Talk:Homophobia/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Exclusion of Bigotry

I have to insist that the clause stating that "homophobia may be used pejoratively" and may be offensive to those with "differing debatable values" be left out of the article permanently. If it is to be included, I must insist that it be made clear that homophobia is largely considered to be plain bigotry. In fact, a clause stating just this was included in the article (with legitimate citation) until recently. I have removed the clause stating that the term "homophobia" is offensive, and will continue to remove it unless the clause stating that homophobia is bigotry is reinstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.157.252 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly a biased comment. One can be morally opposed to homosexuality and still treat gay people with the dignity and respect that they treat everyone else with. The acceptance of homosexuality came with the notion that moral absolutes are not compatible with the diversity of today's society, or "different strokes for different folks". You are essentially saying that people who don't hold the same values as you are bigots. A little hypocritical, huh? Gtbob12 (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I've added a clause the the criticism of the term that elaborates on this point. The fact that it can be offensive(clearly, just look at the archived talk pages and this one plus the article itself) due to it's scientific meaning to people who object - negate the fact that it should be listed as offensive. It is and will remain a controversial subject and disclaimer showing this is to be expected. Articles that are even less controversial than this have extensive two handed approaches not just a statement saying the word is controversial. --Papajohnin (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed. "Homophobia" is a powerful word, and like all powerful words (e.g. "racism", "anti-Semitism", "misogyny", etc.) it presents a temptation to abuse. It has a specific meaning and refers to a real phenomenon, but it is also abused as a convenient ad hominem attack. That doesn't mean that it is inherently politicised or that its abuse as a silencing slur is its intended purpose, as other editors have asserted. But if it is abused as an ad hominem attack, hiding that fact from public view in a Wikipedia article pushes POV as hard as asserting it without support. The only issue in the matter should be whether such abuse of the term can be sourced, and I don't think that that will be difficult. --7Kim (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

'Homophobia' as an inherently loaded buzzword

Why doesn't wikipedia identify that the word "homophobia" is inherently politicized from the start, and is inextricably taking "phobia" to paint political opponents in a way unrelated to their social beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.243.127 (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that - see the next section Bushcutter (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to do that but in an encyclopedic way, wikipedia is free to edit, why not give a hand and help me add and source some info so this article won't be so whitewashed.? ;) --Papajohnin (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good thought, but I don't know where to start with such a one-sided POV page. CsikosLo (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia

This term is a misnomer. It implies people who don't like gays are "scared" of them the "protest too much defense" that homosexuals use to call into question someone who doesn't like their lifestyle choices must be hiding something.

So does that mean someone who doesn't like blacks is "Afrophobic" or someone who is against Koreans is "Asiophobic" or someone who just plain hates eskimos is "Inuteophobic"?

No, it's bigotry. It's not "hiding in the closet" or a phobia. It's hatered, I don't see too many of the people who hate gays being "scared" of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to go back to school: If I don't like it when some people eat too much, it doesn't mean that I'm afraid of over-eaters. This is not a "phobia", nor is it "hatred". The fact that some men are doing things to other men in the privacy of their own homes doesn't cause me to be afraid. My concern for these folks is not a "phobia". Similarly, the use of the term "hatred" is inappropriate. Hatred is an extreme dislike resulting in some kind of action against someone. Being concerned for someone is not "hatred". After all, many homosexual men are concerned for the health of each other, and you wouldn't at all call them "phobic" or their actions "hatred". Let's not debate like teenagers, please. Bushcutter (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The terms "Russophobia" and "Sinophobia" were in use during the Cold War, if that's any help -- and "Russophobia" has a pedigree dating back at least to the early XX century. For that matter, "xenophobia" carries the meanings of "fear of outsiders", "hatred of outsiders", and "bigotry against outsiders", with the additional ambiguity that "outsiders" may refer to "foreigners" or "strangers", without anyone questioning the legitimacy of the word. --7Kim (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean really, homophobia doesn't even mean fear of gays, (which, I agree, is a debatable assessment of those who are against homosexuality, whether it manifests itself as a personal moral choice or just straight up bigotry). It's an etymologically incorrect portmanteau of homosexual and phobia, but it literally means "fear of the same". Likewise, heterophobia (a word that I believe was made up by Eminem) is the fear of that which is different, as opposed to fear of heterosexuals. Other terms have been suggested, most of them alluding to a perceived superiority of heterosexuality rather than anit-homosexuality, such as heterosexism (which I personally think is a little to feminist based) and heteronormativity, which doesn't seem appropriate, because, even though it doesn't justify the marginalization of non-heteros, heterosexuality kind of is the norm. I think the word homonegativity is a good one, though it is not all-encompassing and technically runs into the same etymological problems as homophobia, as it would literally mean assigning negative value to that which is the same. Perhaps the best word is sexual prejudice, as it is all-encompassing, correctly worded, does not imply something suspect, but is still debatable in its application, as to whether or not it applies to someone who believes that being gay, bi, trans, or whatever, is wrong, but is not in anyway disrespectful of these people, which is certainly a good, albeit completely subjective, question. Gtbob12 (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Words are more than the sums of their parts: just as a "pineapple" is related neither to pines nor apples, "homophobia" does not mean "fear of men," as it's parts might suggest. People need to stop mucking around with silly arguments about words that have accepted definitions. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree that homophobia per se (without more) is not bigotry; that malicious behavior toward gays motivated by the actor's homophobia is the bigotry? It seems that to distinguish betweeen active and passive homophobia is irrelevant, because a person can act compassionately when motivated by homophobia. In other words, I can tackle a person about to run out in front of a train or I can stand there and watch; which behavior is compassionate? If I tackle them, am I to be scourged for malicious behavior? If I stand there? No doubt, malicious behavior is wrong. Robbing a bank is wrong. It's wrong not because the robber wants to get something for nothing, but because it takes from others without their consent. People want to live in areas with no crime. Does that mean they should move to a town that has no crime? No! It means they should move to a town where nobody does the acts that constitute what everybody knows is a crime. Just becase a town has no laws against robbing a bank doesn't make it all right to rob a bank. We wouldn't need a law against robbing banks if everybody wanted everybody else to have what rightfully belongs to each person respectively. All of this is to defeat the logic that argues that the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality is relevant to homophobia. People who act maliciously against gays are wrong whether they acted on their homophobia or not.--ElderHap (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Homophobia IS bigotry. People who are against homosexuals or their supposed "lifestyle" are afraid that if promoted something dire will result. They do have a phobia.76.124.161.238 (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A phobia is a fear. Someone being disgusted, or against it is not a fear. But by your "definition," wouldn't it be a phobia is someone raped and murdered your mother, or sister? Don't be a bigot...they are only doing it because they were born that way. Trentc (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not "homophobia" is etymologically correct is not relevant to the article. The the word exists, and it is used as described in the article. That should end this matter. TechBear (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed

This was in the section on internalized homophobia:

The theory attributing higher incidences of depression, alcoholism and other self-destructive tendencies among homosexual individuals to internalized homophobia has been put into question by groups such as NARTH, that oppose the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM. Studies of gay people in societies such as Sweden, New Zealand and the Netherlands found similar incidences of such behavior.

I removed it for several reasons. Both of the citations lead to resources that claim psychiatric disorders are more prevalent in those who engage in same-sex behavior. This is already a well known fact. It is also accepted by most reliable medical and scientific organizations that gay and bisexual people suffer from more psychological distress BECAUSE they have to struggle daily with discrimination and, for those with religious upbringings, indoctrinated shame and fear of eternal punishment. Nowhere in these resources does it suggest that homosexuality ITSELF is a disorder per se - but that is exactly what discredited organizations such as NARTH routinely claim. NARTH and other right wing organizations are also known to take objective studies out of context, and to twist them to fit their anti-gay agenda. Which, by pairing these two together, is also what this section of the article achieved. It also lent a credibility to NARTH that is totally unwarranted (please see wiki policies on giving appropriate weight to arguments).

There might be a way to mention NARTH's dissent, but not like this.VatoFirme (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

New Image

I just put a newe imgage into the article. I found ist on the Gemand Wikipedia in the corresponding article at Homophobie of Believers. --92.226.135.222 (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

techbear claiming POV edits

Your making this into an edit war, the guy who made the edit should have posted in the talk page too instead of just reverting your edits, please don't just continue reverting his or my edits too without elaborating or discussing since it won't solve anything. Your claiming that stating George Weinberg's affiliation with gay activist is a POV edit. Specifically the clause ",a gay activist". This is listed on his wiki page for him and is well known that he is a gay activist and has supported many in the gay community and has appeared on many talk shows as well as authored many books on the subject. That is not POV, it is not even a deduction of known info: it is a title which he takes pride in. removing that would be considered POV - an example: "The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization affiliated with the ex-gay movement, describes" removing the bold context would be considered POV and accomplish the same thing were I to be making POV edit's. They are both well documented and not POV, Please assume good faith. The paragraph on the pejorative use of the word was added because the text alone is just copy & paste out of the research article which is copyrighted - I also boldly added it to clarify because it's too wordy and technical.--Papajohnin (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Question on sourcing

In regard to the following source:

^ O'Donohue, William and Christine Caselles (September 1993). Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 15 no. 3.

Is there a consensus on the legitimacy of sourcing from an abstract when the full text of the article in question is not world-readable? Should the fact that the full text is not world-readable (or that the information is sourced from the abstract) be disclosed in the citation? --7Kim (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This editor believes that the citation should describe the availability of the full text of the source if the abstract is reasonably supportive of the poposition. If the abstract is not reasonably supportive of the proposition, then the citation should be to the full text of the article. --ElderHap (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Global viewpoint needed.

I have placed the {{globalize}} template on the page. There should be info on homophobia in countries other that the UK and US. See also WP:CSB. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"The concept of 'disgust' and homophobia, and referenced study"

The following paragraph has been removed:

Psychologists contend that rather than 'irrational fear', biological disgust is a legitimate biological response in many human beings to homosexuals. They contend 'fear' elicits a 'get me away from that' response, much like a fearful encounter with a predator such as a tiger, whereas disgust elicits a 'get that away from me' response in the human brain.

It's problematic in several ways. First of all, it's not an APA study, it was done by some psychologists at U of Arkansas. Second, it seems like a bit of a copyvio. Third, it's quoted incompletely and out of context. Fourth, it hasn't been presented at the APA conference yet, therefore is not yet peer reviewed. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[The paragraph] Has been added again, and I'm about to dig up more major publishing instances of this from major newspapers, as I've just googled it and there are plenty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.2.169 (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [Comment refactored by Exploding Boy (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC) to remove duplication]

Please review WP:3RR, and please discuss this clearly controversial addition on the talk page. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The way the paragraph is written is a violation of WP:NPOV, in that the UA study says that homophobia is rooted in disgust rather than fear reactions, but the writer improperly adds the independent analysis that disgust is a 'legitimate biological response to homosexuals,' which I don't think the source supports saying. I wouldn't have a problem with a sentence about this study that was more neutrally phrased (it's an interesting study, and I'm curious about the specifics of how they conducted it), though if the consensus is that we should wait until after the peer review of this study to discuss it, I'm okay with that, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that it's a small study that hasn't, as far as we know, appeared in any scholarly journals. The source is About.com! There's no particular rush to include this information; we can wait until we find a more reliable source. And when we do include it, it needs to be much more neutrally written, as FQ says above. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the word 'legitimate' as per the other user who said they would be happy for it to stay with more neurtrality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.2.169 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed most of the concerns with that information. Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong! It is peer reviewed. Here it is it was published in the journal of research in personality. [1] small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.2.169 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Different study by different authors at a different university. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Also on a different subject- that's a study indicating that homophobia is caused by 'conservative sexual ideology and religiosity', which I don't think is the point our anonymous user is trying to make in his desired edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Original editor has been blocked. If the study hasn't yet been peer-reviewed, I agree that adding the research to this article is premature. Although it's clear that this user's motivations are rooted in bias, the study itself has been reported upon in the gay press, and could be discussed without the bias when the time is right. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been peer reviewed.

http://www.science-direct.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WM0-4S7J59T-1&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F08%2F2008&_rdoc=45&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%236920%239999%23999999999%2399999%23FLA%23display%23Articles)&_cdi=6920&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=56&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6f0f0a80db1931f690b269f7d014b3f1

Go to the journal link.

"Disgust, scrupulosity and conservative attitudes about sex: Evidence for a mediational model of homophobia " in the journal of Research in Personality.

So the opposition was do not include the word 'legitimate', and I duly removed it.

Then the opposition was it wasn't peer reviewed, but I've demonstrated it is.

And to abuse coercive powers and block me without warning, this will be reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WesternPacific (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WesternPacific, please stop. People are willing to discuss your points here, but you shouldn't be making such sweeping changes to a controversial article without consensus. Simply announcing what you plan to do is not the same as seeking consensus. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides, as I already pointed out above, the source you're citing here is a completely different article, much closer to publication, that says homophobia is caused by conservative religiosity. We could put the two studies together in a paragraph about the causes of homophobia and recent research, I suppose. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I think this might be the same study- it is the same author. That's hilarious; the anon user is completely misrepresenting what it says, if the abstract is accurate. We really do need to wait until this study is published so one of us can read it and see what it really says. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the term

Am I alone in thinking that the first paragraph in that section places undue weight on the opinions of an "ex-gay" organization? It only cites the organization's website, no independent sources. It seems like it should maybe be at the end of the section, with the organization's url deleted. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not alone, and the entire article has an anti-gay bias. Instead of focusing on what the word means, it launches into an ill-founded digression into the word's purported etymology (it obviously comes from the use of "homo" to mean "homosexual") and focuses on the points of view of those who think disfavoring homosexuals is justifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.250.127 (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Anti-bourgeois and anti-Western homophobia"

Valois bourbon (contribs) recently added this problematically synthesized section, which unbalances the article since much (arguably most) homophobia in contemporary developed societies originates from religious or social conservative tendency. I've made small fixes to begin with, including removing "left-wing" from Mugabe's description; this is a uselessly reductionist category for a formerly left-wing leader who has become generally despotic, as documented by his article. The inappropriately grouped notions of "left-wing" and "anti-Western" should be separated and a "conservative" section is needed. --EqualRights (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Etmyology is important

"silly arguments about words that have accepted definitions."

