I have made several postings about this behavior … so I’ll make another.
I tend to think that homophobes, gay-bashers, people who attack people in gay bars, and so on are seriously screwed up about their own sexuality. The psychological concept of projection deals with this type of behavior. Look at some of the outspoken televangelist types (Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart come to mind). They both were well-known for their condemnations concerning sins of the flesh and yet both were caught for pursuing those very sins. (Jim Bakker’s scandal involved partners of both sexes).
Here’s an interesting article about conservative, right-wing commentator Michael Savage: http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/72971
Though being well-known as an anti-gay spokesman, the article seems to suggest his sexuality just might be what he is so quick to condemn.
Incidentally, I am heterosexual but not so insecure about my own masculinity to comment on this subject. No, I really mean it. Hey, don’t get me angry. Okay, so I might have a few Liza Minelli albums.
And here is the kind of thinking that makes up that interesting article:
Regarding the question in the OP, I have no doubt that some anti-gay people and homophobes are projecting, or using rabid anti-gay attitudes as a defense mechanism, but to say that all such people are so motivated is ludicrous. Not everything someone hates or condemns is a cover for what secretly lurks inside of them.
It’s an easy charge to make, and almost impossible to refute. Good ad hominems usually are. Similar, in fact, to the accusation that gay rights proponents are secretly motivated by a desire for pubescent boys.
Exactly right. It’s usefulness for taking rhetorical jabs at people is so great (whether or not there’s any substance to the claim) that I tend to view any such claims with extreme dubiousity.
And I do not think that would be an accurate classification. It is entirely possible for people to disapprove of homosexuality without HATING gays. One might disagree with their stance, their reasons or their motivations, but that does not mean that they are prompted by hatred.
Earlier, Evil Captor talked about useful “rhetorical jabs.” In the same vein, it’s easy to dismiss the people in category #4 as being motivated by hatred, but that would be a caricature and an unjustified rhetorical device.
There are. To cut a long story short, many traditional interpretations hold that certain regulations were temporary and specific to the nation of Israel, whereas others have more lasting significance. This article explains that to some degree, but there are probably some more pithy and concise explanations out there.
I know this guy who is the biggest closet case I’ve ever seen. He’s so incredibly gay, and so desperately trying not to be. And he’s also the most viciously obsessive homophobic, racist, sexist motherfucker - pardon, but it requires a strong word to describe the level of his sheer loathesomeness. I know he’s secretly gay. Almost everyone does, probably including him. We also all know that he would literally rather die than ever admit it or face it any way, and as a result, he’s a miserable drunk with few friends left because he spews forth bile so neverendingly.
That guy is definitely a secretly gay basher of gays. But he’s the only one I’ve ever been sure about. It’s not exactly the kind of thing that wins any points for Team Rainbow, going around accusing homophobes of being homophiles. (Though sometimes I think that might be a better description; that some guys aren’t actually gay, but have a fetish for homosexuality, but repress it with obsessive hatred). It’s just not useful as a rhetorical tactic, in my opinion. Much better to educate straight people that it’s healthy and normal to have some degree of interest in your own gender, and it doesn’t make you not straight.
I disagree that it a common tactic of gay activists, however, as the OP states. I think some people do it, but it’s not one of the Big Agenda’s Talking Points, for sure.
Yes, let’s not pretend that, because it would be an extremely stupid thing to say. Good thing no one here has said that, or anything similar. But if someone is campaigning for public office by whipping up hatred and bigotry against gays? That’s a homophobe, and close enough to a gay-basher that I’m not going to sweat the difference.
I don’t know enough about the mayor in question to say if that fits him, though. I just grabbed him as a convenient example.
Debatable. My position is that the belief that homosexuality is a sin is inherently homophobic. Is it possible to hold that belief, and not be a homophobe yourself? Possibly. If someone believes that but makes no effort to enshrine it in secular law, then that’s close enough to not being a homophobe that, once again, I’m not going to sweat the difference. But I suspect that the number of people who fit that precise description are vanishingly small.
Precisely. The very definition of homophobia is rooted in your assumptions- and one of them would be that “homosexuality is a sin”. Consider, for example, the statement:
“I’m not a racist, I just believe that white/black/green people are subhuman.”
It’s obviously nonsense, and I think so is the point about “love the sinner, hate the sin”. If you believe homosexuality to be a sin, then you either regard it as a concious decision to commit a moral evil on the part of gay people, or simply a case of disease/lack of information on their part which should be countered with therapy/education. In either case, you dislike the actions of a particular subset of the population (homosexuals) and wish them to stop. That is pretty darn close to the textbook defintion of homophobia.
To answer the original post (on a purely anecdotal level), the most severly closeted guys I’ve observed have generally been the most homophobic. This probably works on three levels:
Projection, which was mentioned above.
A defence mechanism, enabling the closeted homophobe to conceal his own from himself desires by labelling them “wrong”. (Or are these two the same thing?)
A reasonable defence for interacting with gay culture (even if on a purely destructive level) while maintaining social status.
As long as you don’t make demands on what the guidelines are within their church, it could be more than you think. I don’t choose to protest secular rights (gay marriage, remarriage after divorce, sex outside of marriage) which I would consider immoral. I understand people’s motivations and am concerned for the most part with my own life, but if pressed I will remain faithful to the tenets of my church. In the end, hopefully that is a moot point, a non-sweatable difference, for you.
So you don’t think people should ever mention their spouses, girlfriends, boyfriends, dates etc? Because otherwise this makes no sense. If my straight co-worker has a family picture of his wife and kids together it is no more shoving it in my face that if I have one of me and a (hypothetical) SO. Being gay is about more than bedroom activities just as being straight is.
I’ve certainly got no interest in dictating what people do in their places of worship (Although needless to say, I’ve got all sorts of opinions about the relative morality of their various teachings.) It’s the people who don’t return me that courtesy that I have a problem with, and I won’t hesitate to call them on their bigotry. Unfortunetly, the people who can seperate their religious beliefs from acceptable public policy are a vanishingly small minority, at least when it comes to gay rights.
If you’re not trying to turn your religious beliefs into the law of the land, I’m dryer than a stick of Right Guard.
There are probably plenty of gay-bashers who are secretly gay, but there is also a certain segment of the population that just enjoys bashing, and is always on the lookout for a suitable victim.
No, but they just might have a bit of ‘black’ blood in their lineage. Modern DNA testing, which can track this, is causing a bit of commotion nowdays.
A fairly well known black commentator was shocked recently when he had his DNA analyzed, and found he had no african blood, but was entirely descended from Native Americans and Mexicans. He said that he had to do a lot of reevaluation of his personal beliefs.
I recall back in the days of South African apertheid, a professor at a South African University did tests on a large group of medical blood samples, and found that a quite large percentage (over half) of supposedly ‘white’ blood tested as having ‘black’ ancestors in their past. There was a tremendous uproar about this, until the government forbid the press from reporting on it at all. And the professor was lucky to get out of the country alive!
I wonder how long before the KKK requires DNA tests to prove applicants are 100% white? Or maybe never; it might really cut into their recruitment. And somebody might suggest that all the current KKK officers should be tested!
At some point, you should probably learn what ad hominem means and how it’s used. Sociological characterizations of phenomenon to explain behavior is not the same thing as writing off arguments based on personal attacks. Indeed, outright PERSONAL ATTACKS are not real ad hominem either.
