NationStates Jolt Archive

homophobia is a term that is often over used in discussions about homosexuals. often the people on the side of homosexuality being natural and right will call the opposing side (the ones argueing that homosexuality is wrong and inmoral) homophobes. and being called a homophobe is supposed to make them see the light because being a homophobe must be this really terrible thing to be. like being a racist or a nazi.

i have seen it before that after the arguement and the person realizes that the person they are argueing is a "homophobe" they start to dislike said person. even if they had talked before and maybe even been decent friends.

so out of all this confusion stated above. this thread is your opinion on if there are people with homophobia phobia. in other words people who dislike people who dislike homosexuals.

and if there is, why is this not looked down upon like people try to look down upon those with homophobia?

homophobia is a term that is often over used in discussions about homosexuals. often the people on the side of homosexuality being natural and right will call the opposing side (the ones argueing that homosexuality is wrong and inmoral) homophobes. and being called a homophobe is supposed to make them see the light because being a homophobe must be this really terrible thing to be. like being a racist or a nazi.

i have seen it before that after the arguement and the person realizes that the person they are argueing is a "homophobe" they start to dislike said person. even if they had talked before and maybe even been decent friends.

so out of all this confusion stated above. this thread is your opinion on if there are people with homophobia phobia. in other words people who dislike people who dislike homosexuals.

and if there is, why is this not looked down upon like people try to look down upon those with homophobia?

I...

Okay, quick question, is it 'wrong' to dislike rascists?

it's socially acceptable.

it's okay to hate racists because they are wrong for hating people........same thing for homophobes.

it's socially acceptable.

it's okay to hate racists because they are wrong for hating people........same thing for homophobes.

but are you not doing what they are doing?

you hate them because they hate someone else?

there is a slight difference.....the first group dislikes people for who they are....the second group dislikes people for what they say and do

I don't have a problem with people disliking each other, no matter what the reason. I don't really care if some people choose to dislike gay people, or if others choose to dislike homophobes. All that I care about is who is trying to pass their personal likes and dislikes into law.

When homophobes are legally banned from marrying, then I'll care about their poor little feelings. When homophobes are barred from adopting children, maybe I'll worry about whether or not they feel sad that they are disliked. When the mainstream gay rights movement advocates stripping all homophobes of civil and human rights, maybe I'll be willing to give a shit about people picking on homophobes.

Until then, they're just the same boring whiners as the white supremacists and the anti-feminists. They're mean, they're stupid, and nobody likes them. :D

Eh I just think calling someone a "homophobe" is another one of those cheap shots that debators use when they run out of real actual arguments. It's like someone using a Godwin or saying "You're subhuman because you won't put your family at risk to hide a Muslium!"

Yea, I don't put much stock in the "homophobe" attack.

but are you not doing what they are doing?

you hate them because they hate someone else?
Disliking homophobes is hardly irrational. Disliking homosexuals is irrational.

but are you not doing what they are doing?

you hate them because they hate someone else?

Not the same. I hate them because they hate someone else. They hate someone because they love someone else ;)

but are you not doing what they are doing?

you hate them because they hate someone else?

me? no. I don't hate anyone, hate is wrong.

I am just saying that is how they justify their hate.

what makes them all the more pathetic is that many of them are using a religion that says they should love others as an excuse to hate others.

all i want is to dislike who i want to dislike and love who i want to love.

i dislike some who happens to be gay and im a homophobe. i dislike someone who happens to be asian and i m a racist. i dislike spiders and i am an Arachnephobe.

when will people ever learn to stop labeling

Eh I just think calling someone a "homophobe" is another one of those cheap shots that debators use when they run out of real actual arguments. It's like someone using a Godwin or saying "You're subhuman because you won't put your family at risk to hide a Muslium!"

Yea, I don't put much stock in the "homophobe" attack.

Given that the anti-gay crowd never have any reasoned arguments in the first place (it seems to run to "God told me to hate them" and "yuck, gay sex"), I'm not entirely sure that your high horse should ever have left its stable.

Given that the anti-gay crowd never have any reasoned arguments in the first place (it seems to run to "God told me to hate them" and "yuck, gay sex"), I'm not entirely sure that your high horse should ever have left its stable.

I could take the arguments of the pro-gay crowd, and say that someone is a homophobe because they refuse to have homosexual sex.

And I've heard that from men I've turned down before (not that I turn everyone down).

Nice to know that political views of morality can be argued to supersede your own rights to your own body.