When did the word become "accepted"? As far as I can tell the word is used strictly by one side of a political argument. Its intent is to imply that their political opponents are mentally sick (as they used to consider homosexuals) but the botched etmyology proves that it is not a legitimate psychological term. Or as Humpty-Dumpty put it in THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: "When I use a word it means what I want it to mean." 76.122.75.11 (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Manifestations

Present in this section the manifestations of homophobia. Note that items in this section do not include other nebulous terms, but instead describe the manifestations in more elementary terms. For example, homophobia is manifest in a person's desire to {describe here the manifestation}. Perhaps in so doing, a positive elaboration of the problem will ensue along with a positive solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElderHap (talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image of Fred Phelps, specifically caption

I removed the description of Fred Phelps as a Baptist minister because his specific denomination does not appear to be relevant to the context in which the picture appears; he might as well be a Methodist or a Presbyterian for all the difference it would make. Since the WBC's identity as a religious organisation seems no more than a legally convenient fiction, any denomination label would be meaningless anyway. Neither the Westboro Baptist Church nor Phelps himself is affiliated with any Baptist organisation and several Baptist organisations have explicitly repudiated them. --7Kim (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Remove Image of Fred Phelps / Westboro Church from article

I am not an editor of this article, but I would like to suggest to those of you active in editing this article that the image of Phelps / Westboro Church with "God Hates Fags" signs be removed and replaced with a photo of some anti-gay protest that more accurately represents such movements.

The reason why I do not think it should appear in the article is that Westboro Church owes its existence and notoriety to the media -- they strive to be offensive and gain press coverage, even though there is nothing particularly press-worthy about them except their offensiveness. They do not represent any common religious denomination (the Westboro Church is tiny and consists primarily of Phelps' family members and their spouses), nor are they representative of even the most conservative religious denominations.

Although they would seem to be a superb example of homophobia, I would argue that their blatant hatred of homosexuals -- however sincere it may be -- is also one of their primary tools for getting media attention (the other being their protests held at the funerals of US military personnel).

By featuring their picture in the article, you are aiding the promotion of a tiny hate-group, whose only importance is their media notoriety.

There have been many other protests against homosexuality in various ways that are more representative of actual political movements. (In the US, for example, Focus on Family is very active in protesting the "promotion" of the "gay agenda".) A picture of one of those groups would be more accurate.

In short, I am suggesting that you use a picture that represents a anti-gay organization or movement with a genuine following, rather than playing into the Phelps' family self-promotion -- both for the sake of accuracy and to avoid promoting Westboro church. StrangeAttractor (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why no section on the Religious Right?

The Religious Right is by far the biggest promulgator of homophobia in the U.S., and has been since the late 1970s / early 1980s. The RR is also one of the biggest visible sociological groups, and one of the most powerful political lobbying groups, in the country. One of the main tenets, if not THE main public tenet of Born-again Christianity and Fundamentalist Christianity is homophobia. Why is this not mentioned in the article? All the psychological and sociological theories in the world pale in comparison to religious doctrine, and that is where most homophobia comes from. Softlavender (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you label someone who is scared of homophobes? And the people that are scared of the people that are scared of homophobes? ElderHap (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would agree with Softlavender above. A discussion of religiously motivated disapproval of homosexuality is essential to anyone seeking to understand the topic. In modern times, the primary motivation for organized politics against gay rights comes from religious groups, or groups influenced by religious proscriptions. And yes, in the United States, and many European countries, most of these groups (although not all, by any means) would fall into the general category of "religious right." It is a serious omission not to include a section on this aspect of "homophobia" (a term I find annoying, btw, but we are apparently stuck with it). StrangeAttractor (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the above thoughts. However, to do what you are suggesting would be taken as a criticism of religion. Also, the interpretation of homophobia from main-stream religiosity (not the Westboro Church) would be disputed by main-stream religious people. They would say they are not homophobic, but that they love the sinner, hate the sin. I may not have expressed myself as well as I could have, but you get what I'm saying. Belasted (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be responding to both my comment immediately above, and the suggestion I made about removing the Phelps' family photo from the article and replacing with something more "mainstream." In any case, yeah, sure, there will be objections and controversy about a section discussing "homophobia" in religious contexts, but there are far more controversial topics that have been discussed in Wikipedia entries. It can be done if the topic is discussed objectively (so-called "NPOV") and fairly. I do not think most religious conservatives from denominations that view homosexuality as a sin are trying to hide that fact. They are quite open about it. And the entry could include the common justification you mention above -- that many people coming from this background would say that they do not hate homosexuals, but the "sin" of homosexuality. Again, I think that a section like that could be hammered out, no doubt with some back and forth from opposing viewpoints, but it is certainly not disputed by either side that many conservative religious denominations are opposed to the "gay rights" movement on both political and religious grounds, and that such people play an important role in American politics. StrangeAttractor (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mental Disorder

I believe that Homophobia should be described as a mental disorder such as other phobias. Homophobia is a legitimate mental illness that can be cured by therapy and psychiatric treatment, and it should be regarded as such in the opening passage of the page.
Suggestion: "Homophobia is a mental disorder which is characterized by an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."

Tudmotu (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you that homophobia is a mental disorder. However, what you or I believe is irrelevant: please refer to the Original Research, Reliable Sources and Neutral Point Of View policies. In short, Wikipedia is a resource for assembling and presenting facts (or at least very well substantiated rumor), not opinions. Until and unless there are reliable, reasonably neutral sources to substantiate the claim that homophobia is a mental disorder, it cannot be included in a Wikipedia article. TechBear (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a study book, which nowadays considered to be 'reliable', named "Society and the Healthy Homosexual", written by the heterosexual psychologist Dr. George Weinberg in 1972. The author describes his professional point of view on the subject: "This book is in part an examination of a disease called homophobia - - an attitude held by many non-homosexuals and perhaps the majority of homosexuals in countries where there is discrimination against homosexuals." (Third and fourth pages of Preface).Tudmotu (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say that comments from the preface of a book that has not been peer-reviewed does not meet the qualifications a reliable source; the fact that the book was written by a psychologist does not make it a reliable source. One might as well point to "studies" by Paul Cameron and claim that homosexuality itself is a disease. I think the best course of action would be: if it is not listed as a mental disease in the ICD or the DSM, it cannot be described factually as a mental disease. TechBear (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Socio-cultural and socio-psychological roots

Could be great if some material from Gisela Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg could be incorporated somewhere in the article, particularly from what's written in the section on her standard work Tabu Homosexualität, maybe also material from her second-most important work, Angst und Vorurteil. As of now, this article on homophobia is still structured in a way I'm not quite sure where to put this valuable foundational material regarding the scientific study of homophobia in Western civilization and society.

The etymology section looks alright, then right next comes what looks like a conservative attack of the let's slam liberalism and PC-talk sort with the Criticism section, what's come to be called internalized homophobia here is nothing but the psychological result of what's dubbed social homophobia here so I don't quite see the point of separating the two (though admittedly, I'm not a big fan of separating psychology from socio-cultural studies on whatever topic). I don't quite see the point either of the section political ideology other than that it looks like trying to blame homophobia on certain radical political entities, evoking a rather pointless, guilt-by-association straw man (while in fact the point of this article rather is, or should be, the very same socio-cultural paradigms showing in laws and ideologies in any homophobic society on earth, including in these radical political systems or dictatorships), while the section currently entitled Precursor to a climate of prejudice looks most like what I'd expect this article to be made of for the most part, though even as of now this section still has some way to go IMHO, such as with what little foot-noted source-attribution it currently exhibits. --79.193.87.247 (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Regarding the Distribution of attitudes in the US and the UK section, that "one study" by Janet Baker hardly was any news, the word has been out for almost half a century by now on the structural similarities and correlations of homophobia, racism, and anti-Semitism, see Authoritarian personality and Right-wing authoritarianism. Adorno and Horkheimer had already hinted at denial of personal same-sex impulses as the root to anti-Semitism as early as in their 1947 Dialectic of Enlightenment, the foundational work of Frankfurt School's Critical Theory. --79.193.61.35 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition needs to be fixed

The article is suppose to be describing the meaning of homophobia, thus an accurate history of the word is important, as well as it's true meaning. The incorrect definitions I noticed are "irrational fear," "aversion to," and "discrimination" , as well as people saying "bigotry" in this very discussion. I feel these words are not a definition, but a digression from the real meaning which all are fallacies intended to attack a person rather describe a real phobia. Thus, I think those non defining words need to be deleted. I want to delete them, but not till after I see responses in accordance with the flag at top. Trentc (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The terms you are referring to are backed up by the referenced sources. These sources include Webster's, The American Heritage Dictionary and The Oxford English Dictionary. Do you have a reliable source that says something different? Henrymrx (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's go on here for how a phobia is defined. The usage in here is incorrect and only intends to attack those who really do not like homosexual people. I would not call Webster or any others a very accurate source. They are in the business to sell books, and will include usage of words just because people do it. They are not standards organizations like the Modern Language Association would be. Trentc (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The English language has no governing body. The definitions of words are determined by popular usage. Get over it. Alloverme (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Combating Homophobia

That section needs to be deleted. It nothing but biased and bigoted statements. It would be akin to someone putting a section in the "Homosexual" article and called it "Combating Homosexuality"

I will put a flag up over this totally biased article. Trentc (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

People have and do combat homosexuality. I wouldn't see a problem with that being in a Homosexuality article. Belasted (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is written as hate and intolerance against someone with a phobia. Phobias are treated, not attacked. Trentc (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read the section of Combating homophobia, and it seems to show the issue from both sides. Can you point out something specific that seems to have a bias, and even worse, is hateful? You absolutely may be right, but I don't see it, so it would help to see exactly what you have a problem with. Belasted (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Here they are: "To combat homophobia, the LGBT community uses events such as gay pride parades and political activism " and "In addition to public expression, legislation has been designed, controversially, to oppose homophobia, as in hate speech, hate crime, and laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." A person with a mental disorder (phobia as properly defined by the DSM) is not a hater, bigot, discriminator, or anything else. It is a fear. Trentc (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you're taking issue with how the word homophobia is used. That's beyond the scope of this article. Much of this has been discussed before. Please go through the older threads above. Homophobia isn't really a phobia, per se. This article used to have the phobias template on it, but it was removed. If you go to that template, you'll notice that homophobia is not listed as a phobia. Homophobia is essentially anti-gay discrimination. It may not fit the etymology of the word, but that's how the word is used. Henrymrx (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Homophobic homosexuals and Homosexual homophobes

It is often claimed that some homophobes are closet homosexuals, while vise versa some homosexuals are said to be homophobic. This is a chicken-or-the egg type of question, but it is maybe not such a bad question, since in recent timesthere have been very homophobic priests in Rome admitting to having gay tendencies. Anyways, some hard facts and sociological studies are already available on this, it is just a matter of retracing them. Another good example on this is the case of controversial American pastor Ted Haggard. ADM (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Some right-wing people also claim that the word homophobe is just a means for radical gays to maintain social control over so-called moderate homosexuals. This is an ugly debate which is not surprisingly framed along the same lines as Radical Islam vs. Moderate Islam. ADM (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Irrational Fear?

I think it would be more neutral to list the definitions without the "irrational" component first, then add that some definition specifically include the word "irrational". Unless people think that irrational does not have negative connotations, I see no justification to put that definition as the main one. Also I see no reason to put online based sources, such as dictionary.com and aol dictionary, above the more reliable and prestigious sources, such as American Heritage Dictionary and Oxford English Dictionary.76.195.220.65 (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

By and large, the definition of "homophobia" describes it as an irrational fear. If the article is going to retain a neutral point of view -- as it must -- then it must reflect this. TechBear (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you not read what I wrote? Where is this "by and large"? How can you make the claim that more dictionary calls the fear irrational than without, when there is nothing to back you up? Again, American Heritage Dictionary and Oxford English Dictionary are definitely more prestigious than the 3 online dictionary sources that is provided (Most of these online sources don't give original definitions, but took their definition of some other place). AOL takes its definition from Merriam, which makes that source illegitimate anyways. Dictionary.com provides 4 definitions. 2 of those doesn't describe it as irrational, and one of those that does is from Merriam. So by and large, the definition from the more trustworthy sources do not include the irrational component, thus I suggest removing the obviously non-neutrally connotated word, "irrational", to follow the NPOV policy.76.195.220.65 (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Phobias are by definition irrational: Phobia, DSM-IV diagnostic criteria. The word should stay, in my opinion. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please cite dictionary sources then. Making inference that all phobia are irrational therefore homophobia is irrational has to first assume that homophobia is a real medical condition, which is not consistent at all with the rest of the article.76.195.220.65 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ctjf83, if you are going to revert my edits, please discuss why my edits are wrong. If you do not have a contesting reason, then stop reverting my edits.76.195.220.65 (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You're the one making changes to the established consensus version, not Ctjf83. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am challenging the consensus. However, none of you responds to my reasons, so I presume that I have convinced you. Please provide your reasons against my edits then, since you are still online.

I agree with what TechBear said. CTJF83Talk 01:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, does nobody read what I wrote? Why does my arguments just gets blatantly ignored? I wrote a long response to TechBear. Please read it and respond.

I think we're not ignoring you so much as disagreeing with you. You presume incorrectly about having convinced me; I agree with TechBear and Ctjf83. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but you are not responding to my arguments. You are just merely saying that you disagree with me. How are we suppose to reach a consensus in that way? You agree with Techbear, but I just countered Techbear's points. Why don't you respond to my arguments against Techbear, since you agree with his points? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.220.65 (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have source for this: "Again, American Heritage Dictionary and Oxford English Dictionary are definitely more prestigious than the 3 online dictionary sources that is provided (Most of these online sources don't give original definitions, but took their definition of some other place", who says those two are more prestigious, and somehow their definition is more important?, how about a source saying the online ones take their definitions from other places? CTJF83Talk 03:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the citation used in this article only used internet versions of AHD and OED. As I own those and check that they are consistent with the online version, I will change them to cite the more reliable text versions, once we reach consensus. As per the Reliable policy article of Wikipedia, published text sources are more reliable than unpublished online sources. That is my point when I said that AHD and OED are more prestigious. The only reliable, non-contradictory, unredundant source out of the 3 online sources is Merriam online. "How about a source saying the online ones take their definitions from other places?" You can check dictionary.com and aol dictionary website to see that they say so themselves that they take their definition of homophobia from other sources. AOL says it cites Merriam, which makes that source tertiary and redundant and illegitimate. Dictionary.com has 4 definitions, all of which not its own, but either based on or directly cited from another dictionary. 2 out of the 4 definitions of Dictionary.com are also contradictory to the claim that their definitions use "irrational", since those 2 definition don't.

So in the end, there is 2 secondary text sources that doesn't describe homophobia as irrational, and 1 secondary online source and 1 tertiary online source that use the word irrational. So the more reliably sourced definition is not as Techbear claims. As you see in my source finding, I found more reliable sources claiming otherwise.

