NationStates Jolt Archive

For the purposes of this debate I will break down the things commonly considered as homophobia into four categories. If you think there are more, please tell me.

1. Aversion to references to homosexual intercourse.
2. Aversion to stereotypical homosexual behavior.
3. Aversion to homosexuals.
4. Belief that homosexuality itself is somehow "wrong".

While the first two are common enough that it would be difficult to label them as wrong, at least pertaining to homosexuals of one's own gender, the third seems extreme and the fourth is in my view unsubstantiable.

Edit: Oh by the way, use whatever definition of wrong you want to.

While the first two are common enough that it would be difficult to label them as wrong,
Particularly as they could be just a consequence of being prudish on all sexual matters.

For the purposes of this debate I will break down the things commonly considered as homophobia into four categories. If you think there are more, please tell me.

1. Aversion to references to homosexual intercourse.
2. Aversion to stereotypical homosexual behavior.
3. Aversion to homosexuals.
4. Belief that homosexuality itself is somehow "wrong".

While the first two are common enough that it would be difficult to label them as wrong, at least pertaining to homosexuals of one's own gender, the third seems extreme and the fourth is in my view unsubstantiable.

Homophobia is only wrong if the homophobic individuals act in a violent or abusive way towards homosexuals. Other than that, one can't control another's beliefs.

For the purposes of this debate I will break down the things commonly considered as homophobia into four categories. If you think there are more, please tell me.

1. Aversion to references to homosexual intercourse.
2. Aversion to stereotypical homosexual behavior.
3. Aversion to homosexuals.
4. Belief that homosexuality itself is somehow "wrong".

While the first two are common enough that it would be difficult to label them as wrong, at least pertaining to homosexuals of one's own gender, the third seems extreme and the fourth is in my view unsubstantiable.

Replace the word "homosexual" with African-American and you pretty much have my view on it (i.e. that homophobia is as bad as racism).

Homophobia is only wrong if the homophobic individuals act in a violent or abusive way towards homosexuals. Other than that, one can't control another's beliefs.
I agree.

First off, while I do believe that homosexuality, as an act, is wrong based on my own relgious beliefs, I am not one that finds it necessary to join the John Chick crowd and condemn every single homosexual to Hell. As far as I can tell, the whoel damning thing is incredibly presumtuous (sp.?).

That being said, I have several gay friends (both guys and girls) and quite frankly, the subject rarely comes up- I don't talk about my sex life (or lack thereof) and they don't talk about theirs. And before anyone goes homicidal on me, for the most part that is their idea, not mine.

*ducks oncoming flames*

Homophobia is only wrong if the homophobic individuals act in a violent or abusive way towards homosexuals. Other than that, one can't control another's beliefs.
I thought the question was asking whether it is wrong to *think* that or not. That's not to say I think we should brainwash people into thinking otherwise; they're entitled to their opinions, and I'm entitled to think that their opinions are wrong.

Replace the word "homosexual" with African-American and you pretty much have my view on it (i.e. that homophobia is as bad as racism).

Hmm...however, when you put that into #2 you get aversion to "gangsta" culture, which I don't exactly see as racism.

Replace the word "homosexual" with African-American and you pretty much have my view on it (i.e. that homophobia is as bad as racism).
But surely 'Aversion to references to African-American intercourse' would more likely be a sign of prudishness (that is, aversion to references to any intercourse) than racism?

But surely 'Aversion to references to African-American intercourse' would more likely be a sign of prudishness (that is, aversion to references to any intercourse) than racism?

Perhaps more likely, but there could certainly be people who are specifically averse by race, just as there are people specifically attracted by race (ie fetishists). Such an aversion wouldn't make that much sense, but it could certainly exist.

Particularly as they could be just a consequence of being prudish on all sexual matters.
Agreed. I consider it perfectly reasonable for someone to have aversions to references to intercourse and public displays of affection but to have aversions specifically to homosexual intercourse and behavior is duplicitous.

while there is nothing wrong with not wanting to engage in homosexual sex yourself, there is something wrong with you if you hate someone for what they do in bed without you (as long as its all adult and consentual)

there is something wrong with hating someone because they "act gay" or are gay.

there isnt anything wrong with having an aversion to descriptions of sex. you may just be a prude. but if you have a fascination to descriptions of gay sex that make you queasy, you have a problem.