Eh I just think calling someone a "homophobe" is another one of those cheap shots that debators use when they run out of real actual arguments.
Agreed. It's like screaming "Anti-semite!" or "Nazi!" or " - sympathiser!" or " - apologist!" etc. I take it about as seriously as someone flinging around terms like neo-con, liberal, etc without really having a clue exactly where the other person stands. Because I find that even people who boast about their tolerance love to stop listening and apply labels.

I could take the arguments of the pro-gay crowd, and say that someone is a homophobe because they refuse to have homosexual sex.

And I've heard that from men I've turned down before (not that I turn everyone down).

Nice to know that political views of morality can be argued to supersede your own rights to your own body.

Not something I've ever heard, and I have to say, 'Whoah. Idiots.'

But I'm look at homophobe as someone with a dislike of gays because they're gay.

Given that the anti-gay crowd never have any reasoned arguments in the first place (it seems to run to "God told me to hate them" and "yuck, gay sex"), I'm not entirely sure that your high horse should ever have left its stable.

Given that the people who label others as the "anti-gay crowd" are doing the same thing as those who throw around the "homophobe" label, your high horse shouldn't have left its stable either.

I could take the arguments of the pro-gay crowd, and say that someone is a homophobe because they refuse to have homosexual sex.

And I've heard that from men I've turned down before (not that I turn everyone down).

Nice to know that political views of morality can be argued to supersede your own rights to your own body.

You could? Never heard that one...

But I never said that the pro-gay crowd didn't have a fair share of idiots. Just that the anti-gays tend to have many, many more.

Agreed. It's like screaming "Anti-semite!" or "Nazi!" or " - sympathiser!" or " - apologist!" etc. I take it about as seriously as someone flinging around terms like neo-con, liberal, etc without really having a clue exactly where the other person stands. Because I find that even people who boast about their tolerance love to stop listening and apply labels.

It is ironic when people who claim to be open minded, and tolerant just do the whole labeling fisaco when they hear something that doesn't run with their train of thought.

all i want is to dislike who i want to dislike and love who i want to love.

i dislike some who happens to be gay and im a homophobe. i dislike someone who happens to be asian and i m a racist. i dislike spiders and i am an Arachnephobe.

when will people ever learn to stop labeling

It's not labelling, it's a question of accurate describing! If you dislike someone because they're asian, you are racist; you can dislike spiders without being arachnephobic, though - it's fear rather than dislike that's the qualifier.

If you dislike someone because they're gay... phobia isn't a fair word technically, because you might not fear/hate something about them. You'd need a new word, with the same connatation as 'racist', to describe the grotty little schlub who dislikes someone because they're gay. Lacking such a word, homophobe is the nearest equivalent.

It is ironic when people who claim to be open minded, and tolerant just do the whole labeling fisaco when they hear something that doesn't run with their train of thought.

nobody is open minded, everyone has a limit, people who claim to be "tolerant of all lifestyles" are lying.

You could? Never heard that one...

But I never said that the pro-gay crowd didn't have a fair share of idiots. Just that the anti-gays tend to have many, many more.

I think the percentage is still the same. 10% of each group is idiots.

Go to a swing club, and tonight, maybe I don't feel like being with men and women - maybe tonight it's just women. Men, even if they're gay, don't seem to be able to handle rejection. Women, on the other hand, seem more likely to say, "meh".

nobody is open minded, everyone has a limit, people who claim to be "tolerant of all lifestyles" are lying.
I agree, I have always said, we all have our prejudices. It's just that some people's are crude, and so they are easily put into boxes, but other people's are subtle, and reveal themselves only through behaviour, not rhetoric.

I wonder when an x-phobe became someone who dislikes x, instead of someone who has an irrational fear of x.

nobody is open minded, everyone has a limit, people who claim to be "tolerant of all lifestyles" are lying.
I don't think "open-minded" should be defined as "willing to accept all lifestyles as equally healthy, wise, or reasonable, despite any evidence they may encounter."

An open-minded person would be willing to give all sides a fair hearing. An open-minded person would try to put themselves in each person's shoes, in order to empathize and try to really understand where different people are coming from. But this doesn't mean that the open-minded person will refrain from making any evaluations based on their efforts.

It's perfectly possible to be an open-minded person who also has standards. Indeed, I'd venture to say that any person who has no standards at all is a person you probably shouldn't hang around with too much.

If you dislike someone because they're gay... phobia isn't a fair word technically, because you might not fear/hate something about them. You'd need a new word, with the same connatation as 'racist', to describe the grotty little schlub who dislikes someone because they're gay. Lacking such a word, homophobe is the nearest equivalent.
This is a point I have to debunk on every single bloody thread about homosexuality and homophobia.

The word "homophobia" DOES NOT refer only to those who fear homosexuals. It includes those who feel contempt or antipathy for homosexuals/homosexuality, regardless of whether or not they fear homosexuals/homosexuality.

