Is it the dislike (or fear) of homosexuals, or is it the fear that you, yourself might by a homosexual?
Wiki agrees with the first, but I suspect the second is used as an alternate meaning.
I should probably point out that many poeple are accused of it by virtue of not believing people ought engage in homosexual acts. As a nbew word it’s meaning is rather vague, which may or may not change with time.
Vague? How many technophobes do you know that love their latest cell phone or computer?
I would think that anyone who would imply that the term means a secret love for the exact opposite of the what word logically means, has an agenda.
In my experience, it’s used far more to mean a disliking of homosexuality rather than an irrational fear of it.
I have been called a homophobic but I don’t dislike nor fear homosexuals. But the word also includes those like myself that would never choose nor participate in a homosexual relationship. There are aspects of that kind of lifestyle that I do not believe in. If someone wants to live like that, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass, but I don’t think the government has the right to tell me to accept that kind of lifestyle.
Speaking purely in a linguistic sense, I would say it can be either; feeling fear that you might be gay yourself is just another subset of fear of gay people, just a more specific one. But in practical terms Liberal is right - it’s mostly used now to refer to someone who dislikes gay people, along the same lines as racist/mysogynist/other -ists.
sigh I know this is a very old argument, certantly around here, But “that kind of lifestyle”? “If someone wants to live like that?” What lifesyle? Live like what? Live with the person you’re in love with? Sleep in the same bed? Make the coffee while said lover makes the toast? Get the kids (if you have any) ready for school? Go work you ass off all day? Stop off for a swift half, then home for dinner. Pay the bills, and then a cuddle before bedtime. Yes, we must stop the government from supporting this lifestyle.
A-men. Well put, betenoir. ^5
Putting the Wikipedia article in context, the GQ answer, (and we are sitll n GQ and I see no reason why a word definition would need to be moved to GD or the Pit), would proceed along the following lines:
The psychologist, George Weinberg, popularized the meaning as related to homosexuality, (as opposed to the much earlier and rarely used meaning “fear of man”), with the specific argument that since homosexuality posed no genuine threat to anyone, any negative reaction to homosexuality was a phobia. (Discussions regarding how appropriate Weinberg’s claim was in the context of modern psyhology are not relevant to this discussion.)
From his coinage, we see two separate, but mutually reinforcing trends:
-
Based on Wenberg’s claim that all hostility to homosexuality was a phobia, it clearly followed that the word identified all hostility to homosexuality. So the word almost immediately came to enter popular usage meaning hostility to homosexuality, regardless whether such hostility was truly based on fear (as Weinberg proposed) or some other motivation (as used by folks who had never read Weinberg and did not care about his claims.
-
During the same period, the idea was floated that (most?) people who were hostile to homosexuality were driven by their own fear that they might, themselves, be homosexual. Clearly, this seems to be an extraordinarily broad claim and I am unaware that Weinberg ever made it. HOWEVER, given that several prominent opponents of homosexuality (or opponents of “extending” the rights of citizenship to persons who are homosexual) have, indeed, been discovered to be homosexual after spending many years condemning homosexuality, (two of Jerry Falwell’s lieutenants and the recent flap over the outing and later “cure” of Ted Haggard are prominent examples), there is a strong temptation by some people to argue from the specific to the general and insist that homophobia is a sign that a person fears being homosexual himself or herself. That is not actually the meaning of the word as coined by Weinberg. However, a person who accepts Weinberg’s declaration that hatred for homosexuals is rooted in fear who further believes that the fear described is a fear that one might, oneself, be homosexual, is likely to conflate the two beliefs into the one word.
If this doesn’t end up in the Pit, I don’t know what should.
Homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle, it is a sexual preference, part of who and what you are. You can believe in God or the flying pasta thingy, but homosexuality is there if you believe it or not.
In retrospect; I take particular offence at the phrase ‘I do not believe in’ if/when you, racer72, would like to rephrase that; it’s all good.
p.s. re-reading your post: Never mind; you (IMO) are homophobic.
You can accept whatever you like; some like boys, some like girls, that is NOT a choice.
Exactly. It’s a choice. 