I can even give another source, wordnet3.0, supporting my claim.76.195.220.65 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been about 3 days. Nobody raised any further objections. I will proceed to change the page then.76.195.220.65 (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted back. Clearly you're the only one who wants to change it, so that isn't a consensus to change. CTJF83Talk 20:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you fricking kidding me?!?!?!?!?!?! If you have an argument against my change, then speak your fricking reason. I waited for 3 days and you said nothing. How the hell can anyone change ever change the consensus if the majority simply does not listen to reason and abuse their "rollback" power or whatever? Tell me how can wikipedia function, if everyone is like you guys who clearly have nothing to say and lost the argument, but refuse to allow for change by not responding. Bring a legitimate neutral administer here to arbitrate. In the mean time, I will edit my change in as many times as it takes. 76.195.220.65 (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you feel so strongly about this issue? I agree with TechBear, Dawn Bard, and CTJF83 on this issue.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do I feel so strongly about this? Because it is right. I am following closely to the neutral policy of wikipedia and attempt to fix an article that gives undue weight to a biased definition. If you guys call yourselves good wikipedia editors, how can you not see that what you are doing is against the principles of wikipedia? As I can see from your user pages, you are all veteran editors with plenty of awards attributing to your contribution to a neutral and accurate wikipedia. Then tell me, please, so I can finally give up on this article, how is my edit not justified? Why is giving a definition supported by 4 book sources supporting it called giving an opinion an undue weight, while giving a definition supported by 2 online sources are not? -76.195.220.65 76.247.164.55 (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that homophobia, like any phobia, is irrational. Do you believe that homophobia is rational? If so, why?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion. However, on wikipedia, personal opinion are secondary. Only reliable, authoritative sources matter. I do not necessarily believe that homophobia is rational. However given all of the sources that I cited that does not describe homophobia as irrational, wikipedia should reflect that definition. There is only really one non-tertiary source that describes it as irrational, Merriam. My sources are American Heritage Dictionary, Oxford English Dictionary, Collins Essential English Dictionary, Ologies and Isms, and Wordnet 3.0. All of these are book sources, except Wordnet 3.0. Why should the minority definition be the dominant one and the dominant definition be sidetracked? Isn't that giving undue weight? -76.195.220.65 76.247.164.55 (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How are these things mutually exclusive? Your sources may (I have not examined them) very well not describe homophobia as irrational. So what? Some sources do. Just because others don't doesn't mean that's necessarily a contradiction. You're pointing out an absence of the term irrational in some sources, that doesn't mean that are contradictory. In fact, they are NOT explicitly contradictory. How about this? Do you have a source that says that homophobia is NOT irrational? Henrymrx (t·c) 01:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for making that point, Henrymrx - I agree completely. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Henrymrx makes an excellent point.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If only everyone is like Henrymrx and reason with me, maybe this would not be as frustrating. Yes, you are right. They are not mutually exclusive. However, I am not proposing to take down the irrational definition completely. Can you check the history of this page by 76.195.220.65? In my version, the article will present the wide spread definition first, then specify that some dictionary describe this fear is irrational. It is a problem if the article say that homophobia only describes irrational "fear" of gay people. It should describe all "fear" of gay people, whether irrational or not, as given by the majority of dictionaries that I cited. Then you can say later, that some dictionary give definitions that restrict homophobia to irrational fear of gay people. This is a minor issue and does not take away any information from the article. However why won't people allow this minor change in presentation? - 76.195.220.65 76.247.164.55 (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

76.195.220.65, if you think it's a minor issue, then why not agree to leave it at the consensus version? Dawn Bard (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

76.195.220.65 is completely right and the people against him are blatant, unapologetic agenda pushers. This will be surely noted for discussion. Using "irrational" as a Wikipedia definition is like using "evil" for Nazism or Stalinism, just because the 'by and large' (i love that term, 'by and large') opinion was that they were evil. And the logic that "phobias by definition are irrational because the DMV says so" should require that every phobia on Wikipedia start with "is an irrational fear of". It is quite obvious that Techbear, Dawnbard, and CTJ here are pushing to have their way and saying "I agree with so and so" and "I believe" as the only basis of their point, without any decent attempt to counter 76.195.220.65's logical arguments whatsoever with points. Usually is the route people take when they know they are wrong yet still must cling to the agenda and silence the critics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.212.253 (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC) - Sh

For example, take the following pages for phobia,

"Xenophobia is a dislike and/or fear of that which is unknown or different from oneself." "Mysophobia is a term used to describe a pathological fear of contact with dirt, to avoid contamination and germs." "Aquaphobia is an abnormal and persistent fear of water" "Decidophobia is the fear of making decisions." "Scopophobia or scoptophobia is a morbid fear of being seen"

no sign of 'irrational', maybe 'abnormal' and 'pathological' (as in, disease-based, instinctual-based fear), but it would be difficult to say that homophobia is 'abnormal' because 'by and large' for the majority of human history and in most non-western countries today (especially asia, africa, south america and Eastern Europe where the secular communist governments would imprison and execute the offenders), it was the clear majority opinion, the clear established opinion. Therefore, the 'abnormal' definition is clearly out, and the use of 'irrational' comes from "I believe its irrational because all phobias are irrational", you must therefore change every phobia definition to include 'irrational' in definition. Therefore, it is irrational to have the irrational definition. On a tangent, if a man is prison was scared of being raped by his cell-mate, is that homophobia irrational? -Sh

• There is nothing irrational about a conscious choice to dislike any given group of people. Now, if the aversion is based on something irrational, like a fear of absorbing HIV through osmosis by sitting on a bus seat previously occupied by a homosexual, that G-d will smite one's city with a hurricane if a Gay Pride parade occurs there, or that one's habitual lifestyle will go to hell in a handbasket if a couple of homosexuals move in two blocks from one's house - THAT is an irrational phobia. However, if one finds the "flaming gay" annoying, figures that the openly homosexual in the military could mess up unit cohesion by their presence rewriting the unwritten rules, or believes that a visibly gay elementary school teacher (like anyone else with views that one vehemently disagrees with) could have a strong and personally undesirable effect on their children's moral compass in their formative years, then there is nothing whatsoever irrational about any of that! If one wants to raise their kids to disapprove of gay people, how is an aversion to exposing them to gay authority figures in their early years *irrational*?! You don't have to LIKE them for it, but you have to admit that there is nothing whatsoever irrational in parents trying to keep what they dislike away from their young children. BTW, note how any and all rational (conscious, non-fear-based) homophobia only applies to homosexuals who are visibly open about their orientation. No one cares if a single bachelor who never once mentions his sexual preferences teaches elementary school! Moreover, a vast amount of people will just as angrily object if a teacher is open about any kind of STRAIGHT sexual preference, fetish, or activity in school (never mind potentially objectionable stuff like BDSM; parents will be pissed if Little Johnny comes home and tells them how Mr. Teacher shared his love for overweight bottle blondes!). And G-d forbid the bible-toting fringe group in the PTA catches wind of Mr. Bachelor Teacher locking lips with some Miss, even if she is neither blonde, nor overweight, nor carrying a ball gag, if it is anywhere in sight of anyone. So, rational homophobia is quite possible - ranging from a dislike for gays and only gays to a simple aversion for anyone open about anything in their private lives. Aadieu (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point, but not a valid one. Of the examples you give, only one can be compared with this one - xenophobia - because the others are forms of anxiety disorders usually treated by psychiatrists. Although some might think that all phenomena described using 'phobia' are disorders that need psychiatric treatment, this does not happen. Comparing xenophobia and homophobia, you are correct, this one says irrational, the other doesn't - yet the sources both use irrational as at least one of the possible definitions in both cases - some sources give more than one definition of homophobia, adding social practice as well as the psychological motivation. This shows the lengths people who have worked on this page have gone to ensure it accurately reflects the sources. in this case dictionaries which define the word. The problem is not with the definition here, it is with the definition of xenophobia, as that does not accurately reflect the statement of it being irrational in the source. There is nothing to do here about that. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There are examples adding extended meaning to the word "phobia" more in the vein of "dislike" or "rejection": photophobia, lipophobia.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most definitions use irrational, and many supplement this with other additional meanings, and this is reflected in the lead, using quotes from reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, we reflect the sources accurately, we don't make definitions. Mish (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination isn't irrational. Who cares if it says irrational fear. The rest of the "definition" blatantly states that anyone for any reason who discriminates against homosexuality is irrational or fearful. And that is certainly something that isn't true. If a person dislikes country music because it makes them uncomfortable, they are not being irrational or fearful. So if a person dislikes homosexuals because it makes them uncomfortable, they are not being irrational or fearful either. Contrary to the definition wikipedia gives for homosexuality. Also, you don't find discrimination as part of the definition of any other phobia. So sure, you can have an article about homophobia, where people have an irrational and uncontrollable fear of homosexuals. People have irrational fears of all kinds of things, one girl on maurry had a phobia against pickles. ... What does that have to do with discrimination.

Saying its a phobia to discriminate is pretty underhanded and blantantly biased. The people who hate black people do not fear black people, they simply see them as inferiour. Myself for instance, I discriminate against trolls, I don't have a fear or phobia against them. 75.64.144.8 (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Because that is how the word is defined, and we are guided by policies about accuracy and verifiability. If we think it is 'wrong', or 'untrue', or 'unfair' is not the issue. The definitions given contain two elements - motivation and practice, one is about irrationality and/or fear and the other is about prejudice and/or discrimination. Maybe the word seems inappropriate to some people, but we did not create it, it exists, and it is what it is, and it describes certain things, and this is an article about that, the word exists to cover these things, we use the word that is usually used. Some people don't like the word, some people don't like what it describes - but we don't exclude content we don't like, neither do we exclude the word used to describe, or adapt definitions to suit our preferences. Mish (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But as part of any phobia the person inflicted tends to avoid and/or reject the trigger. Whether you call it ″phobia", "fear" or "dislike", what is your RATIONAL explanation for this DISCOMFORT?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1. That isn't the definition of the word. Phobia has nothing to do with discrimination, because you add the prefix "homo" doesn't change that. So the article is already emperically false on this issue. Any attempt to continue with the definition posted on wikipedia is in violation of wikipedia's own rules, and its simply biased. @Mish

2. Sure, as a part of a phobia people tend to avoid the trigger, someone who simply says "I won't serve homosexuals" is not fearful anything, he is making a concious choice to not serve a specific group of people for any or no reason at all. The fact that he discriminated, is not evidence that he has a phobia. Because any definition of phobia requires having fear of said thing, if it isn't a fear of said thing, it isn't a phobia. Someone who discriminates against a speeder or a jwalker, doesn't fear the speeder or the jwalker, despite the fact that they are discriminating against them by treating them differently. Wether the discrimination is legal or not, doesn't change the fact that discrimination alone is not a phobia, and infact has nothing to do with phobias in any way what so ever. @dvd-junkie

I hope that cleared up the confusion you two had. 75.64.144.8 (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is the definition of the word. I'm sorry if you don't like or agree with the construction of the word homophobia, but we are dealing with the factual definition of the word. Etymology is not the same as meaning. Let me give you another example. Antisemitism means discrimination against Jewish people, but not Semites in general as the word's construction would seem to imply. Being anti-Arab would not make someone antisemitic. We're not here to debate the word's logical construction or its origins. This isn't a forum for that purpose. Henrymrx (t·c) 04:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it is how the word is defined, and citing sources that define is not in breach of policy, it is aligned with it - whereas original research which equates homophobia with a medically diagnosable phobia is not in line with policy. There is criterion for diagnosing or treating homophobia as a neurosis or psychiatric disorder. That is not an aspect of the meaning of 'homophobia', as it is not found in DSM-IV or ICD-10. I cannot see what the issue is here - the word exists and is used in the way it is, and there is a section at the start of the article that addresses these concerns Homophobia#Criticism of the term. Mish (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

@ Mish:

Thank you for clearing up my confusion. Nobody says that homophobia is a psychiatric condition (nor is photophobia or lipophobia), but you can't argue that it is a phobia in its widest sense.

You still haven't presented us with a rational explanation for discomfort towards homosexuals.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not clear why you expect me to say. How would I know why people feel this way? The clue is in the word I guess, discomfort is a feeling, and closer to aesthetics than ethics or reason. Mish (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The rational for discrimination against homosexuals is the same rational against choosing to wear red shirts instead of blue. Its a preference. Just as being homosexual is itself a preference. If you want to debate rational then the burdon of providing it is on both of us. The first line in the article automaticly relegates any and all negative views or feelings against homosexuals as something irrational, something that only scared fearful people have. And that is clearly not the case, but wikipedia apparently wants to portray that. And it plays off the fact that people are not smart enough to get it. This is a problem widespread through wikipedia, where articles are written in a certain way, which doesn't break any rules, but are purposly meant to mislead people. And since no rules are broken, no one can say anything. And I guess this is proof that, that policy still hasn't changed from 2 years ago. 75.64.144.8 (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to prove it is irrational, only that this is how it is defined - which is in line with accuracy and verifiability - and that is why relevant sources are cited. Your analogy doesn't work, there are laws about discriminating against a range of people on the basis of their colour, religion, disability or sexual orientation - unlike red shirts. This is not a discussion forum, please keep to the topic. Mish (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't about laws, the issue is about the picture this article paints. Its as if I write an article on Einstine and I say "Some people believe a guy existed who did so and so and made up some laws about phsyics ..." It wouldn't break a single rule, nor would it be incorrect, but it is obviously biased. If you are just going to sit and ignore the implications of the wording of this article, then progress isn't going to ever be made. Ive seen what I needed to see, wikipedia is pretty much the same, if not worse, in this aspect of information transmission. I'm done. 75.64.144.8 (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't see the parallel, I'm afraid. I have added something to the lead, to ensure readers are clear that this is how it is defined in future. Unless your problem is that we are accurately reporting what the sources say? In which case we would just state what homophobia is - irrational fear and discrimination, etc. - which would be fine, but then people come along and object to this or that definition, or that the word exists at all - which is why the definitions are quoted, to avoid exactly this kind of pointless discussion, which is a waste of time. Mish (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ths dicussion is a waste of time because no one wants to acknowledge the implication of wording things one way as apposed to another. 75.64.144.8 (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course there are implications of wording things in different ways. That is why we rely on reputable sources to accurately verify these things. We say what it says in dictionaries here precisely because earlier in this discussion people expressed doubts that this is how the word was defined, then about whether there were other meanings, so we now have several different definitions from reputable dictionaries to ensure all the definitions are laid out for the reader. The fact that you don't like this word, or the definitions of it, is your problem, not ours. Without lying to the reader that it is not defined the way it is defined, it is hard to see what more can be done to address your problems. Mish (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Mish, I meant to adress User 75.64.144.8. Just a little mix-up.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Duplicated/forum text removed, see diff, in accordance with WP:Prune and WP:FORUM. A warning has been added to the editor's user talk page.—Teahot (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody removed this because this is not a forum. Here we have guidelines about accuracy and reliability, and these determine what happens, rather than what we think things should say or mean. You are discussing matters we have no power over (dictionary and other external definitions), and such discussion is not acceptable (see top of page and WP:FORUM). Better to go find a forum where you can discuss this. Mish (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If everybody thinks homophobia is an irrational fear then change arachnophobia to an irrational fear towards spiders.

