The word homophobic

Great Debates
1

Hello, I’m new to this board so sorry if (a) this topic has been done before and (b) if i’m posting in the wrong spot.

I have always thought the word homophobe or homophobic is misrepresentitive of what we all accept it to mean. This can mean anything from thinking homosexuality is wrong to feeling the right to hurt, kill or discriminate people based on their sexual orientation.

I’m sure most rational thinking people dont care if someone has a different belief system than their own. If i’m Jewish i will have a different set of beliefs than a Christian, i will think Christianity is wrong. But that doesnt mean I want to kill them. Nor am I a Christianophobe.

So if, in my religion, homosexuality is wrong in the same way pre-marital sex, poligamy and things like that are wrong, it doesnt mean i hate people who have pre-marital sex or have many wives ( i might think they’re weird but…) .

Over the years i’ve tried to come up with a proper word for people who hate homosexuals, discriminate against them, beat or bash or kill them. I used to call it homo-aggresive but i think the best word is gayist. Like racist, sexist and such.

So what do you think? Can you have a belief system that does not condone homosexuality and not be a homophobe? I dont know, maybe i’m weird. My husband says i think waaay too much. Anyway i wish that people would call gayist pigs what they are- gayist!

2

It has been done before(millions of times) and belongs in Great Debates, but it’s okay. Everyone makes mistakes.

This will probably get moved there, so look for it there.

I agree by the way. Thinking homosexuality is wrong is not the same as being homophobic. I believe it is wrong and have friends who are gay.

3

When I hear “homophobic” I don’t think of someone who simply disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle, but of someone who treats gays differently (worse) than they treat others. IMO, the difference is tolerance - someone who disagrees with homosexuality, yet doesn’t treat gays differently or seek to interfere with their lifestyles is a tolerant person. Someone who disagrees with homosexuality and actively attempts to interfere with gay lifestyles or treats gays differently is an intolerant homophobe.

4

There is the homophobe and there is the straight supremacist, who believes (at best) that while there may be nothing necessarily wrong with not being straight, it is best to be straight.

However, let me try to address a few points you make:

Do you mean “wrong” here in that you think Christians are factually incorrect, that they are morally repugnant (such as the “molesting kids is wrong” sense), or something else?

Right, but here’s the thing:

Homosexuals exist.

Pre-marital sex is an act. A rather active act, most of the time:) Same with polygamy. It is, to me (and to many others, FWIW) an inept analogy to say that you are against homosexuality in the same way you’re against pre-marital sex. The one is an existence and the other(s) are things you do.

I think the belief system you are referring to is one wherein there is no foreseeable advantage to being gay, and there is no push for anyone to self-identify as such, but there is no penalty. I admit this is a less-than-ideal place for me to live, and for many I know gay, straight and bisexual. But it is at least better than what some would prefer:)

5

While gayist is minorly amusing, I think that those who aren’t truly homophobic, but espouse an anti-gay slant aresimply bigots.

6

Well, sure.

Consider what a “phobia” is, though. An unreasonable fear.

Consider an ornithophobe – such a person is terrified of birds. The presence of a bird is extremely to distressing to them, and they will take extraordinary steps to insulate themselves from anything with wings and feathers. It doesn’t matter in the slightest to them that a chaffinch couldn’t possibly pose a credible threat to them, and you can’t reason them out of their terror.

Similarly, a homophobe wants to create an environment for themselves which is completely free of homosexuals – even when it there is demonstrably no ‘danger’ posed. Homophobes seem to work from a position that sexual orientation is some sort of contagion that needs to be contained, and this causes them to make arguments that don’t hold up to scrutiny. Like the idea that somehow having a homosexual teacher puts a student at risk, which is very prevalent. A teacher with a same-sex partner elicits the response “Oh my god! He has sex with men! We must drum him out of the school before he has sex with our sons!” Yet, A man in a heterosexual marriage doesn’t cause them to fret, “Oh my god! He has sex with women! We must drum him out of the school before he has sex with our daughters!”