Agreed. I consider it perfectly reasonable for someone to have aversions to references to intercourse and public displays of affection but to have aversions specifically to homosexual intercourse and behavior is duplicitous.

So would having an aversion to spiders but not to other furry creatures by duplicitous? If homophobia is a legitamate, irrational phobia, can it actually be wrong?

Hmm...however, when you put that into #2 you get aversion to "gangsta" culture, which I don't exactly see as racism.
I would say that, if you have an aversion to behaviors that are actually physically harmful, it transcends being a racial/sexual aversion. I wouldn't say someone is a homophobe because he/she dislikes the idea of unprotected sex with people you barely know, and I wouldn't say someone is racist because they dislike drive-by shootings.

But surely 'Aversion to references to African-American intercourse' would more likely be a sign of prudishness (that is, aversion to references to any intercourse) than racism?
If it is aversion to any intercourse discussion, I would say you have problems, but not that you're a racist. If the idea of sexual interaction between two blacks or a black and a white is something you're averse to, however, then I would say you're a racist.

I would say that, if you have an aversion to behaviors that are actually physically harmful, it transcends being a racial/sexual aversion. I wouldn't say someone is a homophobe because he/she dislikes the idea of unprotected sex with people you barely know, and I wouldn't say someone is racist because they dislike drive-by shootings.

Dislike of the more violent aspects of "gangsta" culture is perhaps logical, but what about just dislike of rap? Rap isn't exacly harmful, but if someone said rap was stupid they usually wouldn't be labelled as a racist.

Being anti gay is wrong. i believe however that using the term "you are a gay sod" is not wrong. That si becase language has evolved to say that gay is bad. It is just the same with B*****d if you call someone that it doesent mean you hate people who have no father.

Homophobia is only wrong if the homophobic individuals act in a violent or abusive way towards homosexuals. Other than that, one can't control another's beliefs.
Thinking that a belief is wrong is not the same as saying that it should be suppressed by law.

Dislike of the more violent aspects of "gangsta" culture is perhaps logical, but what about just dislike of rap? Rap isn't exacly harmful, but if someone said rap was stupid they usually wouldn't be labelled as a racist.
That depends on your reasons for disliking it. I, for one, would argue that it isn't even a real musical genre (and I have, many times) but not because of the color of the person "singing" it.

I was understanding "sterotypical culture" to be more benign than the way you are portraying it. In reference to homosexuality, I was thinking of, for example, being averse to seeing two men show affection (even if they're not gay). I was seeing it more in the context of social behaviors than particular "music" genres (which is all about personal tastes, or lack of) or stereotypical harmful behaviors (after all, only an idiot would approve of high AIDS or murder rates).

For the purposes of this debate I will break down the things commonly considered as homophobia into four categories. If you think there are more, please tell me.

1. Aversion to references to homosexual intercourse.
2. Aversion to stereotypical homosexual behavior.
3. Aversion to homosexuals.
4. Belief that homosexuality itself is somehow "wrong".

While the first two are common enough that it would be difficult to label them as wrong, at least pertaining to homosexuals of one's own gender, the third seems extreme and the fourth is in my view unsubstantiable.

Edit: Oh by the way, use whatever definition of wrong you want to.

Well, I honestly couldn't say that 1 and 2 are necessarily wrong without being a hypocrite. I mean, most people have an aversion to references to certain types of sexual intercourse. Most people don't want to hear anything about their parents having sex, some people don't like to hear about old people having sex. I certainly don't want to hear anything about my sister's or friends' sex lives. Sure it's a rather prudish, but not wrong unless you act on it in a manner that's harmful to other people (physically or mentally).