Well, arachnophobia IS an irrational fear, too.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Internalized homophobia

I think this section is misleading. It makes it sound as if anyone who has same-sex attractions but rejects a gay identity has internalized homophobia. I think it should be clear that rejecting a gay identity is not harmful by itself. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear, it is about people who repress their sexual feelings, often deeply and unconsciously, not people who consciously reject a gay identity. Mish (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think internalized homophobia is neccesarily unconcious. It may stem from a misunderstanding of homosexuality or a fear of rejection from others. Ignorance isn't unconcious. It says "a conscious internal struggle may occur", which indicates it isn't unconcious. I would like a mention that simply rejecting a gay identity is not considered internalized homophobia. I would also think that it would be helpful to mention therapy to resolve this struggle. Is the most recent edit acceptable? Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

'often' is not the same as 'always', so this is covered in what I said. Regarding what you want to mention, do you have a WP:RS for this? Therapy is not relevant, unless it is therapy for homophobia. Mish (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Your definition is not what is in the text. The source that you just deleted talks about internalized stigma. In the footnote where it first talks about internalized stimga, it says:

• "Herek (2009) defined internalization as “the process whereby individuals adopt a social value, belief, regulation, or prescription for conduct as their own and experience it as part of themselves” (p. 7). The internalization of negative attitudes and assumptions concerning homosexuality has often been termed internalized homophobia (Malyon, 1982; Sophie, 1987; Weinberg, 1972). However, this term has been criticized because holding negative attitudes does not necessarily involve a phobia; in other words, “an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, situation (Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, n.d.)."

It then talks about how clients with unwanted homosexual attractions often have to deal with internalized stigma, and that part of the therapy is to help them overcome internalized stigma. It defines internalized stigma as synonymous with internalized homophobia, since the term has been criticized. Either way, the paragraph itself talks about the "conscious internal struggle may occur for some time, often pitting deeply held religious or social beliefs against strong sexual and emotional desires. This discordance often causes clinical depression, and the unusually high suicide rate among gay teenagers (up to 30 percent of non-heterosexual youth attempt suicide) has been attributed to this phenomenon." This is exactly what the therapy is intended for. So not everyone who undergoes this therapy has internalized homophobia, but this therapy IS the recommended therapy for people with internalized homophobia. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My definition? I've not defined anything. The article does not say 'necessarily' - it says 'may' or 'sometimes', etc... Which source I just deleted? The source I just removed was because it was not WP:RS, and not even in the section 'internalised homophobia'. The previous source before that was WP:SYNTH - neither appear to have the text you cite above. What you describe sounds like WP:SYNTH - A describes X as Y, B describes Y as Z, therefore we can say X is Z. No, you need a source that talks about Y as Z to do that. Are you talking about the recent APA release? You are going to reference that entire 138 page document in support of an entry made here because there is a comment in a footnote, which you see as supporting that? Even though it is such a minor point that it is mentioned in a footnote? How do you expect anybody to verify a statement that has no relation to the article you cite because you think something in a footnote is important? Mish (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked up the source, but could not find the definition that is given in the section. Instead, I found this alternative definition: "Most children who grow up in the U.S. internalize societal heterosexism from an early ago. Consequently, lesbians and gay men usually experience some degree of negative feeling toward themselves when they first recognize their own homosexuality in adolescence or adulthood. This sense of what is usually called internalized homophobia." The APA report gives a similar definition: "The internalization of negative attitudes and assumptions concerning homosexuality has often been termed internalized homophobia." Since I could not find a reference for any other definition, I decided to use this definition. The definition of the APA included a criticsm of the term, which I have included. The paragraph talks about "pitting deeply held religious or social beliefs against strong sexual and emotional desires" and how it causes suicide. If you can talk about how pitting deeply held religious beliefs against sexual desires causes suicide, you can talk about therapy to help resolve that conflict. Otherwise, it would not display people who have a conflicting values in a positive light. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If the source critiques the term 'internalised homophobia' then it would be valuable to have that. Mish (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a POV tag to the "Internalized homophobia" section because the third paragraph seems to suggest that "internalized homophobia" might bias the political thinking of some gay people, without considering the possibility that the accusation itself (i.e., of internalized homophobia) might be rooted in political bias. Or to put it another way, "You're self-loathing and full of internalized homophobia" are basically cuss words that some gays hurl at other gays in the heat of political in-fighting.

So if Adam "diagnoses" Internalized Homophobia in Steve, simply because Steve voted for McCain/Palin instead of Obama, the rest of us have no obligation to take Adam seriously -- in fact, Adam's charge that "Steve votes Republican because he suffers from Internalized Homophobia" is about as valid as "Steve votes Republican because he's an UGLY JERK-FACE!"

However, as it's currently written, the third graf appears to favor Adam's POV. (One possibility is just to delete that entire paragraph, as it seems to be getting away from the clinical meaning discussed in the first two grafs of this section.) Throbert McGee (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Needs to be Reassessed

firstly i get that "homophobia" is the fear of gays. i agree. secondly it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to make claim that just because someone makes fun of. or hates gays. or discriminates against gays. does not necessarily make you afraid of the particular gay in question ((homophobia)) or fear that he is gay in general. people shouldn't throw around the word "homophobe" or "homophobia" as the only line of defense gays have against slander. for example:
man 1: "You scene-fag. why are you wearing tight girl pants. id like to come over there and kick your ass till you start acting like a man."
man 2: "Don't be such a homophobe."
man 1: homophobe? if i was "afraid" you i for one wouldn't be making fun of you for fear of you or being molested by you. I'm certainly not afraid that your gay. you just piss me off."
See people throw around that word too loosely. it is being used for a broad generalization that every slur, every hate remark and every slight against a gay by another person is some sort of fear of the other. this is incorrect. if you made a slur against a black or a jew would you be called a blackaphobe of a jewaphobe? i dont think so. I recommend this article be cleaned up and thoroughly gone through. i will if no one else will. thanks -A.Ketamine 24.113.73.52 (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what this is meant to mean, but your edit adulterated a direct quote from Websters' and you will see that the range of definitions from most dictionaries are well represented. If you take issue with the definitions, take it up with the people who edit dictionaries. These definitions show that there are several meanings, including the one you edited out, and one of those definitions is fear. As for 'homophobe', we do not use the word at all in the article, do not refer to anybody this way, and the only instance of it is when it is described etymologically as a derivative of 'homophobia'. Mish (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

oh because Websters says so it its automatically true? I dont think so. yes it may be ONE definition but its definably not the correct one. im sure many will agree with me. homophobia is directly attributed to the word homophobe. websters routinely updates its definitions regularly to incorrect defines. i will put an adjunction to the definition. i think i will gain another source for this definition and correct accordingly. and yes you dont use homophobe in this article but you use homophobia in the article to define to the same end. i think i have made a good point twards bettering this article wouldnt you agree? -A.Ketamine24.113.73.52 (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It is what is verifiable, not what is true, because people have differing views on any 'truth'. I don't see anything you have said as being substantiable in any way, beyond 'this is what I think'. Homophobe is derived from homophobia, not the other way around, and 'homophobia', as a term, exists. We don't need to like it, it just does. Mish (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

While the point is made inelegantly, it is still valid. The term homophobic is often used incorrectly to refer to people who are opposed to homosexuality, whether or not the person actually fears homosexuality. I don't believe a cleanup is necessary, but perhaps an additional section discussing the common misuse. Sir Tiki (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That is already covered under the section 'criticism of the term'. Feel free to come up with any WP:RS to back up the point that is made there. Mish (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Format Footnotes and References

I'm considering changing the layout slightly so that the <references/> is under a Footnotes section and References becomes a list of significant books cited in the footnotes and cross-referenced using the {{harv}} template. This should simplify finding significant published sources and make it easier to reference different parts of the same book for different points in the article. Does anyone object to this style? For a comparison see the way gay bathhouse uses Harvard style referencing.—Ash (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

History of Homophobia

How old is homophobia? Was there homophobia throughout every ages since prehistoric times, or has there been any period of its absence during any one particular age? Is homophobia different in the West versus the East? How about its evolutionary history? These are very basic questions. A reliable, scholarly history of homophobia would be extremely helpful amidst all the polemics. Does such a thing exist already? All I could find was some religious material. There's Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century by John Boswell (via Amazon). Is this a good source? Erudecorp ? * 21:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?" Adams, 1996

I noticed that the study by H.E. Adams in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, while cited, receives very little attention in the article. Indeed the only cited assertion appears to miss the major finding of the study that garnered so much attention; that is, that homophobic men are more likely to have repressed homosexual feelings themselves. I am a newcomer to this article and am just curious if there was some kind of problem with this being included, or if perhaps it is dealt with in detail elsewhere on wikipedia. This study certainly attracted a great deal of fascination due to its potential implications.Legitimus (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrational versus rational

I think this article is seriously biased and it does not say anything about the actual RATIONAL concerns of homosexuality, both in moral and natural ways. Whoever wrote this, is undoubtedly biased towards the pro-homosexual culture. 87.219.84.77 (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How exactly does combating homosexuality have a place in an article about homophobia? There's a section about criticism of the term. What exactly is your argument? Henrymrx (t·c) 02:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

combating immoralities

I think this article should also refer to combating homosexuality as a moral fight. Looks like the whole wikipedia is biased towards immoralities and obscenities. We should all know where our limits are. 87.219.84.77 (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to take a moral stand on any issue. We look at what is verifiable and reliable in an effort to create an encyclopedia. I'm not sure what your point is. Henrymrx (t·c) 02:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally (or as an example), your (anon, not Henrymrx) morality is not mine. I in no way find homosexuality immoral. And I find some people (yes, not all) who use that excuse (moral fight against it) to be doing it more out of hate than the moral beliefs they claim to be defending. Yet another reason why such content, regardless of my opinions and morals - or anon 87.219.84.77's - is not appropriate in Wikipedia unless it is perhaps discussing (well cited) historical events caused by a situation that can be clearly discerned to fit such criteria... inotherwords, probably never.

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 03:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Renaming category

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_18#Category:Homophobia about renaming the category to something more verifiable. There is also talk about removing all WP:BLP names where the tag might be considered pejorative. Dmcq (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Title discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The title is an extremely one-sided, willful denigration and discredition of oppossing side based on their individualistic reasoning and beliefs, therewith is a text-book example of breach of neutrality. In order to justly respect the basic fundamental principles of Wikipedia such as the encyclopedic style, particularly neutrality and objectivity, I feel obligied to propose a more widely accepted term that would fit more naturally in suiting most party, and at least strifing towards suiting them all. I full-heartedly welcome all related discussion and potential better proposals in a pursuit of finding a middle ground. Also, the article should also be adjusted to any change. Thank you all in advance :) --Garrythefish (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that Anti-Homosexualism is a more widely used term then homophobia? How is homophobia a non-neutral term. CTJF83 GoUSA 02:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Garrythefish, I have reported your edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thought I'd let you know. Henrymrx (t·c) 02:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Good gracious. Absolutely not. What a tortured way to avoid the actual concept behind the word. If you really think the article is biased, rewrite it using the best sources you can possibly find. Moving it is ridiculous. --Moni3 (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hey juys. Just a procedural note that I've move-protected this article to stop the move war. I think you all know the drill from here: discuss and if a consensus emerges for a move, it'll get moved. (I have a strong suspicion concerning how the discussion will go, but in the interest of my remaining uninvolved, I'll refrain from mentioning it.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is outrageous and absurd. Homophobia is the common term, and is in fact pretty much the only widely used term bar people who would fall under the label themselves. This, combined with the sudden undiscussed move and subsequent edit war, makes it extremely hard to assume good faith. Zazaban (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, simply no. Find the sources that show homophobia is not the most commonly used term for this concept, and list them here. Otherwise - no. LadyofShalott 04:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no way Garrythefish. Just have a look at google results for one indicator.

• "homophobia -wikipedia" = 2,240,000 web hits, "antihomosexualism -wikipedia" = 88,700 web hits. (thst result includes variations of the word with a space or hyphen).
• Google books: homophobia = 5,600 hits, antihomosexualism = 1,049 hits
• Even more telling, let's have a look at google scholar hits: homophobia = 47,500 hits, antihomosexualism = 7 hits

Of course, google hits are just one indicator. My personal experience is that homophobia is a far more common word. I don't think I've ever heard someone say "antihomosexualism" out loud and don't for one second agree with you that it's a more widely accepted term. And, as Zazaban mentioned, it's hard to see any good faith in your actions when you first move the page without discussion, and then move it eight minutes after starting a discussion, when no one has even had a chance to reply.--BelovedFreak 13:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As a person who recently helped get rid of all those peoples names in Category:Homophobia on WP:BLP grounds I think the current title homophobia is fine for the topic it covers. The problem I had was that homophobia is defined as irrational and was being applied as a pejorative label with no citation, the first was unverifiable and the second was just wrong. If you want something that describes actual people you'll need a neutral description that describes what they have actually verifiably done, preferably with a court ruling or suchlike, rather than anything you infer that is in their heads because of a personal point of view. The problem if you try setting up a topic on what you think as homophobia but without all the business about hate and irrationality it might be counted as original research as most people involved with it in some way seem to have pretty strong feelings so there is not much in the way of neutral descriptions around Dmcq (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither 'homosexualism' nor 'antihomosexualism' appear in the OED. 'Homophobia', in this sense ("Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality"), has been listed since 1993. William Avery (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Origins of term

This section is created to facilitate discussion about the insertion of claims about Weiner's coinage in speech of the term prior to the well-documented origination of usage included in the text. It doesn't matter what Weiner says, whether that is true or false, what matters is what can be shown in verifiable sources. Instead of removing the existing text and replacing it with a POV, this needs to be integrated in a way that does not disrupt the existing links etc. The burden is on the inserter to 'prove' their case, and discuss this here so that editors can come to agreement on how the text needs to be modified (if necessary), not engaging in edit war to force one POV. Persisting in inserting non-consensual POV will inevitably lead to seeking a warning. Mish (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that just because some disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle, it doesn't mean that they fear or hate homosexuals. See Wikipedia's own definition of Phobia. TheLogster (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The article does not mention "lifestyle", in fact I don't think there is a clear concept of "homosexual lifestyle" that would make it clear what such a person was disagreeing with. For example if "I'm not homophobic, I just don't believe that gays should have the same lifestyle rights as straights" were accepted as potentially true then we would also have to accept "I'm no racist, I just don't believe that blacks should have the same lifestyle rights as whites". Ash (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure of the point of this comment. The definitions and origins of the term are clearly set out and comprehensive, all come from reliable sources, and people not liking the term is not relevant. Mish (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand what "Thelogster" is trying to say. What he means, I believe, is that there are many people who are not "fearful" (Phobia) of homosexual, or hate homosexuals, but disagree with the "homosexual lifestyle". People who fit into this category are usually people who are very religious, and believe in loving others. (but feel that they must judge others and apply their own values to others anyway) They think that their religious philosophy condemns "homosexual behavior", and therefore, homosexuals. They wish no animosity towards others, but feel that homosexuality is wrong and sinful. When asked to describe what "homosexual behavior" or "homosexual lifestyle" is they usually describe anal sex, and a lifestyle of non-monogamy looking for as much anal sex as possible. These misconceptions and stereotypes are what drive homophobia.