Furthermore, the suffix -phobia DOES NOT simply mean "fear of." A phobia can be a persistent fear, or it can be a strong dislike or aversion.

Let me say that one more time so everybody is clear. THE DEFINITION OF "PHOBIA" DOES NOT REQUIRE FEELINGS OF FEAR OR HATRED. YOU CAN HAVE A X-PHOBIA EVEN IF YOU ARE IN NO WAY AFRAID OF X.

Please, let's not allow homophobes and other ignorant personages to redefine the English language to suit their talking points. If they can't be bothered to look up a word in the dictionary, let's educate them.

It's hard to take seriously adults whose arguements basically boil down to "eww... gay cooties!"

This is a point I have to debunk on every single bloody thread about homosexuality and homophobia...
Please, let's not allow homophobes and other ignorant personages to redefine the English language to suit their talking points. If they can't be bothered to look up a word in the dictionary, let's educate them.

? Phobia - a debilitating fear or aversion, a marked anxiety, that can cause avoidence or panic; a relatively common sort of panic attack. I'm sorry, I was using a different definition of x-phobia. Homophobia is a bastard term, but it's the only one we've got to use that's similar to racism.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:Cgmmx03C6_MJ:www.glos.ac.uk/shareddata/dms/B4FE0AE6BCD42A0399207B04B0F93585.pdf+%22british+psychological+society%22+phobia+definition&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=7 , http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4878

but are you not doing what they are doing?

you hate them because they hate someone else?

Despite what people say it is alright to not tolerate intolerance.

? Phobia - a debilitating fear or aversion, a marked anxiety, that can cause avoidence or panic; a relatively common sort of panic attack. I'm sorry, I was using a different definition of x-phobia. Homophobia is a bastard term, but it's the only one we've got to use that's similar to racism.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:Cgmmx03C6_MJ:www.glos.ac.uk/shareddata/dms/B4FE0AE6BCD42A0399207B04B0F93585.pdf+%22british+psychological+society%22+phobia+definition&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=7 , http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4878
It's just a pet peeve of mine when people claim that a phobia requires fear. Or that homophobia requires fear of homosexuals. That is not what the terms mean.

Furthermore, I don't see why we need a "new word" for people who dislike gay people. Why bother? I have yet to encounter a single homophobe who deviates from the standard anti-gay talking points. They're all following the same ideology, so we all know who we are talking about when we refer to "homophobes." The point of words is to communicate ideas and concepts; "homophobe" communicates the desired concept.

This is a point I have to debunk on every single bloody thread about homosexuality and homophobia.

The word "homophobia" DOES NOT refer only to those who fear homosexuals. It includes those who feel contempt or antipathy for homosexuals/homosexuality, regardless of whether or not they fear homosexuals/homosexuality.

Furthermore, the suffix -phobia DOES NOT simply mean "fear of." A phobia can be a persistent fear, or it can be a strong dislike or aversion.

Let me say that one more time so everybody is clear. THE DEFINITION OF "PHOBIA" DOES NOT REQUIRE FEELINGS OF FEAR OR HATRED. YOU CAN HAVE A X-PHOBIA EVEN IF YOU ARE IN NO WAY AFRAID OF X.

Please, let's not allow homophobes and other ignorant personages to redefine the English language to suit their talking points. If they can't be bothered to look up a word in the dictionary, let's educate them.

Ooops, sorry. I could have sworn phobia's were irrational fears though.

Ooops, sorry. I could have sword phobia's were irrational fears though.

The meaning I always took from "homophobia" is the implication that anyone's "fear" of gays was "irrational" and not based in reality.

"Fear" as in, afraid to be around them, afraid to talk to them, experiencing feelings of revulsion and hatred around them - extreme negative emotional reactions.

However, I've heard it used too many times at Tabu social club by men who can't take no for an answer.

It's hard to take seriously adults whose arguements basically boil down to "eww... gay cooties!"
If there is actually an argument, you are correct. But what about people who never step onto the soapbox?

See, there's a world of difference between someone saying "Gays are teh evil, they must all be killed!!!" and someone saying "Homosexuality, nah, don't fancy that." The term 'homophobia' nicely handles both cases, but in doing so, leaves the user ignorant.

But here is the often-overlooked distinction - the dumbasses are only those who preach - there is nothing silly about being straight and simply finding the sound of homosexual acts, as opposed to the people, mildly distasteful.

But hey, we all know how much easier it is to spread the label love rather than accept that people's opinions differ.

It's funny when intolerant conservatives try to label people for not accepting their intolerant stances.