People who think that exposure to gay people is likely to influence someone’s sexual orientation are homophobes. People who think that exposure to gay people puts them at risk to communicable disease are homophobes.

This is an irrational fear. A phobia. The fellow who’s afraid of birds might make similar irrational arguments to explain their fear. “It could fly down my throat and choke me!”

I don’t believe that all discrimination against gays is rooted in homophobia – some of it is just plain hatred.

7

Off to Great Debates.

Cajun Man ~ SDMB Moderator

8

Maybe now’s a good time to bring this up: Why is it homophobia? Technically, that’s the fear of things that are the same.

9

As one on the conservative wing of the extreme left, I have always found “homophobe” an unfortunate example of Correct Speak. We undermine our own credibility when we stretch for neologisms like this. It is pointless, unnecessary, and counter-productive.

“Bigot” is perfectly useful, applicable and adequate.

10

Because “homosexualphobia” is a bit of a mouthful.

It lacks specificity, though, which is probably why homophobe came to be in the first place.

11

Do you think this is a fair assessment of anyone who has a problem with homosexuality?

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1661
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

So are you saying that if someone simply disapproves of homosexuality, they are automatically intolerant? What about people who do disapprove of it, but it doesn’t stop them from having gay friends, etc.? Is simply disapproving of this one facet of their friend’s life “intolerance?” (How could you be “intolerant” and still have a gay friend in that case? Wouldn’t true intolerance require not associating with anyone gay to begin with?) Doesn’t EVERYONE usually hold on to their opinions obstinately?

If someone believes homosexuality to be acceptable, would it be fair for me to call them a bigot if they refuse to back down from this belief? I don’t think so.

12

PS: I reread my post, please don’t think I’m trying to put words in your mouth or anything Mockingbird. I’m just trying to clarify what you meant, is all.

13

I think the term ‘homophobe’ is much too charitable to those who discriminate against homosexuals. It seems to make it a harmless little pathology, like being afraid of spiders or snakes.

I much prefer ‘straight supremacist.’ It makes the position seem appropriately morally repugnant, in my opinion, and includes a nod to the loony fringe mentality with which this outdated mindset deserves to be grouped.

14

Homophobia is a perfectly apt word.

All prejudice against homosexuals is rooted in an unexamined fear of what they represent.

End of story.

15

lissener, I don’t think it is that simple. I’m not talking about if homosexuality is right or wrong or if its a choice or if people are born that way. And i’m not talking about the types of discrimination against them either. I’m only talking about the word homophobia. I guess yes, some people do actually have homophobia and are actually afraid of gays. But not everyone who has a problem with homosexuality is homophobic.

I am not homophobic, nor do i or would i discriminate against them. I would support gay adoption and all gay rights. Some of my favorite clients are a really nice older lesbian couple. When their dog died we all hugged and cried together. The first boy i ever kissed was my little gay friend who wanted to practice kissing. So if i support them, am friends with them and kiss them then obviously i’m not phobic of them. I think of them as people, just like me. However homosexuality is not condoned by the church I attend.

I just dont think that someone like myself, who simply has a different belief system, should be lumped in with people who do treat people different simply based on their sexual orientation. My husband says i’m in the very small minority and that most people who have some sort of problem with homosexuality do treat them differently (meaning poorly) or do just really hate them.

Its pretty silly really. People can be so dumb and ignorant. To me it just seems so logical that people all over the world are going to believe different things and who cares if they do.

Well now i’ve gone off topic myself :slight_smile:

I guess that really theres many different levels of thoughts about homosexuality. And i did learn from people posting that there really is homophobia, I hadnt really thought of that before. But there is also people who are gayist, homo-aggresive and bigots.

Anyway thank you all for replying.