Of course, homosexuals are people who are born that way, and do not choose their sexual orientation. Homosexuals are not all male, of course. Homosexuals want to love and live with the person of their choice, just like any heterosexual -- it isn't about sex, anal sex or otherwise. The bible condemns sodomites, and not homosexuals. From a Christian point of view, the old testament of the bible is not pertinent today anyway. It is historical in nature, the old laws no longer apply since Christ. Also, most people who perform sodomy are heterosexual, and not homosexual. (regardless of what you define sodomy to be.) The faultiness of the logic "if God abhors anal sex(sodomites) and homosexuality is about anal sex, and therefore God abhors homosexuals" is obvious.

The comments that editors Ash and Mish made are 100% on the money. If you discriminate against a set of people because they are homosexual, you are homophobic, regardless of your rationalizations. Atom (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, homophobia is not a condition treated by psychiatrists; the literal sense no longer applies. Somebody can be homophobic without fearing people who are homosexual, or homosexuality, because the word is used similarly to 'racist', or 'anti-Semitic', or 'Islamophobic'. There has been extensive discussion about how it might not be the ideal term here - but, we are led by the sources, and it is the term that is most widely used to describe certain forms of speech and action directed against people identified as homosexual because they are seen as homosexual. That is one of the beauties of this place, we do not need to have opinions about things, because our opinions are irrelevant; what we do have to have are reliable sources for anything we want to put in an article. Homophobia is such a term. I don't think much of the Blood-libel, or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - but I would fight tooth an nail if anybody tried to remove articles about them simply because they didn't agree with them (or because they did). Mish (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Compomised privacy

An individual's telephone number has been inserted in an edit heading on the article page:

[2]

This ought to be removed ASAP. Does anybody know how we can raise this with an admin to have the edit removed entirely, or the heading edited in a way that the private information is not recorded for ever in the history? Mish (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reported the matter to WP:Oversight. I suggest that if this individual has issues with what is written there, then he or the person he purports to represent contact the encyclopedia directly, and provides evidence for the unsourced addition they wish to insert into the article. Directions can be found here: WP:Contact us. In the mean time, given the article does seem to assign any 'credit' on the basis of existing WP:RS I suggest he refrain from replacing sourced information with unsourced information, and from engaging in an edit war to ensure that the encyclopedia is altered to suit the wishes of an interested party. Mish (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Link 'Broken'

So there was a dangling link that needs some formatting. I changed it slightly, but I'm not sure where the intended link should go. It's this one:

See also: Religion and homosexuality § Religious persecution of homosexuality

.

Blood splattered flag

I do not see how the blood-splattered flag illustration is encyclopedic. (File:Homophobia.jpg) Why is it part of the article?--Knulclunk (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is artistic comment, and the clue is in the name really. "Rainbow flag with dried blood. Against Homophobia. Used in Facebook after the 2009 Tel Aviv gay centre shooting." It symobolises the effect of homophobia, violence against LGBT people. It is in Commons, and seems very appropriate. It is not intended to imply that the homophobe movement uses this to symbolise their activities. Mish (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would we entertain an artistic comment? Was the symbol's use on Facebook widely recognized as an important (sourced) event? There is no mention of the symbol in this article or in the Tel Aviv shooting article. It seems like editorializing to me.--Knulclunk (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You could say that about any piece of artwork in an article recently. It is very difficult to provide illustrations of a concept, such as homphobia - the issues people have about the Phelps image for example. I am sure others won't like the image of two scantily clad women protestors. This seems a fairly neutral image symbolising homophobia compared, say, with an image of a human being who has been kicked to death (for example), and in some ways better than images of protestors who are homophobic or opposed to homophobia. I am sure there will be people who don't like it, and find all sorts of clever reasons why it should be excluded to try and impose their view, but not liking it is not a good reason for excluding it. Mish (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I do think that saying that it's "editorializing" strikes me as inching close to "I don't like it" territory. On the other hand, if we want to add some random work of art to the article, there should be some notability connected to it. How is this photo notable? If it's not, do blood spattered flags regularly show up at rallies and demonstrations on either side of this issue? Is the blood spattered flag a common symbol of some sort of movement associated with the article? There needs to be some kind of objective reason to include it. Henrymrx (t·c) 12:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is very difficult to be objective about aesthetics, it is like ethics, very subjective. The flag is a common symbol, and in this image is spattered with blood, thereby symbolic of homophobia. It is more appropriate in this article than, say, having a rainbow flag not spattered with blood.Mish (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would we use a subjective image in an encyclopedia? What mainstream source claims that this image is symbolic of homophobia?--Knulclunk (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't rocket science to see why a blood-splattered LGBT flag that was used after the slaying of two LGBT activists in tel Aviv is symbolic of homophobia, but I doubt you will find a report in the Times about the symbol. Is this now the standard that has to apply to every image from Commons in every article? That there has to be a reference in a national newspaper or academic paper linking the content of the image to the content of the article? It will be interesting to watch this one play out. Mish (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Mish, I fully understand aesthetics. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-artsy and often pro-fartsy. =) That being said, Wikipedia is not a place for individual artistic expression on the part of editors. Furthermore, you need consensus to keep this image in the article and I don't think you have it. I can see that the image represents what you're talking about, but that doesn't matter. I think it would be a nifty addition to an art gallery, but not an encyclopedia. Henrymrx (t·c) 14:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've replaced it with a more popular symbol.Mish (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Blatanly biased paragraph

Someone added this to the page:

"IF homosexuality were a race, then charges of bigotry would be justified, however there is no absolute evidence to support such a notion. Homosexuality is a human moral choice. It can be turned away from. The modern homosexual movement which insists on the the act of homosexuality being normal is in itself biased, its ranks being filled with homosexuals attempting to justify their acts and their supporters who often make up statistics from whole cloth. While they insist on 'tolerance', they in reality give none to others, attacking them ideologically and defaming and slandering those who disagree with their actions and their assertations of normalcy for their perverse and often deadly sexual practices. Even their choice of terms is incorrect, for homophobia means fear of being the same, not fear of homosexuals. The plain and true fact of the matter is that some people simply do not like homosexuals because of their conduct and sexual practices. There is nothing wrong with such an attitude. It is not possible, given the human condition, to like everyone. The homosexuals and their supporters need to understand this and adjust their thought accordingly, rather than ram their agenda down the throats of others as they are so apt to do."

I have removed this from the page, because it clearly violates Wikipedia's "neautral POV" guidelines. I have posted it here because I think it is a good example of homophobic thinking. -FelliniFan

Thank you, it happens all the time, we appreciate fast removal, thanks, CTJF83 pride 04:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Romans 9 v 13

Why in the photo is Ben Phelps holding up a sign that reads "God Hates Fags" and says Romans 9 v 13? Looked at that verse online and it says "Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What's the all about? Esau wasn't gay! Cls14 (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Who knows, it's the phelps clan, 'nough said. CTJF83 pride 17:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't defend this group at all (nor consider them even Christian), but my guess is that they cited Rom 9:13 to prove that God hates (as opposed to those who say that God only loves.) (EnochBethany (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

Fair point. Still seems odd though, lol Cls14 (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality violation

This article is a blatant violation of editorial neutrality. The term homophobia is obviously a slur word used by persons who favor homosexuality to brand those who oppose homosexuality as mentally ill. It is general knowledge that a phobia is a mental illness, an irrational fear of something normal persons do not fear. One doesn't need to quote the DSM-IV to show that. For neutrality sake, the article must start by stating that the term is a slur word. The term homophobia is analogous to queer for homosexuals.

There is no burden on the objectors to "homophobia" to find another term. The issues are that "homophobia" is a term in the English language and an accurate delineation of its semantic boundaries is required, a delineation which is not essentially polemic.

No proof has been presented that persons who object to homosexuality do so on the basis of a fear, let alone on the basis of an irrational fear. One may as well brand persons who object to polygamy as polygamyphobes. The bases of objecting to homosexuality include belief in the Bible as the Word of God, belief in traditional morality, natural revulsion to the images of homosexual practices, and medical data on the harmfulness of anal/rectal penetration by the penis.(EnochBethany (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

How bout some reliable 3rd party sources to back up your claims....we have them for how it is worded currently CTJF83 pride 05:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation of 3rd parties is a waste of time for that which is common knowledge or immediately intuitive. Which sentence do you find counterintuitive? Do you want a quote on phobia from the DSM-IV? Do you want a reference to a medial article on the hazards of anal sex? I can quote the scripture if you don't admit that persons have been led by reading the Bible to think that homosexuality / sodomy is an abomination (as opposed to having been led to that conclusion out of fear.) Any honest thinker will conclude that "homophobe" is a pejorative term used with polemical intent, a substitute for rational consideration of the subject by attacking the opponent personally, instead of discussing the issue. In fact the very employment of the term is discriminatory (in the negative sense of the word).(EnochBethany (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

It is your responsibility to "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article."

Objections to the term itself are already well covered. AV3000 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, although probably just a WP:SOAPBOX issue. CTJF83 pride 16:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

How about we don't rehash arguments we've had already umpteen times. I suggest you read the arhive pages for this talk page. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The DSM-IV uses the suffix phobia for mental disorders. In order to be a phobia recognized by the DSM-IV a condition must meet three conditions. First, it must be a be definable as a mental disorder, second it must meet the definition of phobia, and third, it must be included under some specific code.

First of all a mental disorder is "a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability( i.e., impairment in on or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one." (p. xxxi)

Persons who object to homosexuality cannot be thereby defined as having any mental disorder by that definition.

Secondly, a phobia is "A persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation (the phobic stimulus) that results in a compelling desire to avoid it." (p. 826)

Those who wish to use the term homophobe have not shown either that the objections to homosexuality are based either on fear or on irrational fear. It is well known that many object to homosexuality based on the Word of God, the Bible (e.g., Romans 1).

Thirdly, there is no such mental illness coded in the DSM-IV as "homophobia."

It is interesting that in point of fact the DSM-II classified homosexuality as a mental disorder itself.(References to DSM-IV-TR).(EnochBethany (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

Complaining and arguing on talk pages is a cheap, lazy way to write an encyclopedia. Go to a library and check out materials about homophobia, then write the article. Unfortunately, that takes an incredible amount of work. Arguing is so much more fun. --Moni3 (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously this entire piece is a soap box propaganda piece, an attempt to advance homosexuality and to put a slur word on those who oppose it.

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." (EnochBethany (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

EnochBethany, you need to take a breath. The article needs work, I acknowledge it. The majority of articles on Wikipedia are a collection of barely coherent thoughts added by dozens or hundreds of individual editors. Most aren't cited to any sources at all.

• You need to make very clear what parts of this article are objectionable using quotes and examples. Then you need to suggest what sources should be used to replace the material in it. They should be sociology or psychology texts, journals, or some other reliable sources. Bible quotes will not accomplish this. The Bible does not address homophobia. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, the NPOV tag that I added to replace your odd formatting will be removed. Most editors will give you 24 hours to make your case before removing the NPOV template and asking an administrator to step in.
• I do not find a place in the article that describes people who object to homosexuality as mentally ill. Thus, I do not understand what you are protesting. --Moni3 (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The suffix phobia implies a mental illness. I supported this from a standard psychiatric diagnostic tool, the DSM-IV, not from the Bible. Kindly read my post before objecting. I cited the Bible to demonstrate that one cannot assume that objections to homosexuality are based on irrational fear. A very common objection is from the Bible. Now it is hoped that you do not have Biblephobia. If you really think that the Bible does not address homosexuality and condemn it, then you need to read it. The employment of the term "homophobia" is a good example of what Romans 1 speaks of when it says, "and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

Actually it is ironic that this piece is in the discrimination section, but is in fact an exercise in discrimination by promulgating the use of a slur word for those who object to homosexuality. All that need be said about "homophobia" is that it is a slur word, an insult word used to attempt to brand opponents of homosexuality as having a mental disorder.[User:EnochBethany|EnochBethany]] (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

I already edited this article in specific places to render the article more neutral. However, someone who wished to insist on continuing the discriminatory slur word usage, erased my changes and termed them vandalism or near vandalism. This article should be rendered neutral and no longer allowed to be an advocacy piece for homosexuality by bad-mouthing opponents. An example of how this article should be revised is found in the Wikipedia article on "Nigger":

"Nigger is a noun in the English language, most notable for its usage in a pejorative context to refer to black people (generally people who were originally from Africa), and also as an informal slang term, among other contexts. It is a common ethnic slur. "

Homophobia is a noun in the English language, most notable for its usage in a pejorative context to refer to those who object to homosexuality (generally people who are of Biblical or traditional morality), and also as an informal slang term in many contexts. It is a common socio-political slur used by liberals and homosexuals for those who oppose homosexuality. The term represents an attempt to deride opponents as having a mental disorder, i.e., a phobia. (EnochBethany (talk))

Actually it is ironic that this piece is in the discrimination section, but is in fact an exercise in discrimination by promulgating the use of a slur word for those who object to homosexuality. All that need be said about "homophobia" is that it is a slur word, an insult word used to attempt to brand opponents of homosexuality as having a mental disorder.

(EnochBethany (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

I already edited this article in specific places to render the article more neutral. However, someone who wished to insist on continuing the discriminatory slur word usage, erased my changes and termed them vandalism or near vandalism. This article should be rendered neutral and no longer allowed to be an advocacy piece for homosexuality by bad-mouthing opponents. An example of how this article should be revised is found in the Wikipedia article on "Nigger":

"Nigger is a noun in the English language, most notable for its usage in a pejorative context to refer to black people (generally people who were originally from Africa), and also as an informal slang term, among other contexts. It is a common ethnic slur. "

Homophobia is a noun in the English language, most notable for its usage in a pejorative context to refer to those who object to homosexuality (generally people who are of Biblical or traditional morality), and also as an informal slang term in many contexts. It is a common socio-political slur used by liberals and homosexuals for those who oppose homosexuality. The term represents an attempt to deride opponents as having a mental disorder, i.e., a phobia.(EnochBethany (talk))

If you are protesting the entire concept of homophobia, that is not a valid reason to tag the article with a NPOV template. Scholars have written reliable sources to say that some people become irrationally angry when facing issues of homosexuality. They have named this reaction homophobia. Wikipedia has not named it, nor does Wikipedia espouse any theory over any other. Wikipedia is merely a mirror that reflects the research and writing that already exists. Our job is to read the sources that have already been published about topics and represent the published literature neutrally. You seem to be suggesting this article should not exist because you find the research and publication history about the topic offensive. That's unfortunate, but more importantly, it's an invalid protest to what this article addresses.

