term "Discrimination" as they are actual "Psychological conditions". Although I know none and even if non exists, placing the link of this article under the header "Psychological conditions" in the "List of phobias" article is a form of discrimination (refer to; "http://en.wikipedia.org/Mental_disorder#Perception_and_discrimination") against people who are homophobic in the sense of the psychiatric condition of homophobia, a concept which this article is clearly not about.Gabzlab00 (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, "Kansan" refers to someone from Kansas, but I agree that image caption represented a generalised offense as it was, as it maligned Kansans in general. The key identifying fact about those protesters is that they are from the Westboro Baptist Church (in fact, the image is described as being Jael Phelps, one of founder Fred Phelps's family), so I've changed it accordingly -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggested improvement

The article bashes religion in the "institutionalized homophobia" section, which is also very biased. It would be a good idea to change this. 71.204.179.212 (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

How would you wish to go about doing this? Please give examples of what needs to be changed, so the specifics may be discussed. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe - Repel All Borders ‖ 20:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

After rereading the religion section I dont see much bias anymore (someone must have changed homophobic to anti-homosexual) but the UK/US section essentialy calls Republicans homophobes. (there is a difference between hating gay people and supporting traditional marriage) 71.204.179.212 (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You're kind of switching topics here. I've made some edits to the religion part to clean it up, although some of it is still unsourced (and now tagged). As for your comment about Republicans, that's not what the article says - it says that Republicans are more likely to have "negative attitudes", and it is backed up by a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

POV check tag

I have added it to the article so a neutral editor can address the glaring bias 71.204.179.212 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What glaring bias? You must be specific. Otherwise, it's just your bias on display in a sweeping generalisation. Never helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. You need to be specific. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a specific! "Among more discussed forms are institutionalized 'homophobia' (e.g. religious and state-sponsored)". The footnote refers to the International Lesbian and Gay Association. There's no way that's a neutral or scientific source. PaulSank (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

But it is a reliable source. ILGA is an UN accredited organization. I see no need for an NPOV tag. --Scientiom (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliability is not what's in dispute at the moment. We're trying to make this article neutral. As far as I can tell from its website, the ILGA is at least in part an activist organization. Activist organizations do like to make definitions, but their definitions are designed to support what they're doing. Activists often use definitions to re-frame the debate. I wouldn't use Focus On The Family, either, even though I agree with them on many points, because, again, they're not a neutral source. Activists, regardless of which side they're on, should never be used as sources for definitions that are supposed to be neutral. PaulSank (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the WP context of the word "neutral," neutral on WP does not mean that subjects are presented uncritically, or that wikipedia treats all sides of a subject equally. Neutral means that the reliable sources of any given subject are given the appropriate weight in an article based on their prominence as sources. We as editors have to be neutral, which means that our opinions are not put into the article. Sources only need to be reliable and mainstream. Because this source is a UN accredited organization, it meets our standards for reliability and thus is acceptable. If you disagree, you're welcome to get a second opinion on the reliable sources notice board. Nformation 05:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Unless someone else wants to take up the issue of neutrality re this article, I say it's time to remove the tag. PaulSank (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I also am offended