No kidding … I draw my line at tolerating those who’s views aim at hurting others, or otherwise treating them as sub human

It's funny when intolerant conservatives try to label people for not accepting their intolerant stances.
Here's how the thinking goes:

Bill walks up to you on the street and punches you in the face.

You yell, "CHRIST, Bill, what the fuck was that?! Don't punch me, you asshole!"

Bill pouts, "You're being very intolerant of my desire to punch you in the face. You're always going on about how I should be more tolerant of people's desire to not get punched, and so I shouldn't go around punching them, but here you are being totally unaccepting of my desire to punch you. You're such a hypocrite."

I don't think "open-minded" should be defined as "willing to accept all lifestyles as equally healthy, wise, or reasonable, despite any evidence they may encounter."
I don't think so either, but as soon as I make a statement about any lifestyle choice (or whatever) and say that I don't like it (or whatever) I get accused of being "close minded" surely an open minded person is allowed to have an opinion on something?

An open-minded person would be willing to give all sides a fair hearing. An open-minded person would try to put themselves in each person's shoes, in order to empathize and try to really understand where different people are coming from. But this doesn't mean that the open-minded person will refrain from making any evaluations based on their efforts.
yeah, that's what I am talking about ^ up there.

It's perfectly possible to be an open-minded person who also has standards. Indeed, I'd venture to say that any person who has no standards at all is a person you probably shouldn't hang around with too much.
I agree.

Here's how the thinking goes:

Bill walks up to you on the street and punches you in the face.

You yell, "CHRIST, Bill, what the fuck was that?! Don't punch me, you asshole!"

Bill pouts, "You're being very intolerant of my desire to punch you in the face. You're always going on about how I should be more tolerant of people's desire to not get punched, and so I shouldn't go around punching them, but here you are being totally unaccepting of my desire to punch you. You're such a hypocrite."

Good analogy ... people are still getting hurt in real life because of some of this craz intolerance. I know I have spent my time in the hospital because of it

Furthermore, I don't see why we need a "new word" for people who dislike gay people. Why bother? I have yet to encounter a single homophobe who deviates from the standard anti-gay talking points. They're all following the same ideology, so we all know who we are talking about when we refer to "homophobes." The point of words is to communicate ideas and concepts; "homophobe" communicates the desired concept.

In this context, it's not really worth anyone's time arguing about whether 'phobia' actually means something akin to a panic attack, and should be reserved for that concept, or whether it means an irrational dislike for something, so I won't. Good luck :)

It's funny when intolerant conservatives try to label people for not accepting their intolerant stances.

Almost as funny as when people who advocate tolerance and compassion suddenly choose not to exercise it when it comes to those who hold different beliefs.

I really do get a good laugh out of both sides of that situation. :D

No kidding … I draw my line at tolerating those who’s views aim at hurting others, or otherwise treating them as sub human

Ahh you caught me before the delete. ;)

I am the same way. As mentioned before I have redneck Christian relatives who are either racist and or homophobes.

As one tried to tell me.

Homosexuality is a sign of our deviant times. They are trying to bring down this countries morals and eventually this country!

I can only tolerate seeing them once a year!

Almost as funny as when people who advocate tolerance and compassion suddenly choose not to exercise it when it comes to those who hold different beliefs.

I really do get a good laugh out of both sides of that situation. :D

Like I said I have spent my fair amount of time in the hospital because of homophobia … why exactly should I tolerate it again?

Like I said I have spent my fair amount of time in the hospital because of homophobia … why exactly should I tolerate it again?

You shouldn't. Then again, you shouldn't count on society or the police to do anything about it, either.

Carry a gun.

Here's how the thinking goes:

Bill walks up to you on the street and punches you in the face.

You yell, "CHRIST, Bill, what the fuck was that?! Don't punch me, you asshole!"

Bill pouts, "You're being very intolerant of my desire to punch you in the face. You're always going on about how I should be more tolerant of people's desire to not get punched, and so I shouldn't go around punching them, but here you are being totally unaccepting of my desire to punch you. You're such a hypocrite."

Dang I should have left my comment up. Moody today I guess.

Good analogy! :)

If there is actually an argument, you are correct. But what about people who never step onto the soapbox?

See, there's a world of difference between someone saying "Gays are teh evil, they must all be killed!!!" and someone saying "Homosexuality, nah, don't fancy that." The term 'homophobia' nicely handles both cases, but in doing so, leaves the user ignorant.

But here is the often-overlooked distinction - the dumbasses are only those who preach - there is nothing silly about being straight and simply finding the sound of homosexual acts, as opposed to the people, mildly distasteful.