I’m not surprised you’ve been called homophobic, because you are. I would never choose nor participate in a **heterosexual **relationship, but that doesn’t make me heterophobic. But if I stated that there are aspects of that kind of lifestyle that I do not believe in, then yes, I’d be heterophobic. And if I accused the government of telling me to accept that kind of lifestyle, then yes, I’d be heterophobic.
I’d be interested in hearing your description of my lifestyle, and which government is telling you to accept it.
Um, yeah . . . not so much.
Jack Chick.
Rather than sending a potentially informative and even illuminating thread to the Pit, posters with clearly political positions should go open their own threads in the appropriate Forum and posters who recognize that inappropriate posts havce been submitted should either (or both) ignore the inappropriate posts (letting their silence display the lack of relevance demonstrated by such posts), or report such posts to permit the GQ mods to decide how to handle the situation.
This thread does not need to be sent to the Pit based on a single irrelevant post. The thread could easily remain in GQ to permit dispassionate discussion as long as other posters are more interested in fighting ignorance than in expressing personal outrage.
The thing is, it is a lifestyle for a lot of homosexuals, and it’s different from what the WASP majority think of as the culture of the United States. It’s not any different than rejecting a Puerto Rican lifestyle, a black lifestyle, or a middle eastern lifestyle in the USA. There’s a significant number of members of those groups that have fully assimilated to the WASP world-view, and you can probably say they’re not lifestyles.
I’d disagree. While these people might choose a particular way of living they don’t have any choice about themselves. A black person might choose to live in a way you consider to be white* but they still have black skin.
Being homosexual is pretty much just about who you want to screw and/or have a relationship with. Some people might choose to tap into a particular culture associated with that sexuality (camp/leather/interior design/whatever) but that doesn’t mean that the lifestyle is the same thing as the sexuality.
*Not getting at you here. Just that I don’t think there are such huge cultural differences based on race in the UK as the USA so I don’t really understand what a ‘black lifestyle’ means.
No, I understand you’re not trying to get at me. And thanks for understanding that I’m not trying to support that people are intolerant of lifestyles. But people are. By “black lifestyle” (and so on) I mean cultures (including the “gay culture”) that don’t conform to the expectations of the majority of United Statesians, i.e., that that aren’t assimilated. In a workplace, for example, there’s a certain behavior that’s accepted. If you act white, talk white, pretend you’re white, then all but the most ardent racists will have any open hostility towards you. If, on the other hand, you make no effort to pretend that you belong to “our” culture, you’re going to be treated differently – even from people that wouldn’t consider themselves racists. People just want to be around people that are the same as them; once you’re different, that makes them uncomfortable. This can be easily extended to homosexuals. If you come to work in the persona of a “culturally gay” person, this makes people ill at ease – homophobes or not. If you’re gay, and people know you’re gay, but you don’t do anything that’s obviously gay, then chances are you won’t be singled out for especial attention.
Now note that I’m not trying to defend these behaviors, even when pointing out that aversion to dissimilarity is human nature; one can overcome his nature. Still, it’s a fact of life. If you’re a cross-dressing gay, or a lispy gay, or a flamboyant gay, or otherwise obviously public with your gaydom, you’ll be treated differently, even by the tolerant.
When I hear “gay lifestyle” I don’t imagine in my head all of the “normal” gay people that just want to live their lives, but rather the individuals that make it a point to live in a fashion that demonstrates that they’re gay. Otherwise, it’s not a gay lifestyle; it’s just the white bread, WASP, normal American lifestyle – gay or not.
People who cannot tolerate the minor discomforts arising from racial/cultural differences without showing “open hostility” towards the people from a different race/culture are racists, even if they wouldn’t consider themselves so. If you require non-white people to “pretend they’re white” in order to treat them the same as you would white people, then you’re a racist.
What sorts of “demonstrating that they’re gay” are you including in this so-called “fashion” of living? Having pictures of their gay partners on their office desks? Mentioning their same-sex spouses in public, in the same way that most people would mention their opposite-sex spouses?
If your definition of “normal gay” requires gay people to hide all information about themselves that might reveal their gayness—in other words, to “pretend they’re straight” in the same way that non-white people should “pretend they’re white”—then I’d have to agree that what’s going on here is not just dislike of a particular “lifestyle”, but full-blown homophobia.