Again, if you cannot or will not provide specific examples of what should be changed in the article, with reliable sources to back up your claims, the NPOV template will be removed. Personally, I think reading the best sources about the topic will put your mind at ease about what psychologists and sociologists actually say about homophobia. I don't say that lightly. I do that often. If I am disturbed by something, I read as much as I can about it and quite often end up rewriting articles to reflect what I have learned. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you really think that the Bible does not address homosexuality and condemn it, then you need to read it. The employment of the term "homophobia" is a good example of what Romans 1 speaks of when it says, "and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." (EnochBethany (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

I said the Bible does not address homophobia, which is logical as the term "homophobia" was created in 1969. Using the Bible to address homophobia is inappropriate because it does not cover homophobia. Sources about homophobia should be used for this article. I acknowledge that homosexuality is covered overtly and covertly in several instances in the Bible.

It is not clear to me that you understand the purpose of Wikipedia. There are sometimes disturbing and offensive topics. That does not mean that they should not receive scholarly treatments and explain to readers what they are about. Learning more about disturbing topics tends to remove the element of unpleasantness. And Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. --Moni3 (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"If you are protesting the entire concept of homophobia, that is not a valid reason to tag the article with a NPOV template"

I am protesting the use of a slur word to attack opponents of homosexuality as mentally ill. That is a valid NPOV protest.

Suppose someone made an article on "nigger" and proceeded not to identify the term as a racist slur word, but to explore the various nuances of the alleged inferiority of black persons. Should that be tolerate

"Scholars have written reliable sources to say that some people become irrationally angry when facing issues of homosexuality. They have named this reaction homophobia. "

What is your proof that scholars came up with this term instead of proponents of homosexuality who were looking for a pejorative term to hurl at their opponents? A phobia essentially is not an anger, but a persistent, irrational fear. So if a person alleges to be a scholar, but defines a phobia in terms of anger, his scholarship may be dismissed.

"Wikipedia has not named it, nor does Wikipedia espouse any theory over any other. Wikipedia is merely a mirror that reflects the research and writing that already exists."

The use and legitimization of "homophobia" is the espousal of the theory that persons who oppose homosexuality are mentally ill. A legitimate definition of the term must acknowledge up front that the term is a pejorative slur word. What is your proof that "homophobia" comes from research and not from polemical interests?

"You seem to be suggesting this article should not exist because you find the research and publication history about the topic offensive."

Straw man argument; I never said that. What I do say is that the term is a slur word without basis as I have demonstrated from the DSM-IV. The term "homophobia" is not a research based term, but a judgmental and demeaning term. It is a cheap attempt to win a debate by defining the vocabulary in advance.

"That's unfortunate,"

What is unfortunate that you think erecting a straw man proves something.

"it's an invalid protest to what this article addresses"

The assignment of a slur word to one's opponents position is obviously invalid.

"Again, if you cannot or will not provide specific examples of what should be changed in the article"

I already did that, by giving an example from the Wikipedia "Nigger" Article, and by extensively revising the article to make it neutral. That is on record. A pejorative insult word should not be transformed into a representation of objective truth, but recognized for what it is.

"with reliable sources to back up your claims" Common knowledge is a valid source, so is the DSM-IV.

"I think reading the best sources about the topic will put your mind at ease about what psychologists and sociologists actually say about homophobia. "

Talking down to one's opponent establishes nothing, assuming what I haven't read. Also "put your mind at ease" is a patronizing impropriety in a this serious discussion. I hold a graduate degree in counseling and am a licensed counselor. I have done reading. The DSM-IV establishes what a phobia is and demonstrates that the term is invalid as a description of those who oppose homosexuality. The only appropriate treatment of the word is as the slur word that it is.

"If I am disturbed by something, I read as much as I can about it and quite often end up rewriting articles to reflect what I have learned."

Patronizing; invalid argument. As long as you wish to advise me on reading, turn about is fair play: Try reading the Word of God. The entrance of God's word brings light. It also delivers from fear. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

"said the Bible does not address homophobia, which is logical as the term "homophobia" was created in 1969."

The issue is not what English word was created when, since the Bible is written in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. The semantic territory is covered as I indicated.

"Using the Bible to address homophobia is inappropriate because it does not cover homophobia. "

It is not inappropriate since the contention is that there is this phobia, a mental disorder, that accounts for opposition to homosexuality. Since the Bible opposes it and persons are motivated by the Bible rather than fear, it is appropriate to refer to the Bible as the source of opposition, as opposed to fear.

"Sources about homophobia should be used for this article."

What we are dealing with is a slur word. So I suppose one can refer to sources on slur words; however, we all are sources on the subject, since we all hear them and can recognize them, unless we are retarded.

" Learning more about disturbing topics tends to remove the element of unpleasantness."

It is never going to be pleasant to have a slur word treated as a legitimate term for one's position, particularly when the slur word asserts a falsehood, so easily recognizable by considering objectively what a phobia is. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

Another opinion:

"This being said, homophobia, using -phobia, has a connotation of irrational fear, or, in this occasion, hatred. Hote the "irrational", since there is large amount of people who don't love pro-gay laws and have perfectly logical reasons for that, but noo, nobody cares about this connotation. Because homophobia is a journalist slur and nothing else." [3](EnochBethany (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

Another opinion:

"Here's one of my least-favorite words:

• Homophobia -- dislike of homosexuality or of becoming homosexual. (This word has become a common political term, and many people interpret it as a slur.)

Interpreted as a slur? No, that word was invented as a slur. When I first heard it, I assumed it was the clinical term for what an older generation called "homosexual dread" -- the fear of turning out to be gay. But no, it was a deliberate slur term that conflated fear of with opposition to." -- B.K. Marcus, amateur political economist [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnochBethany (talk • contribs) 02:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

After spending four years here at Wikipedia, it's quite simply true that your criticisms are invalid without reliable sources that refute what the article says in its current state. I've stated the reasons and they may seem patronizing and straw man to you, but to the Wikipedia community they are well-known and a significant part of the policies here, and this argument has taken place on dozens of article talk pages for topics that many people have found offensive. It is unfortunate that you are not understanding or appreciating what I am saying. I'm not discounting your opinion. Your opinion or mine simply do not belong on Wikipedia. If you are unable to grasp or accept that, Wikipedia may not be for you. But pragmatically, it seems the NPOV template should be removed from this article. You and anyone else are welcome to improve this article, however, using the best possible sources that address the topic.

A tip for the future: it is very difficult to track and read your replies. On Wikipedia, editors use a colon to indent their replies, and keep it short and small in space. Spreading it out over greater space makes it more difficult to read. More than one colon will indent paragraphs further. --Moni3 (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"it's quite simply true that your criticisms are invalid"

Your declaration that my criticisms are invalid" is an invalid response to my criticisms. Just because you say so proves nothing. What is your proof that my criticisms are invalid?

"without reliable sources"

When did the DSM-IV become an unreliable source? Aside from the DSM-IV, unless you are a partisan with an agenda, you should be able to detect a slur word by personal observation. Aside from the DSM-IV, it is obvious that a pejorative, polemic term, which constitutes a lack of neutrality, except when it is defined as a slur word. The Bible also is a reliable source for evaluating the motivation of persons for condemning homosexuality on grounds other than fear.

"that refute what the article says in its current state."

It is the reading of the article which manifests that it is not neutral. The lack of neutrality is there for all to see.

"they may seem patronizing and straw man to you,"

They were in fact patronizing and straw man. And to that extent fallacious. You posted "if I am disturbed by something, I read" -- now what does that prove on our topic? And you posted, "You seem to be suggesting this article should not exist because you find the research and publication history about the topic offensive." That is straw man, since I never said that.

"Your opinion or mine simply do not belong on Wikipedia."

If that is the case, then this article has to go; because it is opinion and more than than a discriminatory attack on persons who object to homosexuality.

"Wikipedia may not be for you."

Are you the owner of Wikipedia to tell me that?

"But pragmatically, it seems the NPOV template should be removed from this article. You and anyone else are welcome to improve this article, however, using the best possible sources that address the topic."

Since the neutrality is not merely challenged, but the lack of neutrality manifest for all to see, the logical result would be to remove the article or use my replacement for it, which is neutral. It is not a requirement that someone else write an article to replace an erroneous article. If an article is erroneous it should be removed for being untrue. The argument: "Well, we won't remove the erroneous article because you haven't written one yourself," is fallacious.(EnochBethany (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

References

Long section of references collapsed for ease of reading

:Since a request was made for 3rd party references, I will supply some which confirm that this homophobia canard is not neutral, but a propaganda exercise to support homosexuality by cornering the dictionary. However, the article speaks for itself as non-neutral and intelligent persons should be able to see that without the "Who shot Cock Robin?" Here you go: 1 "Hoplophobia, Homophobia and Political Correctness" by Helen Smith, forensic psychologist in Knoxville, Tennessee "However, I do have a problem with the word 'homophobia'. The etymology of this verbal bomb/Orwellian wall come from the Greek language. 'Homo' means same whereas in Latin it means 'man'or 'human being'. 'phobos' means 'fear' or 'fright' Well, the reality is that I don't know anyone who is afraid of the 'same' or those who love the 'same.' However, I am an individual that rejects that social and sexual phenomenon. I also believe it is an intrinsically disordered lifestyle---and I make no apologies. These semantical games have been going on for too long in the West and I will say it again----if we truly live in a Plurality wherein 'tolerance' is the goal or standard then we must also tolerate intolerance for if we do not then our tolerance is Orwellian newspeak for uniformity of thought, speach and society.[5] 2 "I'd like to get rid of the word 'homophobia' too. It muddles more than it clarifies, and it almost always sounds accusatory rather than descriptive." --Louie Crew [6] 3 The Washington Blade http://www.washingtonblade.com/ No fear factor in 'homophobia,' study claims Researchers say anti-gay prejudice rooted in disgust, . . . ." By KEITH TAYLOR FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. -- "Call it what you will, but hostility toward gay men and lesbians is not homophobia, University of Arkansas researchers concluded in a new study. "The word "homophobia," commonly used to describe anti-gay prejudice, is technically a misnomer, the researchers reported in early June. Homophobia is not actually a fear, and therefore it should not be "pathologized," or treated as a disease would be treated, said doctoral student Bunmi Olatunji, lead author of the study. University of Arkansas researchers were able to demonstrate through statistical analysis that the concept usually described as "homophobia" originates from feelings of disgust, Olatunji said in a telephone interview Tuesday. A true phobia is derived from fear or anxiety, he said. Bunmi Olatunji, lead author of a University of Arkansas study on the word 'homophobia,' says the term is often used inaccurately when describing prejudice. University of Arkansas Psychology Department 216 Memorial Hall Fayetteville, AR 72701 479-575-4256 www.uark.edu/depts/psyc American Psychological Society 1010 Vermont Avenue, NW, -- Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005-4907 202-783-2077 [7] 4 "This being said, homophobia, using -phobia, has a connotation of irrational fear, or, in this occasion, hatred. Hote the "irrational", since there is large amount of people who don't love pro-gay laws and have perfectly logical reasons for that, but noo, nobody cares about this connotation. Because homophobia is a journalist slur and nothing else." [8] 5 "Here's one of my least-favorite words: • "Homophobia -- dislike of homosexuality or of becoming homosexual. (This word has become a common political term, and many people interpret it as a slur.) Interpreted as a slur? No, that word was invented as a slur. When I first heard it, I assumed it was the clinical term for what an older generation called "homosexual dread" -- the fear of turning out to be gay. But no, it was a deliberate slur term that conflated fear of with opposition to." -- B.K. Marcus, amateur political economist [9] 6 "By the same token, we have been called homophobes because we wish to maintain traditional marriage as between one man and one woman. These two slurs are Politically Correct, encouraged and even cheered." [10] 7 'No one can doubt this if they have lived through the redefinition of ordinary distaste for homosexual life and activity as "homophobia." Since "homophobia" has been found in the mainstream of virtually all human cultures, this was an extraordinary project, not executed without considerable bullying and dissimulation' "The use of "homophobia" as a slur, at any rate, has had the intended effect." Colby Cosh, The Free Public Library by Farley [11] 8 The Canadian Sentinel FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2010 "Homophobia" was obviously . . . made up to bash Christians,. . . ." [12] 9 "So, in all seriousness - what do you mean when you call someone a homophobe - what are you suggesting they are afraid of? "Or, is it just a vague, derisive slur, meant to generally discount someone's words, actions or views, in the absence of the ability to clearly articulate what is actually wrong with those words, actions or views?"[13] "By labeling opposition to such behavior a phobia, "gay rights" activists create the impression that it is a given that opposition to homosexual behavior is a psychological disorder." Gerald Lamb[14] 10 "Oct 26, 2009 ... The word homophobia was invented by PR people in the gay movement. ... [mashable.com/2009/10/26/larry-johnson-twitter/ -"] 11 "I'm not homophobic--I have no fear of your type, only contempt." [15] 12 AllExperts Homophobia: Encyclopedia "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 (see LGBT social movements). Critics of the term have often alleged that it creates a climate of intimidation by demonizing one side of the debate. "There is also considerable debate over the term's usage as a label for opponents of certain categories of social policy, with the debate centering upon the question of whether such opposition is a legitimate moral stance or indefensible discrimination, and whether or not there are reasons other than fear and misunderstanding that might justify such positions. As in cases such as the Santorum controversy, many have alleged that the term is often used as a means of demonizing and silencing political opponents without regard to their actual motives; those on the other side of the debate argue that the motives in such cases are always connected with bigotry or fear."[16] 13 "The word ‘Homophobia’ is a lie, since it implies that a normal respect for decency is a mental disorder. (Unless you use it to mean pathological fear of being alone, its original meaning). This word is a masterpiece of lying, and we should pause a moment to admire the breathtaking insolence involved. Crazy people dismiss sane people as insane . . . . " -- John C. Wright, Live Journal[17] 14 "Who dreamed up the word "homophobia"? A phobia is a fear. I'm not afraid of homosexuals. On the contrary, the manner in which they engage in sex is disgusting. And don't tell me it's normal. It isn't. "For you liberal idiots out there, here's a newsflash...there is no such thing as a homophobe. You're either with them (few, thank goodness) or against them (most of America). But no one is afraid of them, which is what the term suggests. I am not afraid of any gay, but I sure am against their lifestyle which goes against everything the Bible says about how we should live our lives. Not afraid, just opposed!" [18] 15 "I think it should be mentioned that there are pejorative words that are still in popular use despite their offensiveness, including the word homophobia." [19] 16 "Fair enough; I'm not involved in a campaign to equate "homophobia" with the "n" word. I do think they are both almost always slurs, and are not conducive to reasoned conversation." [20] 17 "I get tired of people using the word homophobia. A phobia is a fear of something. It doesn't mean hate of something." [21] 18 "I must disagree with Marc W. about the similarity of the issue raised by EV with the misuse of the word "homophobe." That word is much more newly-coined than the ancient language usage of the "lion's share" phrase. It was adopted by gay rights activists to use as a slur against anybody who opposed gay marriage, legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation, and other policy matters which have nothing to do with being "afraid" of gay people. But the purveyors of the word wanted to label their political opponents in a particular way, and they chose that word to do it. They do indeed intend to imply that anybody opposing them is merely afraid of gay people and gay sex. That they have chosen to use the word does not require the rest of us to acquiesce to its use or accuracy." [22] 19 'Saxeville Bob, the word "phobia" means to have an irrational reaction to something. People who use the word "homophobia" are trying to deny that there can be principled reasons of disagreement about issues regarding homosexuality. In other words, if I were to have principled reasons of disagreement regarding whether or not it is right to engage in homosexual activity, your response would be to call me "irrational, or hateful"? [23] 20 "Might I suggest that the term "homophobia" is incorrect, and in most cases is used dishonestly. "A phobia is an irrational and intense fear, which is not the reaction that most of us have towards homosexuality. "Disgust" is a more appropriate word.... but whichever term one uses to describe a strong preference for avoiding the appearance of aberrant behaviour, let's not abuse straight men by wrongly accusing them of an irrational fear." "Homophobia is continually used as a propaganda term. The inference being that it is silly and irrational to object to homosexuality." [24] 21 Dishonest Words By David Friedman "Consider first the case of "homophobia." In current usage, it is applied to any negative view of homsexuals or homosexuality, whatever its source. Thus, for instance, someone who is opposed to homosexual activity because his minister told him that the bible says it is wicked would routinely be labelled homophobic. "A phobia is an irrational fear. It is occasionally argued that the source of negative views of homosexuality is the fear that one might have homosexual inclinations, but it is a considerable stretch to claim that source for all negative views. It seems obvious that some people are opposed to homsexuality because they think their religion condemns it, some because they think it has bad consequences, and some for any of a variety of other reasons. Labelling all of them "homophobic" is a way of (falsely) implying a single cause for the conclusion--and, by doing so, attempting to stigmatize all those who hold it and dismiss all possible reasons they might have." [25] Thanks to the one who suggested the use of the colon. (EnochBethany (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