But hey, we all know how much easier it is to spread the label love rather than accept that people's opinions differ.

I think I have a new fav NSG mod. :)

Sorry, Kat. :p

No kidding … I draw my line at tolerating those who’s views aim at hurting others, or otherwise treating them as sub human

I draw my line in a slightly different place. I tolerate everyone regardless of viewpoint, no matter how ridiculous I think they are.

What I do not tolerate is their actions that harm others. Those I will fight against.

You shouldn't. Then again, you shouldn't count on society or the police to do anything about it, either.

Carry a gun.

And then the homophobes start carrying guns.

Can't depend on society or the police?

That didn't work in the old West so why would it work now?

The trick is to live next to a district attorney! :p

And then the homophobes start carrying guns.

Can't depend on society or the police?

That didn't work in the old West so why would it work now?

The trick is to live next to a district attorney! :p
The trick is to do what Wyatt Earp did, and get yourself appointed as US Marshal.

I draw my line in a slightly different place. I tolerate everyone regardless of viewpoint, no matter how ridiculous I think they are.

What I do not tolerate is their actions that harm others. Those I will fight against.
To use the analogy I posted on this thread, I am willing to tolerate Bill's desire to punch people. He can want to punch people all he likes. He can think about punching people in every free minute, if that's what he wants to do, and I'm not going to try to stop him.

But the moment he decides to invade another person's space with his "preference," that's when my tolerance comes to an end.

Like I said I have spent my fair amount of time in the hospital because of homophobia … why exactly should I tolerate it again?

You haven't spent any time in the hospital because of homophobia. It is not a debilitating illness requiring medical attention.

You may well have ended up in the hospital, but because those who do have strong homophobic tendencies chose to act violently based on their feelings.

Just because I have an aversion to a particular person or group does not mean I will put them in the hospital. Let's say I see Joe on the street, and I know Joe is a politician, and furthermore that I have a seething hatred for politicians. I walk by him and think about how much I hate politicians. Amazingly, my hatred for politicians does not put this politician in the hospital. Funny how that works, ain't it?

To use the analogy I posted on this thread, I am willing to tolerate Bill's desire to punch people. He can want to punch people all he likes. He can think about punching people in every free minute, if that's what he wants to do, and I'm not going to try to stop him.

But the moment he decides to invade another person's space with his "preference," that's when my tolerance comes to an end.

Very well said.

Here we go with the whole "Intolerance of intolerance" debate again.

The difference between homophobia and homophobia phobia (as the OP so awkwardly puts it) is that homophobia is not FOR anything. It is a stance that is strictly AGAINST homosexuals. If you stand against homophobia, you are in support of homosexuals and their rights.

Tolerance is a stand in support. Intolerance is a stand to oppress. If you refuse to accept intolerance, you are simply showing your support of whatever group is being oppressed.

Refuting homophobia does not suppress the rights of the homophobic. It rather supports the rights of the homosexual.

To use the analogy I posted on this thread, I am willing to tolerate Bill's desire to punch people. He can want to punch people all he likes. He can think about punching people in every free minute, if that's what he wants to do, and I'm not going to try to stop him.

But the moment he decides to invade another person's space with his "preference," that's when my tolerance comes to an end.

Exactly.

Refuting homophobia does not suppress the rights of the homophobic.
This is a point that could use a bit of belaboring. :)

If you want to stop Group X from taking away the rights of Group Y, this doesn't mean you necessarily want to take rights away from Group X. Mainstream gay rights organizations are NOT trying to take rights away from homophobes or anti-gay individuals. Mainstream gay rights organizations are NOT trying to ban homophobes from enjoying the same rights as all other citizens of the United States. They are NOT trying to make it illegal to be a homophobe, or to make it illegal for homophobes to marry, or to make it illegal for homophobes to rear children.

However, most (if not all) mainstream anti-gay rights groups are actively trying to prevent gay citizens from receiving equal rights under the law. Many of them support laws that ban homosexual sexual activities. Virtually all of them support laws that ban homosexuals from legal marriage and legal adoption of children.

I don't have a problem with people disliking each other, no matter what the reason. I don't really care if some people choose to dislike gay people, or if others choose to dislike homophobes. All that I care about is who is trying to pass their personal likes and dislikes into law.

When homophobes are legally banned from marrying, then I'll care about their poor little feelings. When homophobes are barred from adopting children, maybe I'll worry about whether or not they feel sad that they are disliked. When the mainstream gay rights movement advocates stripping all homophobes of civil and human rights, maybe I'll be willing to give a shit about people picking on homophobes.

Until then, they're just the same boring whiners as the white supremacists and the anti-feminists. They're mean, they're stupid, and nobody likes them. :D


Well, if it was up to you everyone does what he want, and we get anarchy then.