As for the second one... most everyone has aversions against some sort of stereotypical group. Like those kids who think they're 'ghetto'. Also preps, geeks, jocks, emo-kids, etc. For every stereotyped group you can name that involves certain mannerisms, you'll find people with an aversion to them. Some people just find certain behaviors to be really annoying. As long as your aversion doesn't lead you to hurting people, it's not necessarily wrong.

Now, the last two I can't really agree with. I mean, sure everyone is entitled to their opinion, but hating a diverse group in general just seems wrong to me. It's like hating all people with blue eyes, or hating all men, or so. It doesn't make any sense because for one, people don't CHOOSE their sexuality, or their gender, or their natural eye-colour, and also, every person is so DIFFERENT. One gay person could easily be more similar to one straight person than to another gay person. So it just doesn't make any sense to me to hate a group like that.

Also, I can't see how believing that a group of people is somehow "wrong" when they aren't doing anything to hurt anyone can be anything BUT hurtful.

That depends on your reasons for disliking it. I, for one, would argue that it isn't even a real musical genre (and I have, many times) but not because of the color of the person "singing" it.

I was understanding "sterotypical culture" to be more benign than the way you are portraying it. In reference to homosexuality, I was thinking of, for example, being averse to seeing two men show affection (even if they're not gay). I was seeing it more in the context of social behaviors than particular "music" genres (which is all about personal tastes, or lack of) or stereotypical harmful behaviors (after all, only an idiot would approve of high AIDS or murder rates).

I was thinking of "stereotypical culture" as the stereotypical set of gestures, phrases, clothing, etc., that are attributed to homosexuals. Tight pants, saying "fabulous", etc. The analogous set for African Americans would be stuff like baggy clothes, "gangsta" phrases, etc.

Is it homophobic to not like effeminate behavior in males? I mean I think if gay dudes acted like guys and not wannabe women, then there'd be no problem. But then again, how the hell would we know?

Is it homophobic to not like effeminate behavior in males? I mean I think if gay dudes acted like guys and not wannabe women, then there'd be no problem. But then again, how the hell would we know?

Or even if they acted like real women. While disliking effeminate behavior only in guys might be considered wrong, I avoid that by disliking effeminate behavior in everyone.

Of those that voted against homosexuality, how many are catholics Raise yer hand. Therin lies the problem :). As for the Non religious objectors, you are very very silly. If your a Man for instance,two gays means more women around for you! and two lesbians... well i neednt go into it. I think women are a lot more open minded in this respect. (im a man) Also, for the Religious objectors, Dont judge lest ye be judged! oh crap your all going to hell! :( better get off this forum and go repent!

Of those that voted against homosexuality, how many are catholics Raise yer hand. Therin lies the problem :). As for the Non religious objectors, you are very very silly. If your a Man for instance,two gays means more women around for you! and two lesbians... well i neednt go into it. I think women are a lot more open minded in this respect. (im a man) Also, for the Religious objectors, Dont judge lest ye be judged! oh crap your all going to hell! :( better get off this forum and go repent!

Just curious, which of the types does that apply to? It would make sense for #4, and maybe #3, but less for the other two.

Dont judge lest ye be judged! oh crap your all going to hell! :( better get off this forum and go repent!


My misguided little buddy, if that is true, then how could any Christian ever serve on a jury? Or decide what is right or wrong according to their moral compass?

Homophobia is gay.

Period.

Is it homophobic to not like effeminate behavior in males? I mean I think if gay dudes acted like guys and not wannabe women, then there'd be no problem. But then again, how the hell would we know?

Well, seeing as not all effeminate men are homosexuals, I wouldn't say that's it's really homophobic. Unless you actually just mean you don't like effeminate behavior in homosexual men specifically, because then you're really moving into predjudice against a group more than predjudice against a behaviour.

...or something. I start confusing myself if I think about that too much.

They shouldnt/cant according to there religion. its not a pick and mix thing, hippocrits! ALL OR NOTHING! if your gonna judge people, then you go to hell, if you eat meat on fridays, you go to hell. (its in there you know) ectect. If you want to pick which "Words of god" you want to follow, your obviously not a real believer :)

Homophobia is gay.

Period.