Enoch, you've got a lot here, but most of it seems to be less than reliable sources. Your basic argument seems to be that you don't like the etymology of the term. Without getting into a huge discussion of prescriptivism versus descriptivism, how any of us want a term to be used isn't really relevant. How it is used is what we're talking about here. In short, etymology isn't meaning. Let me give you another example using a similar term. By your argument, antisemitism shouldn't be used to describe hated of Jews. After all, Arabs are Semites and there are certainly antisemitic Arabs in the world. That doesn't matter, since the word has come to mean hatred of Jews and is not used to describe discrimination against other Semitic peoples. Even if the word doesn't make sense when you break it down, that breakdown is irrelevant. The actual documented use of the word is what is important. Henrymrx (t·c) 05:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"most of it seems to be less than reliable sources."

Since when are the DSM-IV and the psychologist quoted less than reliable? If you speak of phobias, what higher source do you have than the DSM-IV? Or are you familiar with the DSM-IV?

"Your basic argument seems to be that you don't like the etymology of the term."

"Straw man argument. I never said that. Why not respond to the substance rather than put words in my mouth? The facts are that opposition to homosexuality is not a phobia. To call it that is using a slur word.

"how any of us want a term to be used isn't really relevant"

More straw man; that was never my words. However, it seems clear that the reason why the term is used is that homosexuals want a term, they want a pejorative term to throw at the opposition.

"In short, etymology isn't meaning."

I never said it was. However, the suffix phobia obviously has been added for polemical purpose.

Next you went off on Jews and Antisemitism, red herring. Antisemitism does not depend upon a negative meaning in its suffix for its power.

"The actual documented use of the word is what is important."

"What is more documented than the pejorative nature of homophobia? It is obviously a slur word depending upon it suffix to accuse opponents of homosexuality of having a mental disorder. All the citations I gave, and there could be many more, demonstrate that to pretend the term is not a slur word is to abandon neutrality.(EnochBethany (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

I said: "most of it seems to be less than reliable sources."

You said: "Since when are the DSM-IV and the psychologist quoted less than reliable?"

I didn't say that they weren't. I said most of what you cited isn't reliable. Since you're not disputing that, I take it that you agree? Do you withdraw those "sources"?

I said: "Your basic argument seems to be that you don't like the etymology of the term."

You said: "Straw man argument. I never said that. Why not respond to the substance rather than put words in my mouth? The facts are that opposition to homosexuality is not a phobia. To call it that is using a slur word."

You may not have used the term etymology, but that's exactly what you're criticizing. It's not a straw man if the summation is accurate.

I said: "how any of us want a term to be used isn't really relevant"

You said: "More straw man; that was never my words. However, it seems clear that the reason why the term is used is that homosexuals want a term, they want a pejorative term to throw at the opposition."

"it seems clear" based on... what? Your opinion? Other opinions? You feel that the term is used in a pejorative way. Fine. There's already a section on that in the article. And again, it's clear (based on what you've said) that you don't like how homophobia is used, so my summary is not a straw man.

I said: "In short, etymology isn't meaning."

You said: "I never said it was. However, the suffix phobia obviously has been added for polemical purpose."

What basis do you have for stating that it was added for a polemical purpose? If you have a reliable source that documents that this is true and the word really was coined for such a purpose, we can add it to the article.

You said: "Next you went off on Jews and Antisemitism, red herring. Antisemitism does not depend upon a negative meaning in its suffix for its power."

That was not intended as a red herring. I was trying to explain something by drawing a parallel to a similar word. I wasn't attacking you. I was trying to educate you.

I said: "The actual documented use of the word is what is important."

You said: "What is more documented than the pejorative nature of homophobia?"

I don't think it's well-documented at all. The burden is on you to prove that it is and you need better sources. The DSM defines phobias, but it isn't a dictionary.

You said: "It is obviously a slur word depending upon it suffix to accuse opponents of homosexuality of having a mental disorder."

That's your opinion. You need to back it up with reliable sources. I do understand the objection to the use of the term. There's already a section documenting that in the article. You have not provided suitable reliable sources to back up your rather broad statement. Henrymrx (t·c) 07:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I said: "most of it seems to be less than reliable sources." You said: "Since when are the DSM-IV and the psychologist quoted less than reliable?" I didn't say that they weren't. I said most of what you cited isn't reliable. Since you're not disputing that, I take it that you agree? Do you withdraw those "sources"?

"ANSWER:

No, the sources reliably illustrate that homophobia is a slur word and widely recognized as such.

I said: "Your basic argument seems to be that you don't like the etymology of the term." You said: "Straw man argument. I never said that. Why not respond to the substance rather than put words in my mouth? The facts are that opposition to homosexuality is not a phobia. To call it that is using a slur word." You may not have used the term etymology, but that's exactly what you're criticizing. It's not a straw man if the summation is accurate.

ANSWER

No, I do not criticize etymology. Etymology concerns diachronic linguistics. What I criticize is the synchronic linguistics. It is not the history of what the suffix -phobia used to mean at issue, but its present meaning as a productive suffix implying irrational fear and mental disorder.

I said: "how any of us want a term to be used isn't really relevant" You said: "More straw man; that was never my words. However, it seems clear that the reason why the term is used is that homosexuals want a term, they want a pejorative term to throw at the opposition." " that you don't like how homophobia is used, so my summary is not a straw man"

ANSWER:

It is a straw man, since I never said that the basis of my objection was how I wanted the term to be used. The objection is how the term is used, obviously as a slur word. What I like is not the issue, it is definition of the term without including the fact that it is an attempt to attribute mental disorder and irrational fear those who oppose homosexuality.

I said: "In short, etymology isn't meaning." You said: "I never said it was. However, the suffix phobia obviously has been added for polemical purpose." What basis do you have for stating that it was added for a polemical purpose? If you have a reliable source that documents that this is true and the word really was coined for such a purpose, we can add it to the article.

ANSWER:

What convinces that the term is polemical is 1) the documented inaccuracy of the term (DSM-IV) and 2) the direct observation of how it is used by any observer. If someone calls another person "f-g--t," this action can be immediately observed as the use a slur word. There is no necessity to find a book written and quote it to prove the point.

You said: "Next you went off on Jews and Antisemitism, red herring. Antisemitism does not depend upon a negative meaning in its suffix for its power." That was not intended as a red herring. I was trying to explain something by drawing a parallel to a similar word. I wasn't attacking you. I was trying to educate you.

ANSWER:

Antisemitism is a red herring since it is not similar. If we were discussing "antihomosexuality" it would be similar.

"I was trying to educate you." Do you think that talking down established your credibility?

I said: "The actual documented use of the word is what is important." You said: "What is more documented than the pejorative nature of homophobia?" I don't think it's well-documented at all. The burden is on you to prove that it is and you need better sources. The DSM defines phobias, but it isn't a dictionary.

ANSWER:

That homophobia is pejorative should be obvious to any intelligent person. You may as well argue that one has a burden to prove that the sky is blue. The article on Wikipedia illustrates very well that the term is pejorative. Or are you saying that to label someone as having homophobia is not to label someone negatively?

You said: "It is obviously a slur word depending upon it suffix to accuse opponents of homosexuality of having a mental disorder." That's your opinion. You need to back it up with reliable sources.

ANSWER

Since is it well-known that a phobia is a mental disorder, no back up is needed; this is common knowledge. However, I did back it up very well.

(EnochBethany (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Someone has been vandalizing my contributions to the article on Homophobia. The entire article is a soap box, yet one reverter told me I was on a soap box. My contributions have attempted to neutralize a discriminatory and false characterization of persons who oppose homosexuality. Every time that the reverter reverted, I have rewritten my contribution so as to be even more neutral. I have never simply reverted. The revertings of my contribution have been against the need for consensus before such a change is made. My last contribution simply began the article as follows:

Homophobia is viewed by many as essentially a slur word falsely attributing irrational fear as the motive for those who oppose homosexuality. Those who wish to use this term regarded by many as pejorative and polemical may allege as follows:

Kindly cease and desist from vandalizing my contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnochBethany (talk • contribs) 06:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing like we have, is in no way vandalism. You say many, but only give one example, of something that can't readily be checked, as I don't have that book lying around. CTJF83 pride 06:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All the references I gave should be easily checkable. The DSM-IV is the standard "Bible" of psychiatric diagnosis. You should be able to find it on line. If you go to the DSM-5 project site, you should find both the DSM-IV and the DSM-5. You should find a link from the Wikipedia article. Since this is such a standard reference book the full title is not necessary, but it is The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The latest edition is the 4th, the 5th is in progress but not out yet. The abbreviation DSM-IV-TR refers to the latest text revision of the 4th edition. However, my basic contention that Homophobia is a slur word really is something that any intelligent person should perceive by how it is used. (EnochBethany (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

Are you being serious with your 21 sources above, or is this some kind of joke? Clearly you haven't read WP:RS, noone cares what random people think of the the term homophobia, these random people are in no way reliable, for any inclusion as a reference to anything. CTJF83 pride 06:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Two points. You have provided lots of sources about people who don't like the term. For them not to like it means that it exists, and they don't like it. Oh look... we have a section about that already. That is neutrality. The sources say what it means, and we include sources about the criticisms as well. Job done - nothing to do. The religious stuff is a red-herring. The definition is clear, from multiple reliable sources, and if people who are opposed to homosexuality do not conform to the definition, then they are not homophobic - so religious opposition is not necessarily homophobic. It can be, when it incites violence, is motivated by irrational fear, or discriminates - but when it doesn't, it isn't homophobia. So, I'm not sure what the issue is here. People are free to oppose homosexuality and not be labelled homophic, as long as they don't engage in homophobia. Mish (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think one of EnochBethany's main concerns is that often the term homophobia is used in a pejorative way. This is mentioned in section 2.2. Do we want to address this in the lead paragraph?--Knulclunk (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess we could say something very brief along the lines of how there are people who are opposed to homosexuality who consider the term homophobia to be derogatory. Nothing undue though. Mish (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, we can't. We only mirror what reliable sources say. Too many of these controversial articles have content filled to appease noisy editors or end arguments on talk pages. That's not verifiable and it certainly isn't reliable. If a reliable source addresses how some people are offended by the term, then use the source, but don't make decisions about what goes in the article just to shut someone up or make friends. --Moni3 (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not how we construct articles - we do not decide on what goes in the lead on the basis of whether we like somebody or not. We go by what is in the text of the article. If the article deals with criticism of the term, and this is supported by sources that are deemed good enough to have this in the article, then there is no reason why it not be mentioned in the lead. We have such a section Homophobia#Criticism of meaning and purpose that predates the recent soapboxing, and if that is sourced well enough to include in the article, I see no issue why it not be mentioned in the lead; however, if it is not sourced well enough to be in the article at all, that is a different matter, and its removal from the article should be discussed here.Mish (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Random section break

Regarding Mish's comment above: There is no such thing as non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality; that is a contradiction in terms.

EnochBethany's concerns are ones that come up periodically on this article; I see no reason to rehash them constantly. S/he should be directed to read the articles and the relevant policies about POV pushing. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We disagree then. I guess where I live religious freedoms are finely balanced against freedom of sexual orientation - with homophobic discrimination, prejudice and incitement to hatred are subject to legal sanction. However, people of faith (which is often based on a different form of irrational fear) can be opposed to homosexual practice, which is fine as long as they do not express (or act upon) that opposition in ways that would be detrimental, discriminatory or incite hatred. Similarly, people are not allowed to express their opposition to their religion in such ways either. Mish (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That opposition to homosexuality, whether or not acted upon, is religiously-based does not make it any less homophobia. Those who have those religiously-based beliefs are free to hold them; homophobia per se is not illegal anywhere that I know of. But since homophobic beliefs do not require any particular action to qualify as homophobia, I'm not sure what the last part of your paragraph means. People are of course free to hold anti-religious views and (in many but not all countries) are free to express those views. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear. Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of a non-heterosexual orientation."

So, simply stating that one believes homosexuality to be wrong on the basis of one's interpretation of religious dogma is not of itself homophobic. Going on to work towards ensuring homosexuals are treated as second-class citizens by denying them equal rights, or inciting hatred and violence - that would be homophobia - but not all (Christian) religious groups opposed to homosexuality do this. Mish (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're misinterpreting what is written in our article. Go to the sources and you'll see that action is not a prerequisite for homophobia. Homophobia refers to "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" according to similar wording in all the sources cited. Religiously-based aversion/disapproval of homosexuals/homosexuality is homophobia by definition, regardless of whether the given religious follower works to deny gay people rights, attacks gay people, or incites violence against them. According to one of the sources used for this article, homophobia is like racism; surely you agree that simply having the belief that some people are inferior based solely on their physical characteristics constitutes racism? You don't have to lynch someone to be a racist, just like you don't have to be sexually active to be gay or straight, and you don't have to throw eggs at marchers in pride parades to be a homophobe. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Are you being serious with your 21 sources above"

Do you suppose that scoffing refutes sources? The sources include the DSM-IV and a psychologist. The sources clearly demonstrate that "homophobia" is widely regarded as a slur word. But the most convincing proof to any intelligent and non-polemical advocate is their own immediate observation of the use of the term, coupled with their knowledge that a phobia is an irrational fear and a mental disorder. The term obviously is an attempt to demonize the opposition with a slur word.