WP:FORUM...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I also am severely offended by this article's classifying me as a homophobe because I believe the Bible says homosexual behavior is a sin. The suffix "phobia" means "fear", and I have no fear of queers. I disapprove of what their activists are doing, but to say I'm a hater or a homophobe is unfair and verbally abusive. "Homophobia" resembles other "phobias", i.e., mental illnesses, and I feel very offended by this, especially since my best friend (other than my wife) is a psychiatrist -- an atheist, to boot -- and he considers me quite normal. 67.96.81.144 (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC) It also means "aversion" or "hate". Hydrophobia and photofobia are not "fear of the water/light". Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Once again. Etymology does not always equate to meaning. If this were true than pedophilia would be properly called pediaphilia and antisemitism would also apply to discrimination againist Arabs and Native Iranians. However pedophilia which would etymologically mean foot fetish means an attraction to children and antisemitism is discrimination only againist Jews. Now on your religious opinions. This is an encyclopedia that does not hold one religion as more true than another. Therefore we talk in most articles in a secular or at the very least a universally religiously tolerant fashion. This does not mean that your religion is wrong. It simply means that because your faith has not proven itself as of yet to be any more accurate than any other faith we shall use the scientific and secular approach. In short Homophobia is discrimination/prejudice againist lesbian and gay people despite its etymology which means something completely different. You could argue that many different faiths are many different forms of prejudice. But remember also just because it is socially unacceptable does not mean that its not what God told you to do. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Interesting, RoP! Etymology is a favorite subject of mine. I'd like to add a certain very friendly comment about "pedophilia", but it would be off-topic here. Back to this article: I don't mind having the article stick to a secular or universally religiously tolerant fashion, not at all; note, please, that I am not, repeat not, trying to insert religion into the article. But my religious beliefs, based on sacred text and ancient tradition, are therein assailed as bigotry. When religion is called bigotry, and religious people are accused of hate just because they disagree with homosexual activists, then punishments and persecution won't be far behind. I'm all in favor of protecting homosexuals from lynchings and other real attacks, absolutely, I hope I get a chance to defend one, but when their efforts to protect themselves present a threat to another group, e.g., my brethren and I, then a pendulum has swung too far. PaulSank (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Thank you so much for the respect in your reply I deeply appreciate how civil this is being. I can understand how labeling an entire religion as racist, sexist, homophobic, religiously intolerant etc. is bad. However I don't think this article is arguing that every person in any faith is automatically prejudiced. As a matter a fact there are many pro-gay interpretations of the bible so I would even say that the bible can't properly be termed homophobic. It is definately againist anal sex between men but I think that it is againist anal sex between anyone. Anyway I can understand your frustration and feel your pain. The position of the bible is that SEX should be limited to reproductive means to the point where even masturbation is considered immoral. This doesn't even imply that homosexuals in non-sexual relationships are immoral. Many scholars have argued and disputed whether or not David and Johnathan or Ruth and Naomi had homosexual relationships. However I digress. I think this article should stick to the proper english meaning of the term not the etymological meaning. I would gladly continue this conversation on my talkpage in a civil manner. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC) RoP, I do very much appreciate your appreciation of my civility, and you can be quite sure that I do appreciate very much your civility. I'm going to let your digression pass without comment, because I'm already too guilty of digression myself here! LOL Yes, let's stick to the proper English meaning of "homophobia" and set the etymology off in parentheses. But what's the proper English meaning? I don't claim to know. All I can say is that this article makes the meaning too broad. If we could narrow its scope to something like "intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality", I'd be satisfied, because maybe then I wouldn't be accused of hatred, bigotry, or intolerance just because I express disagreement. (Talk about incivility!) PaulSank (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC) You're right. Better to say you are prejudiced http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/sexual_prejudice.html and your friend psychiatrist biased. --Destinero (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Calling me "prejudiced", eh? Another example of verbal abuse. Nevertheless, I'm always interested in self-examination, so I have followed your link, and, no, I don't have an aversion to homosexuals, either, and I don't hate them. As for prejudice, which implies that I have made a judgment without examining the facts, that's also incorrect, because I have examined the facts quite a bit. Thanks to your act of abuse here, the last straw has fallen, to where I now think that "homophobia" (and its various synonyms) is a word that homosexual activists and their allies use against anyone who disagrees with them; it's a crude tactic, so I'm surprised that anybody with an education falls for it. PaulSank (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC) You wrote: "I also am severely offended by this article's classifying me as a homophobe because I believe the Bible says homosexual behavior is a sin." Everybody with a half of brain has to agree that this is an example of prejudice as Herek described: "Like other types of prejudice, sexual prejudice has three principal features: It is an attitude (i.e., an evaluation or judgment). It is directed at a social group and its members. It is negative, involving hostility or dislike. Conceptualizing heterosexuals' negative attitudes toward homosexuality and bisexuality as sexual prejudice – rather than homophobia – has several advantages. First, sexual prejudice is a descriptive term. Unlike homophobia, it conveys no a priori assumptions about the origins, dynamics, and underlying motivations of antigay attitudes. Second, the term explicitly links the study of antigay hostility with the rich tradition of social psychological research on prejudice. Third, using the construct of sexual prejudice does not require value judgments that antigay attitudes are inherently irrational or evil." You voluntarily chosen your religion and beliefs. Gay and lesbiens do not choose their orientation. How someone could be a sinner when he only lives according to his or her orientation the same way like you live the yours? --Destinero (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC) I