Heh. That reminds me of a quotation I heard somewhere that involved the use of one teen boy turning to another and saying: "Dude, you have a girlfriend? That's so gay."

They shouldnt/cant according to there religion. its not a pick and mix thing, hippocrits! ALL OR NOTHING! if your gonna judge people, then you go to hell, if you eat meat on fridays, you go to hell. (its in there you know) ectect. If you want to pick which "Words of god" you want to follow, your obviously not a real believer :)

The quote you put doesn't say that when you judge you go to hell, it just says you get judged. You might be judged favorably.

Heh. That reminds me of a quotation I heard somewhere that involved the use of one teen boy turning to another and saying: "Dude, you have a girlfriend? That's so gay."
Thanks, ive been wating for the right time to throw that line out there....works great here.

They shouldnt/cant according to there religion. its not a pick and mix thing, hippocrits! ALL OR NOTHING! if your gonna judge people, then you go to hell, if you eat meat on fridays, you go to hell. (its in there you know) ectect. If you want to pick which "Words of god" you want to follow, your obviously not a real believer :)

Shouldn't or can't what? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but do you men that they shouldn't/can't prejudice against homosexuals or that they shouldn't/can't believe that homosexuality is wrong?

If the former, I agree with you. If the latter, I respectfully disagree.

The first

For the purposes of this debate I will break down the things commonly considered as homophobia into four categories. If you think there are more, please tell me.

1. Aversion to references to homosexual intercourse.
2. Aversion to stereotypical homosexual behavior.
3. Aversion to homosexuals.
4. Belief that homosexuality itself is somehow "wrong".

While the first two are common enough that it would be difficult to label them as wrong, at least pertaining to homosexuals of one's own gender, the third seems extreme and the fourth is in my view unsubstantiable.

Edit: Oh by the way, use whatever definition of wrong you want to.

I would say the opposite to E=Vegas-Rex, I believe that 3 and 4 are homophobic or potentially so whilst 1 and 2 are a matter of personal taste and should not be viewed as homophobic.

I would say the opposite to E=Vegas-Rex, I believe that 3 and 4 are homophobic or potentially so whilst 1 and 2 are a matter of personal taste and should not be viewed as homophobic.

On the other hand, 1 is much closer to the original meaning of the term.

Well, seeing as not all effeminate men are homosexuals, I wouldn't say that's it's really homophobic. Unless you actually just mean you don't like effeminate behavior in homosexual men specifically, because then you're really moving into predjudice against a group more than predjudice against a behaviour.

...or something. I start confusing myself if I think about that too much.

No, not all gays are effeminate but a good number of them are. And lesbians, well no problem with them.

No, not all gays are effeminate but a good number of them are. And lesbians, well no problem with them.

Yeah, one of the problems I've figured out with #2 is that it really only applies to gays, as lesbians don't really have a stereotypical culture outside of lesbian sex.

They do. Butch and Submissive! Shot crew cut on butch ect

They shouldnt/cant according to there religion. its not a pick and mix thing, hippocrits! ALL OR NOTHING! if your gonna judge people, then you go to hell, if you eat meat on fridays, you go to hell. (its in there you know) ectect. If you want to pick which "Words of god" you want to follow, your obviously not a real believer :)


So clearly, women who are menstruating should be locked in a dark room for 8 days to make sure they don't 'pollute' the earth, water, air, and people around them - and killed if they violate this rule. That's in the bible too. Good luck justifying the enforcement of that one. Or invalidating the beliefs of others because you think mortal actions are the measure of a person's faith - the whole 'judge not lest ye be judged' thing does apply, but just not for you I guess. Clearly, we ought to be judged by our actions and how we interpret God's will, according to you, and not by our love and devotion (if we have it) to Him/Her/It. If we aren't destroying women who spend more than 75% of their time outside the confines of darkness, we're all necessarily damned, based on what you've said.