You shouldn't. Then again, you shouldn't count on society or the police to do anything about it, either.

Carry a gun.
I put them in the hospital too without a gun ...

And why should I not expect society to protect all its members?

Well, if it was up to you everyone does what he want, and we get anarchy then.
What the hell are you on about? I think I made it pretty clear that I do NOT support the idea of everybody getting to do whatever they want. That's my entire goddam point.

You haven't spent any time in the hospital because of homophobia. It is not a debilitating illness requiring medical attention.

You may well have ended up in the hospital, but because those who do have strong homophobic tendencies chose to act violently based on their feelings.

Just because I have an aversion to a particular person or group does not mean I will put them in the hospital. Let's say I see Joe on the street, and I know Joe is a politician, and furthermore that I have a seething hatred for politicians. I walk by him and think about how much I hate politicians. Amazingly, my hatred for politicians does not put this politician in the hospital. Funny how that works, ain't it?
Correct but it is the motivational force behind thoes that chose to break

Dont get me wrong i dont want to imprison thoes with a different viewpoint ... but I WILL use my freedom of speech and speek out against it

Well, if it was up to you everyone does what he want, and we get anarchy then.

Are you seriously suggesting that allowing gay folks to have the same legal privileges as straight folks and allowing everybody to hold to their own viewpoint as long as they don't harm others is a recipe for anarchy?

if it's a gay thats homophobia-phobic... well, couldn't that be seen as self-preservation? :p

I put them in the hospital too without a gun ...

And why should I not expect society to protect all its members?
At least in the US, the government and its employees (this means the police) are under no such obligation to do so.

See Warren vs. District of Columbia. http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

At least in the US, the government and its employees (this means the police) are under no such obligation to do so.

See Warren vs. District of Columbia. http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

Maybe in the District of Columbia.

The states are different.

I think things have changed since 1978 and 1981.

I don't think you would see the courts dismissing a case were a woman is being assaulted and the cops ignored it today.

so out of all this confusion stated above. this thread is your opinion on if there are people with homophobia phobia. in other words people who dislike people who dislike homosexuals.

Yes, they do exist. I'm proud to be one of them.

and if there is, why is this not looked down upon like people try to look down upon those with homophobia?

Because in one case people are disliked for bad reasons (simply because they are gay or lesbian) and in the other case they are disliked for better reasons (because they are bigoted.)

Will we be asked to ignore the racism of racists next?

It's not labelling, it's a question of accurate describing!

Exactly. If someone says, "Blacks are inferior to whites," they are racist, plain and simple. I know that they are entitled to their view, however wrong I think it is, but pointing out that they are racist is simply a matter of fact.

If you dislike someone because they're gay... phobia isn't a fair word technically, because you might not fear/hate something about them. You'd need a new word, with the same connatation as 'racist', to describe the grotty little schlub who dislikes someone because they're gay. Lacking such a word, homophobe is the nearest equivalent.

*Sigh* This old argument again. Doesn't anyone ever bother to do a small amount of research or at least have a slight understanding of the English language? Phobia in this case is not a word at all. It is a root. And the root -phobia is perfectly applicable:

-phobia
One entry found for -phobia.
Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

Homophobes demonstrate intolerance and aversion towards homosexuals.

I draw my line in a slightly different place. I tolerate everyone regardless of viewpoint, no matter how ridiculous I think they are.

What I do not tolerate is their actions that harm others. Those I will fight against.

Hear Hear!

What the hell are you on about? I think I made it pretty clear that I do NOT support the idea of everybody getting to do whatever they want. That's my entire goddam point.

But......but......if you let teh gays get treated as equal citizens then you'll have to allow rape and pillage and murder and the loud singing of Jimmy Buffet songs out of tune!!

Didn't you know?


Maybe in the District of Columbia.

The states are different.

I think things have changed since 1978 and 1981.

I don't think you would see the courts dismissing a case were a woman is being assaulted and the cops ignored it today.

What if children were kidnapped by a man against whom their mother had a restraining order and later killed them because the cops wouldn't enforce the order?

Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales

This case was a little over a year ago. The court ruled that the cops did not have to enforce the restraining order and that Ms. Gonzales had no legal right to sue, even though the inaction of the police resulted in the murder of her children.

But......but......if you let teh gays get treated as equal citizens then you'll have to allow rape and pillage and murder and the loud singing of Jimmy Buffet songs out of tune!!

The loud singing of Jimmy Buffet songs out of tune? That's horrendous.