suppose if someone were have to what they call religious beliefs that blacks are an inferior race that wouldn't be racism? Btw, this discussion really should not be taking place here per WP:FORUM. --Scientiom (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC) If there were a significant ancient source, e.g., the NT, the Torah, or the Qur'an, that said clearly that blacks were inferior, then yes, it would not be racism, it would be religious doctrine. That's part of why Christians and Quakers were successful in opposing American slavery, because the slave traders didn't have a biblical leg to stand on. And yes, Scientiom, I agree, this bit of discussion shouldn't be happening here, so I'll try to minimize my participation in it. But when somebody levels a serious accusation against me, I will defend myself. PaulSank (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC) The difference you are making between ancient sources and everything else is precisely what you have wrong with respect to NPOV. All sources, texts, and traditions are to be evaluated in the same light. Just because one is labeled "religious" won't guarantee it a free pass. And there clearly are passages in these ancient texts that are hostile towards homosexuality (which is, by the way, not a "point of view" or "lifestyle") Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC) I'm not looking for a "free pass". I am, however, trying to stop people from calling me a homophobe, bigot, prejudiced, intolerant, etc, just because I express disagreement. It has happened to me so many times, I'm starting to fear that I'll soon be treated as a criminal, and then I'll be the victim of the very sort of discrimination that homosexual activists claim to be protecting their constituents against. As for my challenge about neutrality, it's meant to be a separate thread centering around a certain footnote. PaulSank (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC) "I'm not looking for a "free pass". I am, however, trying to stop people from calling me a homophobe, bigot, prejudiced, intolerant, etc, just because I express disagreement. It has happened to me so many times, I'm starting to fear that I'll soon be treated as a criminal, and then I'll be the victim of the very sort of discrimination that homosexual activists claim to be protecting their constituents against. As for my challenge about neutrality, it's meant to be a separate thread centering around a certain footnote." -> Analogy: "I'm not looking for a "free pass". I am, however, trying to stop people from calling gays and lsbians sinners. It has happened so many times, I'm starting to fear that I'll soon be treated as a criminal, and then I'll be the victim of the very sort of discrimination that religious activists claim to be protecting their constituents against." Can you see irationality of your proposition? Why are you asking for a different treatment if you do exactly the same to other people? That is a nonsense! --Destinero (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC) You cannot "disagree" with someone being gay anymore than you can "disagree" with them being black. Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon and many religious texts are in fact bigoted, racist, sexist, etc. The fact that people think a particular book was written or inspired by a supernatural being does not excuse the immoral conclusions that it makes. In other words, racism is racism whether justified with religion or otherwise, and the same holds true for anti-homosexual stances. Nformation 04:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC) I have a strong desire to rebut this, Noformation! But we're getting further off-topic, and I've really got to get some sleep, so I won't. PaulSank (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Your paranoia about being labeled homophobic (and hypothetically persecuted on that basis) is of little relevance to this article, what is significant is verifiable and reliable sources. If you have a reliable source about religious people and their rights being abused because they are seen as homophobic, by all means lay them before us. Some of us have had to scrutinise similar material relating to the beating, rape and murder of LGBT people offered up here in other articles, to establish whether they are actually related to homophobic violence, etc. So, I am sure we are capable of just as neutrally assessing such claims for the marginalisation of religious people. However, I do think that the place for that would be on a page devoted to the topic, not this topic, which is about homophobia. - MishMich - Talk - 07:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC) I've been a victim of homosexuals' hate. But to be more objective, I only have to look back a few days, because hate crimes by homosexuals against my people seem to happen rather regularly: "ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, Illinois, Oct. 19, 2011 – Pro-homosexual activists attacked the Christian Liberty Academy early October 15th – throwing two large, concrete brick pavers through its glass doors with a hate-note attached– and then issued an online statement claiming responsibility for the crime." As for your poster boy Matthew Shephard, one of the police investigators said it probably didn't have anything to do with the guy's homosexuality. Furthermore, the FBI has only reported one anti-homosexual murder in the past seven years, whereas quite a few more homosexuals have murdered each other in ultra-violent fashion. Looking for hate? Seek it among yourselves, because my brethren and I refuse to hate anyone, no matter how much you accuse us of it. "Homophobia" was a useful word when it was first coined; now it's just an intimidation tactic used to terrorize principled opponents; very unfair, like hitting below the belt in boxing, and worse than most of the mudslinging I see politicians do. I used to like gay folks, but now that I've been verbally abused by them, I am finally deciding to get active on these issues. Y'all have really done your cause a great disservice by throwing the word "homophobia" around so recklessly. You have now turned me into an anti-homosexual activist, and the more you use the devious tactics, the more people will think of you as downright evil. I am done with this page. Do with it what you want; I've got Jews, Christians, and Muslims to unite. PaulSank (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Perhaps this will end this for now. Simply put, the definition of "homophobia" is not "a fear of, or aversion to (etc, etc) of homosexuals, unless of course you've got religious reasons, in which case it's ok". This is a non-debate until the definition of the word gets changed thusly. Just as we do not define slavery as "goodslavery" and "badslavery" because much of it was done within the guidelines (or justified by) the Bible. And just like when Matthew Sheppard and numerous others were killed or badly beaten over their sexuality, we didnt call it "not-murder-divine-action-the-Bible-says-so". We instead called it murder. The definitions apply, regardless of the reasons or justifications for such beliefs or actions - thus the word is applicably used. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI \| /_CN 17:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FORUM...