"is this some kind of joke?"

How can drawing attention to a slur word be a joke?

"noone [sic] cares what random people think of the the term homophobia"

How do you know that no one cares about what these people think? Do you maintain that those people are not samples of what many think and do you deny that they indeed care a lot? Or does "noone" [sic] imply that to you anyone outside your circle is a no one?

"these random people are in no way reliable"

What is your proof that they are random? What is your proof that they are in no way reliable? If homosexuals write books and articles about "homophobia" and then quote each other, does that make them reliable? Do you actually deny that homophobia is a pejorative polemical slur word? Do you have a reliable source to disprove that?

'we have a section about that already. That is neutrality."

How can a term which falsely attacks persons who object to homosexuality by inferring that they have a mental disorder, a phobia, be neutral?

"The sources say what it mean"

Are you saying that because you have pro-homosexual sources which advocate some meaning therefore it is valid? You may have sources that approve of what you want the term to mean so that you can use it as a tool in demonizing the opposition, but that doesn't make your sources correct. To validate the term you must show that in fact opposition to homosexuality is a mental disorder of the type, "irrational fear."

It is easy to demonstrate that opposition to homosexuality has a basis other than in irrational fear, for example, it has a basis in the Bible which condemns men lying with men as an abomination, e.g., Lev 18:22 " You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

"The definition is clear,"

The definition is indeed clearly polemical. The article should start with the statement that homophobia is a slur word and an attempt to brand the opposition to homosexuality as a mental disorder, as well as a misnomer.

How do you know that the sources are reliable? Of course pro-homosexuals can write articles and books and quote each other. What does that prove except that there is an agenda?

" I'm not sure what the issue is here"

Strange that you don't understand that the issue is the validation of a slur word which falsely attributes a mental disorder to the opposition for polemical purposes.

"We only mirror what reliable sources say."

Are you sure that you are not mirroring what polemicists say? What is reliable about these sources, except that they want to establish a slur word?

"This is not how we construct article"

It is to be hoped that an article is constructed on the basis of truth.

If one wishes to validate a "phobia" as anything besides a slur word, then the validation must show that in fact there exists an irrational fear.

But an attempt at such a validation will be polemical.

The subject of a debate which could be objectively chronicled as such, in which case the article would be retitled, "The Debate on Homophobia," with equal space given to both sides; i.e., neutrality.

(I am at a loss to understand 1) how the boxes appeared in the format of this page and 2) why one message goes off to the right off the pages.) (EnochBethany (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

"Regarding Mish's comment above: There is no such thing as non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality; that is a contradiction in terms."

That very comment illustrates the essentially polemical basis of the term homophobia. It is an attempt to establish a POV by word magic definition.

"S/he should be directed to read the articles and the relevant policies about POV pushing."

This article consists of a POV push. That is a good reason to eliminate it or to reconstruct it as describing a slur word.

'I guess where I live religious freedoms are finely balanced against freedom of sexual orientation - with homophobic discrimination, prejudice and incitement to hatred are subject to legal sanction."

Sounds like you have neither freedom or religion or speech. What you seem to have is the freedom to persecute persons who have beliefs which are politically incorrect.

"that would be homophobia"

The only thing that could be deemed homophobia would be an irrational fear as a sort of mental disorder. Your statement illustrates very well that you wish to have this term in order to advance your polemics.(EnochBethany (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Collapsed off-topic discussion for readability

A question that I have is whether or not in fact homosexuals control Wikipedia and use it to drive the homosexual agenda. I came across this on the internet: "Is Wikipedia designed by a homosexual? "Yes, designed by 3 . . . , Ashley Harrison, Nell Henderson, and Bethan Bowker-Farrell" Is that true, or just an internet joke?(EnochBethany (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)) Wikipedia is part of the Homosexual agenda? No! Careful, people will think you are paranoid (an irrational fear, oddly enough)... Mish (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC) As I said, I came across this question and answer on the internet. I seriously would like an answer from someone who knows (and if you don't know, please don't hide the question by a non-answer or another snide remark about myself. "Is Wikipedia designed by a homosexual? "Yes, designed by 3 . . . , Ashley Harrison, Nell Henderson, and Bethan Bowker-Farrell" Is that true, or just an internet joke? (EnochBethany (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Random break

WP:DISCUSS WP:SOAP - this is not the place for such discussion. The sources are clear, we often get people trying to change the sourced definitions here, then say it isn't what it has been changed to, and then delete the content - the sources are clear. Just because you don't happen to like it is not a reason to change the content to suit you and your crusade. As you note, we do have freedom of speech, and this is how homophobia is constructed, whether you like it or not. Please stop trying to disrupt this article. Mish (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"It is to be hoped that an article is constructed on the basis of truth."

I see your problem:

WP:TRUTH "Truth is not the criteria for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Wikipedia:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

Sometimes we have different understandings about what truth is - for example, people hold irrational beliefs, and consider these to be the truth - It is not our place to determine whether things are true or false, but to report on what is contained in reliable sources. So, we have plenty of articles about people's irrational beliefs, but do not consider whether they are true or false; similar for Hitler, we have articles about him, but not whether he was a right or wrong, good or bad. If there is a problem with "homophobia", they are not stupid, they will see this - especially as we include a section on the problems that have been raised about its suitability. Mish (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

" The sources are clear,"

Nothing is clear except that the article is a non-neutral soap box. Of course those who wish to establish a convenient slur word can refer to each other's articles and books.

"you don't happen to like it is not a reason to change the content"

I never said it was. What I say is that the piece is defective for not recognizing a slur word for what it is, and for not recognizing that the word constitutes slander and demonizing of those opposed to homosexuality.

"your crusade."

This is not my crusade. I came across this blatant discriminatory attempt to advance the homosexual agenda and objected to it on the ground of its error.

"we do have freedom of speech"

We seem to have freedom of speech for those who wish to demonize one POV. Those who are demonized don't have equal freedom of speech.

"this is how homophobia is constructed"

No, this is how homophobia is misconstructed by polemicists.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"

It has not been verified that a persons who object to homosexuality have a mental disorder called a phobia, based on an irrational fear. It appears that the threshold for inclusion is actually the opinions of administrators.

"whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

Are we speaking in Orwellian terms? Truth vs. reliability? If one does not believe that a source is true, how can we deem it reliable? One ought not rely on a lie.

Incidentally, I have documented that the term is widely recognized as a slur word. Do you actually have any sources that say it is not?

It appears that fitting a politico-social agenda is the criterion in this case.

It is unlikely that anyone who observes that homophobia is a slur word, would acknowledge a source promoting the term as reliable. Conversely, those who want so much to have this term to employ as a weapon, will be very unlikely to acknowledge contrary sources as reliable. The issue is not settled by seeing how many books one can quote advocating that a term is or is not a slur word, when the books are written by advocates in a cultural war. But it is interesting to see if someone actually has the chutzpah to declare in print that homophobia is not a slur word. Do you deny that it is a slur word?

" It is not our place to determine whether things are true or false, but to report on what is contained in reliable sources."

How do you know that? Are you making an Orwellian double-speak as if truth had nothing to do with reliability? A source which is characterized as containing untruth would therefore be unreliable.

"If there is a problem with "homophobia", they are not stupid, they will see this"

It is hoped that you become one of this "they." (EnochBethany (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

There is no point continuing this discussion. This is not the place for discussing what is right or wrong, but what is. Nobody is saying that homophobia is a mental illness - it clearly is not, because it is not included in ICD-10 or DSM-IV.TR, and as far as I am aware there is no intention to include it in DSM-V either. That is why we have the section that deals with criticisms. However, it is an established term, and features in reliable sources - and several dictionaries are cited. If you have a problem with it being in a dictionary, contact the editors of the dictionary. If you have a problem with Wikipedia referring to reliable dictionaries as sources for definitions, then take it up at a higher level. There really is no point trying to implement editing standards on one article to circumvent policy and guidelines to enforce your POV. Mish (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also add, EnochBethany, that the way you are approaching the discussion here, with line after line after line of text taking up large sections of the page, is singularly unproductive. Have you heard the expression TLDR? It means "too long, didn't read." If have you have valid concerns, then you should address them one by one in a manner that people can respond to, rather than taking over the entire talk page with paragraphs-long posts that nobody can possibly respond to concisely. Also, please avoid using hardrules; they don't belong on talk pages. That's why we have sections. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's stop the pettifogging. Do you or do you not admit that "homophobia" is a slur word? (EnochBethany (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

To begin with, I see that someone has taken the trouble to explain talk page formatting to you on your talk page. I'm echoing that request to please follow those conventions to make talk page discussions easier to read. Second, please remain civil. Third, I do not agree that the word "homophobia" is a an insulting or disparaging term. If anything the term itself is neutral, like "racism"; it just happens that some people object, often disingenuously and without justification, to their beliefs and actions being described that way. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So, if someone called you a homophobe or said you had homophobia, you would not be insulted?(EnochBethany (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Would you be amused to learn that editors who concentrate on LGBT articles on Wikipedia get accused of homophobia also? For not being gay enough? For not adding enough gaiety into articles? This is fun chitchat, but it does not address what goes in the article. What we think of anything is not relevant to the encyclopedia. What we consider the term "homophobia" to mean is irrelevant, both you and me. Only what is presented in reliable sources that address "homophobia" should be included in this article. --Moni3 (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is noted that you side-stepped the question. (EnochBethany (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

So Moni3, do you deny that homophobia is a slur word? (EnochBethany (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

EnochBethany, please don't leave a space between your post and your signature, and please try to indent one space more than the post to which you're replying. In response to your question, I have two points. First, one cannot "have homophobia," as I think has been thoroughly established. One can be a homophobe or one can behave homophobically. Second, the question is not whether a given person might be insulted by being called a homophobe, but rather whether the label is justified. To continue the racism analogy, if a given person has the belief that (say) people with dark skin are inherently inferior to people with white skin, then that person is a racist. S/he may not like that label, s/he may even be insulted by being referred to as such, but that fact doesn't make it any less accurate. "Racism" is not inherently an insulting word; it is only a description. "Homophobia" is precisely the same. It describes the attitudes and behaviours of those who have various degrees of antipathy towards gay people and homosexual behaviour. To call someone a homophobe is only to describe their attitudes and behaviours. If they feel insulted by that label, that is not because the term itself is inherently a slur. "Chink," "nigger," and "faggot" are slurs; "racist," "sexist," and "homophobe" are simply descriptions. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it does not matter what I think, very much like standing in a hurricane crying out that I have a right to live in 145 mph winds. The wind doesn't care what I'm doing or thinking. The encyclopedia doesn't care about my opinion. It's not Monipedia. It's a simple collection and summary of what has already been published about the topic by reliable sources. If you're absolutely dying to know what I think about all world matters, I'd be happy to discuss them on my talk page, but not on an article talk page, and not about what goes in the article. My opinion does. not. matter. --Moni3 (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's stop pettyfogging & see if a consensus can be established. Is homophobia a slur word or not? (The opinions of those who follow the homosexual agenda are irrelevant as not neutral). Is there anyone out there who is heterosexual and not committed to the homosexual agenda who does not perceive that homophobia is a slur word? (EnochBethany (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Good gracious. This is not consensus. Consensus does not trump the policies of verifiability (WP:V) and reliable sourcing (WP:RS). This article talk page banter would introduce original research into an article (WP:OR). You have to find an authoritative reliable source to say what homophobia means, or how it is taken. The 5 pillars of Wikipedia (WP:5) explain that the highest priorities of this website are summarizing what is verifiable, and removing unverifiable opinions of any individual or groups of editors. --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

STOP Your anti-gay soapbox, your opinion doesn't count cause you support homophobia, how ridiculous does that sound? CTJF83 pride 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not a slur word. It may be perceived as a slur word, but so are lots of words. "Queer", for example, is a claimed identity, and used by some as a slur, and by some it is received as a slur, but to others it just means "queer". Similarly "gay" can be used as a slur, but was never intended to be used that way, and so it can be received as a slur, or worn with pride. "Homosexuality" is perceived as a slur by some. Christian is not a slur, except that historically it has been, and in some countries still is. There are no hard-and-fast rules about this. Just because some people consider it to be a slur, it doesn't mean it is. It is simply the word that is used to describe a phenomenon. The phenomenon exists, the word that used to describe it exists, that is all we need to know. If you are unhappy about it, take it to a higher authority - although people have been all over this before and didn't get far because it is all very well sourced. In the mean time, stop disrupting this page by filling it up with your views. Mish (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest archive and to stop feeding the trolls. CTJF83 pride 21:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, this site does give the appearance of a group of trolls living under a bridge, ready to eat whomever crosses their bridge. (EnochBethany (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

Linguistic Exemplar from the Language Log site, part of which has evidently been published as: Liberman, Mark & Pullum, Geoffrey: Far from the Madding Gerund and other dispatches from Language Log, as featured on a University of Pennsylvania (upenn.edu) sub web site.

"I'm not homophobic--I have no fear of your type, only contempt. . . . So lets get rid of the word homophobia: How about "Homo-Blyiccch" (gag, choke, vomit)?"

(I must emphasize that the above is not my sentiments, just evidence consistent with my contention that "homophobic" is a slur word, widely considered a slur word and rejected.) (EnochBethany (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

Is there anyone out there who is heterosexual and not committed to the homosexual agenda who does not perceive that homophobia is a slur word? (Apparently the above did not read my question or chose to ignore it. (EnochBethany (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

Contempt and abuse are included in the definition of homophobia.Mish (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a soap box to try to wed abuse and contempt to a phobia, then wrap it up in a slur word. (EnochBethany (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

This has gone on too long. EnocBethany, if you have specific issues that you can explicate simply and concisely without repetition, then please do so (but first you should read the relevant policies like WP:SOURCE). Otherwise you are just abusing this talk page, trying everybody's patience, and getting nowhere. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I just came by here this evening to wish everyone the best. Then I was shocked by a trumped-up sockpuppet charge, acted on without any evidence except that someone else objected to this article. I still wish you all the best anyway. I have said my piece for now. (EnochBethany (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

Sockpuppetry Accusation

EnochBethany has been accused of sockpuppetry. Let's not feed the troll until this gets resolved. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brucejenner. Henrymrx (t·c) 02:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The accusation is false, but it is to be expected from someone who insults by calling someone a troll for making a case here against an article. Calling me a troll is quite a lot like saying that someone has homophobia; both slur words, and both dishonest words. I did not come here to post this tonight. I just came here this time, without knowing about this, just to wish you all the best & that includes the false-accuser and the administrator who chose to check me without evidence that a check was warranted. For now I have said my piece. (EnochBethany (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2010 (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 > haneʼ 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. Noformation Talk 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 | TK/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)

Old cabal case

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15