The word “homophobia” always struck me as a bit weird. To me, the suffix “phobia” means “a fear of” (it means that, right?). If someone doesn’t approve of homosexuality, but isn’t afraid of it in any way, is he homophobic? Should there be another word for this?
On a different note, I’m curious about something.
I’m straight, and I admit that the idea of homosexuality doesn’t sit 100% well with me. In fact, I find the prospect of having sex with another man so revolting that I don’t even know how women bring themselves to do it :p. I wouldn’t actually discriminate against a gay person or hurt someone for being gay (it’s not like being intolerant of gay people will be productive in any way), but I (as do most other people I know) consider calling a straight person gay a way of insulting him. I’m also glad that I’m straight (but mainly because it makes my life less complicated than it would be if I were gay).
Based on this, am I “homophobic” or an intolerant person? If it does, please tell me (but don’t flame me). It would be a personality that I’d try to get rid of (if it’s possible to actively do so).
I believe the reason “homophobia” is used so often is because the stereotypical gay-hater is a religious, bible-thumping individual who is himself quite sexually repressed, and is indeed extremely frightened by the notion of homosexuality.
I don’t think so; being disgusted at a particular sexual act doesn’t make you homophobic, and being called [anything] that isn’t “normal” seems to be an insult in our culture.
The word “homophobia” always struck me as a bit weird. To me, the suffix “phobia” means “a fear of” (it means that, right?). If someone doesn’t approve of homosexuality, but isn’t afraid of it in any way, is he homophobic? Should there be another word for this?
The “phobia” suffix is also used to mean “hatred of” - e.g. xenophobia = hatred of foreigners, anglophobia = hatred of things English, francophobia = hatred of things French, etc… According to the Random House Dictionary, in addition to having the meaning of fear, “-phobia” can also have the implication of hatred or aversion.
The thing I don’t get is how people who are identified as “homosexuals” are supposed to have been that way from birth, and “homosexuality” is supposedly an irrevocable part of their natures; but at the same time, it’s said that almost all people have some homosexual tendencies, so “homosexuality” isn’t really abnormal and therefore shouldn’t be discriminated against. Is it a tendency of varying degree, or is it an absolute, black or white condition?
And also, why is it that you’ll be accused of “gay-bashing” if you identify AIDS as a primarily homosexual disease, but if (especially as a politician) you are unsympathetic to AIDS-related charities or whatever, you’ll be accused of being “anti-gay”?
It should be noted that you don’t present any sort of a conflict in your initial statements, even though you seem to be trying to be presenting some sort of paradox.
Ultimately, none of this matters at all. You are supposed to treat all people with a minimum level of acceptance and common decency. Homosexuality does not require justification any more than heterosexuality does. Homosexuality is not devient, it is not outside of the normal. It’s not something that requires you to hold a belief on it.
I don’t mean to imply a paradox, but a certain level of cognitive dissonance in the political arguments surrounding homosexuality.
The message most people get from the mass media is that you have no right to criticize a person who engages in homosexual conduct, because (A) only certain people are hard wired for that behavior and therefore have no choice about it, and (B)the behavior itself can’t be criticized as abnormal, because most people are potentially homosexual to a greater or lesser degree.
But if most people have that potential, then how can you say that anyone practicing homosexuality was predestined to make that choice because he or she has “always” been that way? And if it is a matter of choice, why can’t homosexuality be criticized like any other form of behavior?
I don’t really care about whether point (A) or (B) is correct or not; I’m only interested to learn whether anyone else feels these two popular arguments conflict with one another.
While we’re at it,
Sorry, are those arguments, or items of catechism? Please regard me as one of the ignorant, and enlighten me:
Why should I believe that homosexual is just as justifiable as heterosexual behavior, and what do you mean by “justifiable”? From a biological standpoint, for example, what possible evolutionary advantage (or justification, if you prefer) would predominantly homosexual behavior confer on a member of any population of animals? What evolutionary advantage would the occurance of a high percentage of predominantly homosexual individuals confer on the population as a whole?
Why should I regard homosexuality as “not outside of the normal”, and again, what do you mean by that? If you mean to imply that the percentage of individuals practicing homosexuality predominantly falls within two or three standard deviations of the mean of the normal distribution curve, I’d like to see a cite on that, because I don’t believe it.
It’s hard to generalize, but it looks like homosexuality is on a continuum. There are some people who are solely homosexual; there are others who are solely heterosexual. However you can be somewhere in the middle, ranging from heterosexual with a rare gay fantasy or two, to heterosexual with a lot of gay fantasies, to heterosexual who has tried homosexuality once or twice, etc. The distribution of people on the continuum is a subject for a great debate.