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I also am severely offended by this article's classifying me as a homophobe because I believe the Bible says homosexual behavior is a sin. The suffix "phobia" means "fear", and I have no fear of queers. I disapprove of what their activists are doing, but to say I'm a hater or a homophobe is unfair and verbally abusive. "Homophobia" resembles other "phobias", i.e., mental illnesses, and I feel very offended by this, especially since my best friend (other than my wife) is a psychiatrist -- an atheist, to boot -- and he considers me quite normal. 67.96.81.144 (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It also means "aversion" or "hate". Hydrophobia and photofobia are not "fear of the water/light". Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again. Etymology does not always equate to meaning. If this were true than pedophilia would be properly called pediaphilia and antisemitism would also apply to discrimination againist Arabs and Native Iranians. However pedophilia which would etymologically mean foot fetish means an attraction to children and antisemitism is discrimination only againist Jews. Now on your religious opinions. This is an encyclopedia that does not hold one religion as more true than another. Therefore we talk in most articles in a secular or at the very least a universally religiously tolerant fashion. This does not mean that your religion is wrong. It simply means that because your faith has not proven itself as of yet to be any more accurate than any other faith we shall use the scientific and secular approach. In short Homophobia is discrimination/prejudice againist lesbian and gay people despite its etymology which means something completely different. You could argue that many different faiths are many different forms of prejudice. But remember also just because it is socially unacceptable does not mean that its not what God told you to do. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, RoP! Etymology is a favorite subject of mine. I'd like to add a certain very friendly comment about "pedophilia", but it would be off-topic here. Back to this article: I don't mind having the article stick to a secular or universally religiously tolerant fashion, not at all; note, please, that I am not, repeat not, trying to insert religion into the article. But my religious beliefs, based on sacred text and ancient tradition, are therein assailed as bigotry. When religion is called bigotry, and religious people are accused of hate just because they disagree with homosexual activists, then punishments and persecution won't be far behind. I'm all in favor of protecting homosexuals from lynchings and other real attacks, absolutely, I hope I get a chance to defend one, but when their efforts to protect themselves present a threat to another group, e.g., my brethren and I, then a pendulum has swung too far. PaulSank (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the respect in your reply I deeply appreciate how civil this is being. I can understand how labeling an entire religion as racist, sexist, homophobic, religiously intolerant etc. is bad. However I don't think this article is arguing that every person in any faith is automatically prejudiced. As a matter a fact there are many pro-gay interpretations of the bible so I would even say that the bible can't properly be termed homophobic. It is definately againist anal sex between men but I think that it is againist anal sex between anyone. Anyway I can understand your frustration and feel your pain. The position of the bible is that SEX should be limited to reproductive means to the point where even masturbation is considered immoral. This doesn't even imply that homosexuals in non-sexual relationships are immoral. Many scholars have argued and disputed whether or not David and Johnathan or Ruth and Naomi had homosexual relationships. However I digress. I think this article should stick to the proper english meaning of the term not the etymological meaning. I would gladly continue this conversation on my talkpage in a civil manner. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