16

Hehehe, did you ever watch that episode of Maury Povich with the ornithophobic woman? She had a blanket that she put over her head when a bird came near…now THAT’S irrational…

There was also a woman who had a fear of green olives :dubious: …Go Figure.I don’t even think they have a name for that fear…

17

The “-ist” suffix is not used to indicate prejudice against but prejudice for. It indicates that one believes in some sort of qualitative distinction based on race, sex, etc. “gayist” therefore, does not really fit etymologically with what you want it to mean. It would indicate, if anything, a belief in the superiority of “gay”-ness, however that is defined (just as White-Supremacist does not indicate prejudice against white racism, but for).

Since you’re looking for a term to designate a general belief in a superiority of one sexual orientation over another, I think you’d have to find a term indicative of orientation either in a more generic sense (“orientationist?”) or perhaps which denotes a belief in hetero superiority (“heteroism?”)

Another approach would be to use the prefix “mis-” in some capacity. “Mis-” comes from the Greek word for “hate,” hence “misogynist”= “one who hates women,” “misanthrope”= “one who hate peope,” etc.

The problem is what to use for gay “mishomoist” sounds stupid. “misgayist,” sounds even worse. We can revert back to the Greek but then we get “misarsenokoitist,” which is rather unwieldy. Latin doesn’t have a proper word for homosexual although “catamitus” is a derisive term for a passive partner.

How about the Greek word for “gay?” (happy gay, not gay gay) That would be “lampros,” which, incidentally, can also be translated as “splendid,” or “magnificent,” in other words “fabulous.”

So…“mislamproist?” “lamprophobic?” lamprophobic kind of rolls off the tongue better, and I like the double connotation that it implies a fear of “that which is gay and fabulous.”

That’s about the best I can do.

18

These terminological choices have a strong political dimension.

Using the term “homophobe” to refer to anyone and anything that does not accept homosexual sexuality as OK has the advantage of making those so characterized appear: (1) strange (phobics are usually portrayed as oddballs with poor socialization skills), (2) sick (“having a phobia” is viewed as having a mental illness), (3) weak (“real men don’t have sissy mental illnesses”-- extended to women as a courtesy), and (4) morally questionable (moralistic-type assertions arising within a mental illness are automatically dismissible).

The persuasive advantages of applying a term like this are obvious.

Note that the other side–the anti-gay side–has traditionally exploited language in precisely the same way. In fact, ALL FOUR of the above characterizations were customarily applied to “homosexuals” by the general population prior to the 70’s. (It still happens today.) The old language of anti-gay objectifying reference included “pervert,” “faggot,”
“c-cksucker,” “sodomite,” “sexual deviate,” “molester,” “pansy,” “pantywaist,” “invert,” and even the supposedly impartial term “homosexual” itself, which denigrates by its medical-psychiatric feel.

I can’t resist noting that Edmund S. Muskie, revered liberal candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972, privately referred to an arranged meeting with a gay-rights group as a meeting with “a bunch of damn sodomites.”

For those who care to make fine distinctions, I would recommend reserving “homophobe” for those whose views on gays, gay rights, and gay sex show definite signs of pathological obsession (or at least mimic such signs). Persons who don’t particularly hate and fear gayness, but concertedly object to any dethronement of heterosexuality as the only proper social norm, might be called “heterosexist.” (The word already has some currency.)

As for those who don’t have any strenuous objection to gay persons and gay-rights, but who adhere to religious or philosophical reservations… it’s difficult to find a truly impartial term. Maybe “gradualist”–which explains nothing and isn’t even literally true, but probably gets across the non-hostile, non-aggressive tone that is the real point of distinction here.

“Mislamproist” could mean someone who hates Islamic participants in pro sports; or who hates and fears lamps; or lampoons, even.

19

I believe the term was promoted by gays: they like to say that if you are stongly opposed to their sexual preferances, you must secretly ,covertly, be afraid of being homosexual, where your sex drive will send you. That is where the" phobe" part comes from. This is specious obviously: if one is strongly against child molestation or rape, does that mean he is afraid of becoming a rapist or pedophile?

20

This is Great Debates. Kindly refrain from making unfair generalizations; it’s a poor debating tactic. I, for one, have never said that all people who strongly oppose certain aspects of my sexuality must secretly be afraid of being gay themselves.