OK then, if I accept this as fact, than how do I reconcile this with the popular argument that anyone who is a practicing homosexual must be engaging in such behavior because he or she has always, since the day of friggin’ conception, been destined to be a homosexual and nothing but a homosexual?
Because they fall on the end of predominately homosexual, perhaps?
The reason you are seeing different arguments is because at there in no established cause of homosexuality. There are several theories, and there are people who will buy into one theory over another. However, at the moment, there are several medical and psychological organizations who agree that a persons sexuality is not a choice. They just can’t figure out whether the creation of sexuality is largely environmental or biological.
Why does something have to be justified on a Darwinian model? What is the justifiable reson for some people having blue eyes? Being left-handed? Being color blind? Being born a hermaphrodite? Why can’t we accept that there is a diversity to the human condition and because one is statistically more common than another doens’t really matter?
Yes, homosexuality is deviant. It deviates from the norm, but then again so does genius. I don’t recall anyone questioning the justification of having Einsteins about.
Now, onto your final point. AIDS. I can only give you my personal opinion. I find anyone calling AIDS a gay disease to be homophobic, rather I just find that irresponsible. It reinforces the idea that to get the disease you must be gay. Anyone recall the persecution Ryan White suffered in his community because he had a “gay disease”? Yes, AIDS is found more in the gay population in the US, but woirldwide it’s found more in heterosexual. That alone, should so that the virus pays no attention whatsoever to the sexuality of its host.
Now if a politician opposed AIDS funding, that doesn’t necessarily make him anti-gay. Though, if he’s doing it for the reason that AIDS is a “gay disease” and/or God’s punishment, then yes it makes him anti-gay. However, whatever his reasonings, opposing AIDS funding just makes him a poor excuse of a humantist. It’s a serious health threat in this country, and to try to withhold a cure because its a preventable disease or whatever is just beyond cold-hearted.
Do you justify why you are attracted to members of the opposite sex? Why should someone need to justify their sexual urges? Why should someone need to justify their love?
Homosexuality may have “reasons” but so the fuck what? It ultimately does not matter whether homosexuality is inborn, learned, or chosen: What right does that give you to disaprove of people who are homosexual? Sexual desire and sexual response are almost infinitely complex traits, and to simply assign a “reason” for any one individual’s particular traits is an egregious and erroneous oversimplification. Why are you attracted to the people YOU are attracted to? I’ll bet they are different reasons than mine for why I am attracted to who I am.
Well, despite the valiant attempt of my personal GQ hero beakerxf to keep this thread in the realm of General Questions, it’s pretty obviously going to have to go to Great Debates.
But not yet, please. Can we please stick to resolving the controversy around the meaning of “phobia” before getting to the other parts of the OP? I’d like to get that one resolved before sending the thread to the free-wheeling atmosphere of GD.
pepperlandgirl, go back to the m-w site and search “-phobia,” instead of “phobia.” Nebuli was talking about the suffix “-phobia” not the word “phobia.”
m-w says,
Usually, when people talk about homophobia they are using the latter definition, not the psycholological “phobia.”
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by pepperlandgirl *
**I can’t believe nobody corrected Nebuli on this
The reason I didn’t correct him is because he wasn’t wrong. It all depends on where you look.
The meaing of “phobia”, according to dictionary.com, means “A strong fear, dislike, or aversion”
I’m curious what word would you strongly disliked, but didn’t fear, the English? What other word than “anglophobe” is there? It’s a serious question. What word ending could be used to indicate “strong dislike”?
You know, strictly, homophobia means ‘hate or fear of one’s own group’, /homo-/ meaning ‘same or one’s own’ and /phobia-/ meaning ‘hate or fear of’. The preceding really means nothing to this argument, just thought it needed to be pointed ou in case anyone got pedantic.
Oh, and markxxx, you’re right on. Jesus was a semite, in fact. Just don’t expect to convince any anti-semites with that fact.
/Homo-/ has two independent, unrelated meanings. From the greek /homo-/ meaning “same”(as in homogeneous) or the Latin /homo/ meaning “man” (as in /Homo Sapiens/ or “sentient man”; later derivatives include the French /homme/ and the Spanish /hombre/) The meaning of the word “homophobia” transends its apparent etymology; it would more properly be termed “homosexualphobia.” Words have meanings insofar as people give them meanings. Just because it would appear that homophobia means “fear or aversion of self” or “fear or aversion of man” does not mean that in any common usage it DOES have that meaning.
I know. Just being a little strict with definitons. And don’t write off the two definitions of /homo-/ as being unrelated. After all, humans are the same as humans, giving /homo-/ meaning ‘same’ the meaning of ‘human’, or vice-versa. BTW, manny, don’t worry. (I assume that’s what ‘Uh oh’ means.) Everyone here knows I’m just being overly mechanical with the roots and what they mean.