RoP, I do very much appreciate your appreciation of my civility, and you can be quite sure that I do appreciate very much your civility. I'm going to let your digression pass without comment, because I'm already too guilty of digression myself here! LOL Yes, let's stick to the proper English meaning of "homophobia" and set the etymology off in parentheses. But what's the proper English meaning? I don't claim to know. All I can say is that this article makes the meaning too broad. If we could narrow its scope to something like "intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality", I'd be satisfied, because maybe then I wouldn't be accused of hatred, bigotry, or intolerance just because I express disagreement. (Talk about incivility!) PaulSank (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Better to say you are prejudiced http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/sexual_prejudice.html and your friend psychiatrist biased. --Destinero (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Calling me "prejudiced", eh? Another example of verbal abuse. Nevertheless, I'm always interested in self-examination, so I have followed your link, and, no, I don't have an aversion to homosexuals, either, and I don't hate them. As for prejudice, which implies that I have made a judgment without examining the facts, that's also incorrect, because I have examined the facts quite a bit. Thanks to your act of abuse here, the last straw has fallen, to where I now think that "homophobia" (and its various synonyms) is a word that homosexual activists and their allies use against anyone who disagrees with them; it's a crude tactic, so I'm surprised that anybody with an education falls for it. PaulSank (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You wrote: "I also am severely offended by this article's classifying me as a homophobe because I believe the Bible says homosexual behavior is a sin." Everybody with a half of brain has to agree that this is an example of prejudice as Herek described: "Like other types of prejudice, sexual prejudice has three principal features: It is an attitude (i.e., an evaluation or judgment). It is directed at a social group and its members. It is negative, involving hostility or dislike. Conceptualizing heterosexuals' negative attitudes toward homosexuality and bisexuality as sexual prejudice – rather than homophobia – has several advantages. First, sexual prejudice is a descriptive term. Unlike homophobia, it conveys no a priori assumptions about the origins, dynamics, and underlying motivations of antigay attitudes. Second, the term explicitly links the study of antigay hostility with the rich tradition of social psychological research on prejudice. Third, using the construct of sexual prejudice does not require value judgments that antigay attitudes are inherently irrational or evil." You voluntarily chosen your religion and beliefs. Gay and lesbiens do not choose their orientation. How someone could be a sinner when he only lives according to his or her orientation the same way like you live the yours? --Destinero (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose if someone were have to what they call religious beliefs that blacks are an inferior race that wouldn't be racism? Btw, this discussion really should not be taking place here per WP:FORUM. --Scientiom (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If there were a significant ancient source, e.g., the NT, the Torah, or the Qur'an, that said clearly that blacks were inferior, then yes, it would not be racism, it would be religious doctrine. That's part of why Christians and Quakers were successful in opposing American slavery, because the slave traders didn't have a biblical leg to stand on. And yes, Scientiom, I agree, this bit of discussion shouldn't be happening here, so I'll try to minimize my participation in it. But when somebody levels a serious accusation against me, I will defend myself. PaulSank (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The difference you are making between ancient sources and everything else is precisely what you have wrong with respect to NPOV. All sources, texts, and traditions are to be evaluated in the same light. Just because one is labeled "religious" won't guarantee it a free pass. And there clearly are passages in these ancient texts that are hostile towards homosexuality (which is, by the way, not a "point of view" or "lifestyle") Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a "free pass". I am, however, trying to stop people from calling me a homophobe, bigot, prejudiced, intolerant, etc, just because I express disagreement. It has happened to me so many times, I'm starting to fear that I'll soon be treated as a criminal, and then I'll be the victim of the very sort of discrimination that homosexual activists claim to be protecting their constituents against. As for my challenge about neutrality, it's meant to be a separate thread centering around a certain footnote. PaulSank (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not looking for a "free pass". I am, however, trying to stop people from calling me a homophobe, bigot, prejudiced, intolerant, etc, just because