*Sigh* This old argument again. Doesn't anyone ever bother to do a small amount of research or at least have a slight understanding of the English language? Phobia in this case is not a word at all. It is a root. And the root -phobia is perfectly applicable:

Homophobies demonstrate intolerance and aversion towards homosexuals.

For what it's worth, I'm happy to forget the 'what is a phobia' side of this debate, but if you're happily saying I demonstrate no research into or understanding of the english language... well, hope you'll forgive a response, but it is kind of a hurtful thing to say.

A -phobia is a specific, psychological term for a specific psychological problem, broadly akin to a panic attack, that people suffer from.

People who irrationally dislike homosexuals are not suffering from a -phobia, they are... well, an unkind person would say bigoted, an excessively wimpy person would say they were misinformed. They've got more in common with racists than those with a -phobia of snakes, for example.

Genuine homophobes, those who would go into an actual panic attack (barring use of medication/coping strategies etc) when they think there's a gay guy/girl nearby (and, interestingly, may consciously tolerate or accept homosexuality as a lifestyle - as far as I know, some phobics can tell that their fears are irrational, but still suffer from them - see claustrophobics, for example), may well exist, but the point is there's a difference between these 2 groups, and using the exact same word for them... well, it's not much to get worked up about, but I'd argue it is technically inaccurate.

I grant you, happily, that it's entered common usage as a description of those who irrationally dislike homosexuals, but these people are not suffering from a phobia.

They're jerks.

For what it's worth, I'm happy to forget the 'what is a phobia' side of this debate, but if you're happily saying I demonstrate no research into or understanding of the english language... well, hope you'll forgive a response, but it is kind of a hurtful thing to say.

A -phobia is a specific, psychological term for a specific psychological problem, broadly akin to a panic attack, that people suffer from.

People who irrationally dislike homosexuals are not suffering from a -phobia, they are... well, an unkind person would say bigoted, an excessively wimpy person would say they were misinformed. They've got more in common with racists than those with a -phobia of snakes, for example.

Genuine homophobes, those who would go into an actual panic attack (barring use of medication/coping strategies etc) when they think there's a gay guy/girl nearby (and, interestingly, may consciously tolerate or accept homosexuality as a lifestyle - as far as I know, some phobics can tell that their fears are irrational, but still suffer from them - see claustrophobics, for example), may well exist, but the point is there's a difference between these 2 groups, and using the exact same word for them... well, it's not much to get worked up about, but I'd argue it is technically inaccurate.

I grant you, happily, that it's entered common usage as a description of those who irrationally dislike homosexuals, but these people are not suffering from a phobia.

They're jerks.



Actually, Demi is right. One definition of phobia is "intolerance or aversion for" and it is in this aspect that homophobia comes to mean a person who is intolerant of homosexuals.

And yeah, they are jerks, but the definition of homophobic still fits.

Homophobia is the fear of homosexuals.

These people discriminate and hate, they don't fear!

(For the record, I am gay.)

Given that the people who label others as the "anti-gay crowd" are doing the same thing as those who throw around the "homophobe" label, your high horse shouldn't have left its stable either.


It doesn't matter if you like it or not lables are practicle to direct statements. The "anti-gay crowd" was used to refer to people who in an argument will stand against gay rights/gayness... whatever. He was refering to someone and he was generalising their arguements (and for the most part fairly accurately) but he/she was more doing it to say something about them/make a point. That's okay but when you just say: Nazi! Homophobe! In an arguement that is where the problem is.

It's hard to take seriously adults whose arguements basically boil down to "eww... gay cooties!"


Or children.

Actually, Demi is right. One definition of phobia is "intolerance or aversion for" and it is in this aspect that homophobia comes to mean a person who is intolerant of homosexuals.

And yeah, they are jerks, but the definition of homophobic still fits.

'Intolerance to xyz' is a medical term, as is 'aversion for', both transplanted into psychology as part of its epistemological history. They're describing the various forms that the psychological condition known as a phobia can manifest themselves, from outright panic attacks, fear and dislike for, to the avoidant behaviour(s) associated with the phobia.

The dsm iv (http://www.psychologynet.org/dsm.html) diagnostic guidelines show examples of these different definitions being used to describe the criteria of a phobia. A Phobia being a form of 'illness'. 'Being a jerk' being a form of jerkdom.

Apologies for disagreeing with the majority opinion, but I don't think it's right to allow jerkish people a possible out by conflating jerkdom with a medical condition.

Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales

This case was a little over a year ago. The court ruled that the cops did not have to enforce the restraining order and that Ms. Gonzales had no legal right to sue, even though the inaction of the police resulted in the murder of her children.

That is disappointing.

If that is the case, then we should probably outlaw restraining orders. They don't have to be enforced and they give a false sense of security.