Taking the bible literally, I think, is quite foolish. I would say mixing and matching is absolutely integral to the practice of religion. You can believe in God without believing in all the teachings of Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Zoroastrianism/etc or without believing word-for-word everything within their respective texts. Texts are made to be interpreted, that's how language works - it is entirely symbolic - context, therefore, is crucial. We clearly do not live in the same world we did 500, 1500, 2000, or 4000 years ago, and what is written must be interpreted to apply to contemporary readers, not taken to be 100% literal.

These texts, remember, were written by men (and possibily women) thousands of years ago, they were not written by 'God' (whatever you concieve 'God' to be). Apart from the fact that the context of the writing no longer applies to the context in which we live, it should also weigh heavily in any believer's mind that what they are reading is a fundementally human endeavour (even if inspired by God) and therefore subject to be in error. And yes, just so noone misunderstands me, I'm saying that the change in context has invalidated parts of the Bible and other texts. Women don't need to be locked up since we don't have to worry about blood spreading disease because of the advances of medicine, we don't have to worry about being kosher since parasites and the like contained in pork or shellfish that cause human maladies are eliminated because of medicine and improvements in food-preparation technologies, etc. By all means, if you think it improves your life, follow those little rules that aren't relevant to your well-being any longer, but they're unnecessary and I hardly think that you're going to offend whatever God you believe in by enjoying a nice lobster now and then.

Scripture is a guide to life, and not a dictation of the only way to live. People may be good, and faithful to the Will of God (if you believe in such a thing) without following everything the bible says (even the stuff that contradicts other stuff) at all times of your life.


But that's just my interpretation... *shrug* Carry on.

They do. Butch and Submissive! Shot crew cut on butch ect

True. Someone biased against that would fit under #2.

They do. Butch and Submissive! Shot crew cut on butch ect

Yes, that too. Though I've never encountered any of that type in real life. I mean, I guess if you count feminists then that would be a different story...

So clearly, women who are menstruating should be locked in a dark room for 8 days to make sure they don't 'pollute' the earth, water, air, and people around them - and killed if they violate this rule. That's in the bible too. Good luck justifying the enforcement of that one. Or invalidating the beliefs of others because you think mortal actions are the measure of a person's faith - the whole 'judge not lest ye be judged' thing does apply, but just not for you I guess. Clearly, we ought to be judged by our actions and how we interpret God's will, according to you, and not by our love and devotion (if we have it) to Him/Her/It. If we aren't destroying women who spend more than 75% of their time outside the confines of darkness, we're all necessarily damned, based on what you've said.

Taking the bible literally, I think, is quite foolish. I would say mixing and matching is absolutely integral to the practice of religion. You can believe in God without believing in all the teachings of Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Zoroastrianism/etc or without believing word-for-word everything within their respective texts. Texts are made to be interpreted, that's how language works - it is entirely symbolic - context, therefore, is crucial. We clearly do not live in the same world we did 500, 1500, 2000, or 4000 years ago, and what is written must be interpreted to apply to contemporary readers, not taken to be 100% literal.

These texts, remember, were written by men (and possibily women) thousands of years ago, they were not written by 'God' (whatever you concieve 'God' to be). Apart from the fact that the context of the writing no longer applies to the context in which we live, it should also weigh heavily in any believer's mind that what they are reading is a fundementally human endeavour (even if inspired by God) and therefore subject to be in error. And yes, just so noone misunderstands me, I'm saying that the change in context has invalidated parts of the Bible and other texts. Women don't need to be locked up since we don't have to worry about blood spreading disease because of the advances of medicine, we don't have to worry about being kosher since parasites and the like contained in pork or shellfish that cause human maladies are eliminated because of medicine and improvements in food-preparation technologies, etc. By all means, if you think it improves your life, follow those little rules that aren't relevant to your well-being any longer, but they're unnecessary and I hardly think that you're going to offend whatever God you believe in by enjoying a nice lobster now and then.

Scripture is a guide to life, and not a dictation of the only way to live. People may be good, and faithful to the Will of God (if you believe in such a thing) without following everything the bible says (even the stuff that contradicts other stuff) at all times of your life.


But that's just my interpretation... *shrug* Carry on.