I express disagreement. It has happened to me so many times, I'm starting to fear that I'll soon be treated as a criminal, and then I'll be the victim of the very sort of discrimination that homosexual activists claim to be protecting their constituents against. As for my challenge about neutrality, it's meant to be a separate thread centering around a certain footnote." -> Analogy: "I'm not looking for a "free pass". I am, however, trying to stop people from calling gays and lsbians sinners. It has happened so many times, I'm starting to fear that I'll soon be treated as a criminal, and then I'll be the victim of the very sort of discrimination that religious activists claim to be protecting their constituents against." Can you see irationality of your proposition? Why are you asking for a different treatment if you do exactly the same to other people? That is a nonsense! --Destinero (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You cannot "disagree" with someone being gay anymore than you can "disagree" with them being black. Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon and many religious texts are in fact bigoted, racist, sexist, etc. The fact that people think a particular book was written or inspired by a supernatural being does not excuse the immoral conclusions that it makes. In other words, racism is racism whether justified with religion or otherwise, and the same holds true for anti-homosexual stances. Nformation 04:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a strong desire to rebut this, Noformation! But we're getting further off-topic, and I've really got to get some sleep, so I won't. PaulSank (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Your paranoia about being labeled homophobic (and hypothetically persecuted on that basis) is of little relevance to this article, what is significant is verifiable and reliable sources. If you have a reliable source about religious people and their rights being abused because they are seen as homophobic, by all means lay them before us. Some of us have had to scrutinise similar material relating to the beating, rape and murder of LGBT people offered up here in other articles, to establish whether they are actually related to homophobic violence, etc. So, I am sure we are capable of just as neutrally assessing such claims for the marginalisation of religious people. However, I do think that the place for that would be on a page devoted to the topic, not this topic, which is about homophobia. - MishMich - Talk - 07:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been a victim of homosexuals' hate. But to be more objective, I only have to look back a few days, because hate crimes by homosexuals against my people seem to happen rather regularly: "ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, Illinois, Oct. 19, 2011 – Pro-homosexual activists attacked the Christian Liberty Academy early October 15th – throwing two large, concrete brick pavers through its glass doors with a hate-note attached– and then issued an online statement claiming responsibility for the crime." As for your poster boy Matthew Shephard, one of the police investigators said it probably didn't have anything to do with the guy's homosexuality. Furthermore, the FBI has only reported one anti-homosexual murder in the past seven years, whereas quite a few more homosexuals have murdered each other in ultra-violent fashion. Looking for hate? Seek it among yourselves, because my brethren and I refuse to hate anyone, no matter how much you accuse us of it. "Homophobia" was a useful word when it was first coined; now it's just an intimidation tactic used to terrorize principled opponents; very unfair, like hitting below the belt in boxing, and worse than most of the mudslinging I see politicians do. I used to like gay folks, but now that I've been verbally abused by them, I am finally deciding to get active on these issues. Y'all have really done your cause a great disservice by throwing the word "homophobia" around so recklessly. You have now turned me into an anti-homosexual activist, and the more you use the devious tactics, the more people will think of you as downright evil. I am done with this page. Do with it what you want; I've got Jews, Christians, and Muslims to unite. PaulSank (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this will end this for now. Simply put, the definition of "homophobia" is not "a fear of, or aversion to (etc, etc) of homosexuals, unless of course you've got religious reasons, in which case it's ok". This is a non-debate until the definition of the word gets changed thusly. Just as we do not define slavery as "goodslavery" and "badslavery" because much of it was done within the guidelines (or justified by) the Bible. And just like when Matthew Sheppard and numerous others were killed or badly beaten over their sexuality, we didnt call it "not-murder-divine-action-the-Bible-says-so". We instead called it murder. The definitions apply, regardless of the *reasons or justifications* for such beliefs or actions - thus the word is applicably used. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 17:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Racism