For what it's worth, I'm happy to forget the 'what is a phobia' side of this debate, but if you're happily saying I demonstrate no research into or understanding of the english language... well, hope you'll forgive a response, but it is kind of a hurtful thing to say.

I apologize. However, your response clearly demonstrates that you are still confused about the difference between a root and a word.

A -phobia is a specific, psychological term for a specific psychological problem, broadly akin to a panic attack, that people suffer from.

Wrong. That is a phobia. The word phobia does refer to a strong, generally irrational, fear of something. Used as a root, -phobia *might* refer to this (ie. arachnophobia).

However, also used as a root, as clearly demonstrated in the dictionary definition I posted above, -phobia can also refer to an intolerance or aversion for (ie. hydrophobia/homophobia).

You seem to fail to realize two things:
(a) There is a difference between a word and a root
(b) Both words and roots in the English language can have more than one meaning.

People who irrationally dislike homosexuals are not suffering from a -phobia, they are... well, an unkind person would say bigoted, an excessively wimpy person would say they were misinformed. They've got more in common with racists than those with a -phobia of snakes, for example.

No, they are not suffering from a phobia. Talking about "a phobia" puts it in the realm of the word phobia, defined as the following:

Main Entry: pho·bia
Pronunciation: 'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: -phobia
: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation

They are, however, homophobic, using the root:

Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

Using this same root, someone who was racist against Indians could be called Indiaphobic. They are intolerant towards Indians.

*snip*well, it's not much to get worked up about, but I'd argue it is technically inaccurate.

You don't read very well, do you? I posted the definitions of the root -phobia. Only one of them refers to an irrational fear. Who are you to determine that the other accepted use of the root (quite often used throughout the English language - especially in science) is "not genuine" or is "technically innacurrate."

No one is saying that a person who is homophobic "suffers from a phobia." We are simply using a word that includes the root -phobia, which, as I CLEARLY demonstrated, carries more than one possible meaning. Here, just in case you once again failed to read it, I'll do it again:

-phobia
One entry found for -phobia.
Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

Note that "photophobia" does not refer to a fear of light. It doesn't refer to a psychological condition at all. It refers to the avoidance of light or to a creature (generally bacteria) which grow better in the absence of light.

I grant you, happily, that it's entered common usage as a description of those who irrationally dislike homosexuals, but these people are not suffering from a phobia.

They're jerks.

Luckily, no one ever claimed that they were "suffering from a phobia." Some of us realize that words and roots in the English language can quite often have more than one definition.


'Intolerance to xyz' is a medical term, as is 'aversion for',

Really? I suppose that's why we say that silicone is "hydrophobic." Obviously, silicone has a medical condition. :rolleyes:

Once again, you ignore the fact that, in the English language, words and roots are used in more than one discipline and in more than one way.

You are so tied to this idea that the word cannot possibly be useful, that you ignore the many uses of this root outside of medical terminology.

Let's look at some words that have often nothing whatsoever to do with psychological conditions, but include the root -phobia:

hydrophobia (a term used to describe materials that will not dissolve in water, or repel water)
lipophobia (a term used to describe materials that will not dissolve in lipids or other non-polar materials)
photophobia (a term used to describe light sensitivity, an aversion towards light, or the property of something which grows better in the absence of light)



Apologies for disagreeing with the majority opinion, but I don't think it's right to allow jerkish people a possible out by conflating jerkdom with a medical condition.

It has nothing to do with "majority opinion." Unless you are going to claim that the scientific uses of the root (for instance) are "conflating the properties of materials with a medical condition," you are going to have to realize that the root -phobia has never been confined to reference to a medical condition.

That is disappointing.

If that is the case, then we should probably outlaw restraining orders. They don't have to be enforced and they give a false sense of security.

In which case we should just outlaw the cops entirely. These sorts of rulings basically state that the police never have to do their jobs. Thus, having them aroudn just gives a false sense of security.

Personally, I think it would be better to make officers legally accountable for inaction while on duty.

see above!

Your mastery of the dictionary shames me; but your examples of non-medical usages of phobia do not refer to people. When talking about people, a phobia looks to be a medical (or, obviously, a posited medical) condition - outside references to people, -phobia seems to have other meanings, hence your silicone example.

Given the big hooha about it, I've had a quick look, but haven't found a reference about phobias in the context of _people_ that wasn't talking about the medical (or posited medical) usage of phobia. The only time it seems to occur in a non-medical context seems to be when it's talking about the physical properties of certain materials etc.

Look, though, this obviously looks to have been a big argument at some point or other, so I am sorry for bringing it up. Rest assured I won't again.