Im just saying anyone who uses the bible as a weapon against anything should be prepared to justify ALL OF IT. i think that fair

Most people who aren't gay have Type 1. I don't go beyond type one. I don't think Type 4 is so much wrong as downright irrational.

Im just saying anyone who uses the bible as a weapon against anything should be prepared to justify ALL OF IT. i think that fair Telegram me. I'd be happy to take your offer. I've done that enough times with my friends. *cracks knuckles*

No, not all gays are effeminate but a good number of them are. And lesbians, well no problem with them.

I wasn't saying that not all gay men are effeminate, I was saying that not all effeminate men are gay. At which point, if you only have a problem with the effeminate gay men, and not the effeminate straight men, then you're moving towards homophobia.

At this point, I'm not sure I can say that homophobia is objectively wrong, but it does strike me as being a sign of asshattery (is that the word).

Heh. That reminds me of a quotation I heard somewhere that involved the use of one teen boy turning to another and saying: "Dude, you have a girlfriend? That's so gay."

In the simpsons when lisa goes out with nelson.one of his friends say it to him.

Im just saying anyone who uses the bible as a weapon against anything should be prepared to justify ALL OF IT. i think that fair


Ah, well, that's fair. I've no beef with that.

This may be a total display of ignorance and crassity, but I can't help but think that the word "homophobia" and the definition(s) given seem to fit unevenly, at least in my own small mind. To my knowledge, a "phobia" is an uncontrollable, completely irrational fear of a thing, yet the definitions given revolve around (with the exception of #3) an aversion to superficial activities that are attributed to homosexuals and/or a belief that said activities*or behaviors are wrong.

If we are defining homophobia is terms of aversions, then there are quite a few things that all of us have phobias about, as I imagine that everyone here has things that they have aversions to.

If we are also throwing in with the definition a belief that something is wrong, then again all of us have phobias to the extent that we believe anything is wrong.

In my own mind, the only one of the four definitions that comes close to what I was taught of as a phobia was #3, but even the wording using "aversion" seems to imply merely a dislike for being around a thing or dealing with a thing, in this case disliking being around a homosexual or dealing with homosexuals. This, to my limited knowledge, does not constitute a fear of homosexuals. Please note that I am not saying that this behavior (the aversion of homosexuals) is appropriate or commendable- I am merely pointing out that it, when combined with the word "homophobia" itself seems to be incorrect.

Am I missing something? I merely seek to understand the useage of the word as opposed to how the suffix "-phobia" is generally used.

* bolded for emphasis

In the simpsons when lisa goes out with nelson.one of his friends say it to him.

Huh, that's not where I heard it, but I suppose that's probably where whoever I heard it from got it from.

Yer fags are all goin to hell, and stay away from my children with your twisted disgusting ways ;)

Naa seriously I just feel very uncomfortable around gay people, and pretty much just leave or look away when some gays (especially men) holding hands and kissing.

Also whats the big fuss about homosexuality, its anyway going to be cured someday soon, and we won't have to deal with them anymore :p

If you're a Western nation resident, or you're a Christian, or both, it's wrong to be homophobic.

If you are a Muslim in a Muslim country, you're supposed to turn in your homosexual friends and neighbors so they can get "the treatment".

I picked the bottom one.

It varies to all societies. However, it should only be classified as wrong if it's violent to others.

I'm going to spend my 3,000th post how I spent my first post: supporting gay rights.

Yes, homophobia is wrong. Its a direct parallel to racism in its irrational hatred of someone just for being different. Honestly, people need to get over these things and just accept people for who they are?

what does type1234 mean on the polls:confused:

what does type1234 mean on the polls:confused:

*sigh* read the first post.

So would having an aversion to spiders but not to other furry creatures by duplicitous? If homophobia is a legitamate, irrational phobia, can it actually be wrong?
Personally, I like spiders, and I consider people's fear of them to be unfounded. Any dangerous spiders are going to bite you before you know they are there, so the ones you can see are nothing to worry about. Sweet dreams.;)

As for the second question, since I cannot agree with it being a legitimate, irrational phobia, I cannot address the rightness or wrongness of it.

I'm not really afraid of spiders. I'm actually afraid of bees, as they can really hurt you, and they're quite fast.

*sigh* read the first post.





thanks;)

No thoughts are wrong. No opinions are wrong, unless they are an opinion against a "fact." (There are no such things as facts, because in the real world there is no such thing as proof. Facts are things that have such a ridiculous amount of evidence and such an extreme lack of evidence against them that you can't say they are false unless you are insane and/or an idiot.)





However, acting upon a thought or opinion in a way that is harmful to others is wrong. You can go ahead and think whatever you want, but you shouldn't harm others.

This may be a total display of ignorance and crassity, but I can't help but think that the word "homophobia" and the definition(s) given seem to fit unevenly, at least in my own small mind.you are absolutely right, i suspect, that the term was coined this way in order to make opposition to homosexuals sound like a psychologic disorder. a better term would be "negative prejudice based on sexual preferences". in addition to "phobia" (=fear) being the wrong term to describe the intended meaning "homo" (=same) is also wrong, because the object is not what is the same to you but the object is homosexuals, so it would have to be homosexualphobia. but that would describe a condition, where you run away in fear and panic from any homosexual you meet.

Perhaps it is some reverse psychology junk.

i don't think i can condemn numbers 1-3 as "wrong". i just checked my dictionary on "aversion", it says "a strong feeling of dislike".

i ca't get myself to say that any *feeling* is "wrong". they may be sad, or troubling, but as you can't help them they are beyond "right" or "wrong".

number 4, though, is a different thing as it is an opinion rather than a feeling, and with it being irrational, discriminating and against what i view to be "good morals", i consider that opinion to be wrong.

[actually, i have a friend who is just emotionally appaled by homosexuality, while rationally being very much aware that there is nothing wrong with it. that friend does a great job of being fair and supportive and protecting wherever it is possible/needed for/towards me or any other gay person, and i respect that friend so very much more for that than anyone who acts the same but doesn't have to put that much effort into it because it comes naturaly to them on the emotional level too.
so, there's nothing "wrong" with having emotional aversions. what counts is what you think, and how you act]

I'm hoping that all those people who are saying they're all wrong just haven't read what the types are, because I see no way that number two can be homophobic. My best friend is gay, and I really don't care. At the same time, I don't like people who act stereotypically gay. It's not because they're gay. I have no problem with them being attracted to men, though I prefer people just not talk about their sex lives with me. I have a problem with them assuming that it's a necessary way of life. It's really not, in my opinion. You like men. I get it and I'm fine with it. There's no rule saying you have to be effeminate, and more importantly, there's no rule saying I have to like you even though I find that trait annoying.

I don't have any close friends with thick foreign accents that make them hard to understand. It's not that I don't like foreigners. It's simply that people aren't as funny and entertaining when you don't understand what they're saying. I bear them no malice. I just don't like having to ask them to repeat themselves every few seconds, and I think that's reasonable. Again, I'm not saying all foreigners are this way. I'm saying that I shouldn't have to be friends with someone if they have a trait that makes them difficult to spend time with, whether it's an accent that makes them hard to stand or an effeminate nature that annoys me.

Homophobia isn't wrong per se, not controlling it and acting upon it is.

Nevertheless, homophobia really irks me, but I manage to just laugh about it.

its wrong ... but it is peoples right to be wrong as long as it does not move into the realm of harm or restrictions of rights

I do not think of homosexuality as wrong, nor do I have anything against gay people. In fact, I am a fervent supporter of gay rights. However, as a straight guy, I have to confess that extremely effeminate gay men do creep me out and that I find gay sex rather nasty.

I don't think that homophobia in itself is wrong, so long as you have the decency to respect the rights and feelings of others.

How exactly can type two be homophobic when many gays feel that way...?

How exactly can type two be homophobic when many gays feel that way...?

Yeah, I sometimes cringe when I see it. Though usually I just chuckle and shake my head when my really effeminate friend tells me how dreadful my clothes are or gets it into his head that I "absolutely need a makeover, honey." I actually let him do it once, and was not encouraged by the results. Pink just isn't my colour.