Did anyone notice theres a difference between causes of Homophobia in white people and black people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.156.92 (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is a confusing POV & synthesis mess by blending in off-topic items

What a mess! Nearly every part of the article seeks to define (by inclusion here) any opposition to homosexuality (or the societal normalization of homosexuality) on any grounds as a/the "phobia". This article needs paring (to put it mildly) to limit it's coverage to actual phobia.

It could have a section to cover efforts/tactics to try to label any opposition to homosexuality or the societal normalization of homosexuality as a phobia, but the article should cover rather than participate in that effort. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Explain. What are the examples in the article? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

About 80% of the content of the article. These are the parts that are about mere opposition or disdain for homosexuality, or opposition to the societal normalization of homosexuality, or to efforts opposed to those I just listed, all where there is no particular "phobia" aspect. Here are the three largest scale examples:

The entire "Institutionalized homophobia" section, including all of its subsections
The entire "Distribution of attitudes in the UK and US" section
The entire "Efforts to combat homophobia" section

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, we've had this before. "Opposition" to homosexuality is a cloak for homophobia (one cannot be "opposed" to it, just as one cannot be "opposed" to someone being black or white). Secondly, "-phobia" also means aversion, so most of what's mentioned here is warranted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Your first answer (including and parallel to race) is founded on a presumed answer to the "is it a choice/behavior vs. an embedded attribute?" debate. Second, it skipped all of the other types of opposition (e.g. opposition to the societal normalization of it) Finally, and most fundamentally, an aversion does not equate to a phobia. E.G. an aversion to eating liver does not mean a phobia of liver, an aversion to conservatism does not mean a "phobia" of conservatism. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as relevant experts in the subject are concerned, that question has been answered. Not all words follow their literal etymological roots, see the collapsed discussion a couple topics up as this has already been discussed. Nformation 18:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The OED says under "-phobia, comb. form" : "Forming nouns with the sense ‘fear of ——’, ‘aversion to ——’." Whatever other problems there may be with this article, the extension of the sense to 'aversion' is not one of them. William Avery (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Noformation, I see absolutely nothing like you describe. I see someone making a very weak and flawed argument argument to get the person who made the very valid point to "go away". And we're not talking about following literal etymological roots, we're talking about following the first paragraph in the lead, and which include the common and accepted meaning of the word "phobia". North8000 (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

William Arvey, if you care to give the full definition that you pulled those words out of context from... Certainly you can't be saying that they said that all aversions are phobias. In the meantime, here's the one for phobia from dictionary.com:

"a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it. "

North8000 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

North8000, it really does seem like you're taking issue with the use of the "phobia" in homophobia. That would seem to relate strongly to etymology. This really has been very well covered territory on the talk page of this article. A quick search through the archives will provide you with plenty of reading material in the form of past discussions. The definition on this page is what is supported by reliable sources. What exactly are you suggesting that we change? Henrymrx (t·c) 18:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

North8000, as has been stated before words do not always follow their exact etymology. Antisemitsm means discrimination againist Jews not all semites (which would include Arabs and Iranians). Racism when it was coined was similarly challenged as should have meaning the study of race. The new use of the -ism wasn't firmly established until much later. If you had cared to read the history of this page you would know this. One could also argue that homophobia really DOES come from fear. A fear that homosexuality will become mainstream. A fear that oneself could be gay or be influenced by gay people. I highly suggest you read the history of this talk page before commenting again as this topic is one of the most covered on this page. Etymology is not always the way a word is used in the english language. PERIOD.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

North8000, I don't appreciate the allegation of bad faith. The entry I quoted was the one relevant in this case: its meaning as a combining form in compound words. It is is you who are mistaken in confusing this with the meaning of the free-standing word 'phobia'. William Avery (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories: