Talk:Homophobia/Archive 7

message: Just as a PSA:  Before editing any article as controversial as this one, editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles.  The three main policies must also be understood and carefully upheld: WP:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.  A sustained effort by all editors to maintain these policies and guidelines is the best way to create an accurate article and avoid conflict.  Joie de Vivre 17:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Read this first

message: It should be noted that "homophobia" is literally fear of things that are the same.  It is used as slang to refer to fear of homosexuals. Hans404 23:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there is quite a lot of info in the article with regard to word's etymology. I don't think that your comment does add anything helpful. -- tasc wordsdeeds 23:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Etymologically, Hans is actually saying that "homophobia" literally translates as "fear of the same".  "Homo" is  a prefix here that means "Same".  Not different.  Now, if you are saying that homophobia often manifests itself as "fear of what is different", I.E., fear by a heterosexual of someone who is differently-sexual than them, then yes, homophobia is often described to label a person with anti-homosexual opinions.  The real matter here, though, is that the assertion that someone is homophobic is definitely an opinion. The one 'academic source' that is cited, George Weinberg, is clearly a 'homophile' due to his political affiliations with pro-homosexual groups. Hardly clinical.... Zebraic 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, there is a lot on the word's etymology in the article, and while it may appear to derive as "fear of same", it does not.  Nor does the apparent etymology of a word define its meaning.  The word is very clearly used to mean "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals".  We needn't make up mental contortions for how speakers get there from "fear of same".  Etymology is not everything.  bikeable (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right, etymology is not everything. Neither is fact, definition, usage, or intent. It is all bogus.  Everything can be dispensed with if it gets in the way of the inteligencia’s agenda to redefine vice as virtue, and scum as saint.  To what end?  The destruction of the culture through the destruction of the languages ability to describe that which is antithetical to a cultures own survival?  Surly there must be some sanity left in the mind of the reader that shouts out, "Liar!" when one reads tripe that is spewed onto the pages of Wikipedia by delusional eggheads who desperately want to recreate the world by calling a pig a princess. No, I say; the netizens know your game and even though you type millions of characters into edit boxes, you cannot change one mind. A pig is still always going to be a pig no matter how you dress it, the pitiful "oink" will give it away every time.  Save your arthritic knuckles from further punishment. No one is fooled except your own self. Britcom 08:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you should calm down and recall WP:CIVIL.  I am merely trying to point out that etymology does not determine meaning; meaning is determined by usage.  It may appear that homo-phobic means fear of same, but I defy you to find uses of the term in that way.  The clear meaning is as stated, because that is how it is used in the real world.  It is a common misunderstanding that words must follow their etymologies.  They do not.  Is something that is "cool" necessarily cold?  Must a quarantine be forty days long?  Does a lipophobic compound really "hate" fats and oils?  You know what "homophobic" means as well as I do, so perhaps you should stop with the histrionics.  bikeable (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll thank you not to patronize a serious observation. My comment is not that hard to understand. Wikipedia has a serious flaw in that it can be successfully high jacked and used as propaganda by small groups of academic cultural revisionists who have nothing better to do than insult our intelligence. Britcom 10:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps if you didn't bolster your "serious observation" by referring to others as "delusional eggheads", people would be more willing to listen.  Joie de Vivre 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Don't change your text: Obviously you can edit or delete your own words, while you are still composing the initial text, but afterwards, you should not do so, as this will put others' comments in a different context. Even if no one has replied, someone may still have read what you have written — so think before you speak! If you wish to amend your statement, use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration. Strike-through is typed like this and ends up like this."
User:Britcom had previously used the phrase "delusional eggheads" among other such material, which they have since deleted.  Joie de Vivre 20:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbush... "delusional eggheads" is still there and has been there the whole time. I think the term fits as used.  All of my edits are commented and the only changes I make are for typos. Joie de Vivre is apparently blowing hot air with his accusations. Britcom 23:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Check the edit history!  Joie de Vivre 01:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Joie de Vivre could enlighten us by linking to the exact edit history that he believes shows that User:Britcom edited the phrase "delusional eggheads". Britcom 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homo-phobia 

message: Rescued this from an article being considered for deletion, not sure if it has a place in this article or not (homophobia being defined psychologically rather than behaviorally) but it's interesting and ought to find a place somewhere:
::Norway became the first country in which in the 1981 year a criminal penalty (a money payment or imprisonment for up to 2 years) for public threats, defamations, expressions of hate, agitation for discrimination against LGBT was added to Criminal Code. Norway General Civil Penal Code, §135 a.
DanB†DanD 02:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Homophobic speech as a crime

message: The second sentence in the first paragraph under Etymology and Usage is unclear to me.  Here's how it reads at the moment:
However, from 1969 it has been more frequently used with its current denotation, first appearing (in print) in the American Time magazine, 31st October edition.[4] 
This doesn't quite make sense because the preceding sentence mentions the word being used with a different meaning as early as 1920; so 1969 was apparently not the first time it was seen in print.  Furthermore, the syntax is a bit jumbled, and it's not entirely clear to me that the Oct. 31st magazine article is from 1969.  The #4 reference link takes me to the online OED, but that's a subscription service I don't have access to, and thus can't verify the year of the magazine article, which presumably is stated in the OED.  (And is that a good reference to have for Wikipedia readers, if they can't see what's being referred to?)
Strictly on grammatical and syntactical grounds--without in any way wishing to step into the debate on the merits of the article--I'd suggest the following revision of this one sentence only:  However, it has been used more frequently with its current denotation since the word was first used with that meaning in the October 31, 1969, edition of the American magazine Time. Of course, someone who does have access to the OED should first verify that this sentence is correct as stated before making the revision.  That's it.  I'm out of here.  :-)  --Textorus 07:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An unclear sentence 

message: Who says it is wrong or in any way unfair? All religions frown upon same-sex relationships. I'm also quite sure that, were polls taken, people from all cultures, races, backgrounds etc would find a man inserting his erect penis up another man's anus to be abnormal and unnatural. This needs to be reflected. In the majority of people's minds, homosexuality, not "homophobia" is the perversion. 11 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.128.105 (talk • contribs) 
:The idea that "all religions frown on same-sex relationships" is false.  Many religions are affirming of same-sex unions, including but not limited to the United Church of Christ, many Presbytarian and Anglican churches, Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism, many Buddhists and Neo-Pagans -- they are supportive of gay people, their relationships, and their rights.  See Religion and homosexuality.  Also, speculation does not meet the criteria for what belongs on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:No original research. -- Joie de Vivre 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI, United Church of Christ as a denomination has no official position; the Resolutions of the United Church of Christ are non-binding and non-representative.  Presby and Angtlican (you should throw in ELCAs) churches are the same way; there are activists at the top and they make statements that the laity disagree with.  But this is immaterial....there's no clear consensus in the mind of the American public (religious or not) and so wikipedia shouldn't definitively state who "the good guys" are. We are NPOV. We are switzerland. We are Neutral.  We report the facts... sourced facts. MPS 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (laughing) I like "We are Switzerland"... but I must say I didn't say that any of this is "good" or "bad", or that any of this should go in the article.  I am just listing the churches in my neighborhood with rainbow flags on the front door, stating publicly "We Are A Welcoming Congregation" -- which means welcoming of GLBT people.  I'm just pointing out that "all religions" aren't agreed on the issue, and that the speculated results of an imaginary worldwide poll don't belong here either.  I'm out; peace.  Joie de Vivre 02:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: Homophobia is just a sham to have a reason to hate someone and not get blamed or be prosecuted in any serious way.  It is cruel and unjust, against freedom, and just plain wrong.  It's like having an article about heterophobia (I don't think is a real word)!  Me, being a heterosexual man myself, does not fully approve of, but do not hate or banish homosexuality.  I'm sure that there are people with heterogeneous emotions about this subject, and if I offended anyone in thes comment, send me hate mail at [Jinzo2678@yahoo.com].
:Actually you might want to check out Heterophobia :-). WJBscribe -WJB talk- 14:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy shit! The Queer Industry stikes again. Homopohbia is a nonsense term, and Heterophobia is equally nonesense. I'm all for inclusion in WP policy, but this is deceitful editing.--Shtove 02:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homophobia isn't really a phobia 

message: We need a section on "objections to the term homophobia". I'll quote the anon in full, although he does belabor his point:
:The problem is see here is that too much circular logic is in play to defend the word "homophobia". Circular logic is usually evidence of an emotional, and therefore irrational, argument that the circular logician is attempting to hide. Homophobia's meaning (as defined here) is not logical. The reasons given for its definition do not hold water. The true definition of the word homophobia is that it is used solely as an excuse to deflect logical criticism. It is a shield under which those who desire copulation with a like-gender person hide. It is an attempt to childishly point the finger away from ones own feelings of guilt and play the victim in hopes of attracting enough pity and sympathy that someone else will drive away the criticism and comfort and reassure the "victim". Homophobia is a mind game that short-circuits logical examination of homosexuality. It is double-speak. It is propaganda. It is an attempt at brain-washing the hearer into thinking its usage is a foregone conclusion, but in fact it is a castle built in the air. One can describe it, and one can write about it, but in the real world it cannot exist. Its use is evidence that the speaker does not live in reality and has no desire to. The speaker hides within the complexity of the verbal smokescreen and attempts to frighten away any who would use logic to dissect the merits of homosexuality. Its use against others is, by definition, a hate crime (though I find the term "hate crime" to be equally illogical). The third rail of emotional logic (an oxymoron) is when one finds two equally emotionally charged terms (such as: Homophobia and Hate crime) that cannot coexist at the same time. This results in the “matter/anti-matter” like mutual self-destruction phenomenon known as "hypocrisy". Hypocrisy is always evidence of deception, indoctrination, or lunacy. I suspect all three are at play here among the defendants of the term.¶
Those who object to usage of homophobia assert that:
*it is used solely as an excuse to deflect logical criticism
*It is an attempt to ... play the victim in hopes of attracting enough pity and sympathy that someone else will drive away the criticism and comfort and reassure the "victim"
*Homophobia is a mind game that short-circuits logical examination of homosexuality
*The speaker hides within the complexity of the verbal smokescreen and attempts to frighten away any who would use logic to dissect the merits of homosexuality.
Now, I am not asking Wikipedia's Homophobia article to adopt or endorse this anon's viewpoint. On the other hand, I would not like to see this viewpoint omitted from the article. Quite a few people feel the same way. We need to identify and quote them.
Because the term "homophobia" is used in three senses:
#irrational fear of homosexual people or actions (rare)
#hatred and hate-based hostility to homosexual people, e.g., beating up "fags" because they are "gay" (all too common)
#opposition on principle to homosexuality, on religious or sociological grounds
Most people's position (in the US anyway) is that #2 is "bad".
The dispute (outside of Wikipedia) is over whether #3 = #2. That is, whether "principled" opposition to homosexuality, such as moral or "Biblical" objections are de facto "irrational". Thus:
*One side says, any "discrimination" arising from objections to homosexuality => "homophobia" (either #1 irrational or #2 hateful)
*The other side says, it is possible to object to homosexuality without being irrational or hateful
I hope our article on Homophobia can avoid taking sides on the issue, and describe both major sides fairly. --Uncle Ed 14:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Skimming that pontification once was enough, thank you, and it was not made by "an anon", but by Britcom.  --  Joie de Vivre 16:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above quoted statment was indeed originally anon for a few minutes as I forgot to login, I corrected this almost immediately, but some may have read it before I corrected it. I did write it. Britcom 19:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only just skimmed through the lengthy debate here. In short I think Ed is right. Those who criticise homosexuals tend to be labelled as homophobic. It is similar to a growing habit of characterising those who object to e.g. Israeli foreign politicy as anti-semitic (see the Criticisms section of New antisemitism). Wikipedia does not have to decide whether all incidents of opposal to homosexuality is homophobia, but the article should neutrally state that there is an objection to labelling all people who oppose any element of homosexuality for any reason as homophobic. I am surprised the article does not do so already. WJBscribe -WJB talk- 19:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not entirely convinced that a detailed account of this phenomenon belongs here, rather than in an article related to sexual morality.  Nevertheless, perhaps you could prepare a summary of the changes you wish to see, and present them on the talk page.  Joie de Vivre 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Objections to the term homophobia

message: The move requested above, to misohomo, has been discussed for a couple days by many of the regular editors.  By my count, there are 11 opposes and a single Support from the nominator (who has not edited wikipedia since).  Two editors have taken a "support in priciple" position that the article should be renamed, but neither of them have asserted that misohomo is a likely target.  It is clear that there is no consensus for a move to misohomo, whether or not this article is moved elsewhere.  Consequently, I will suggest that an administrator remove the entry from WP:RM and delete misohomo.  
I am not suggesting that Homophobia should not be renamed. I am asserting only that there is no consensus that it be renamed misohomo   As for alternate names and page organizations like those described above (e.g., Discrimination against homosexuals, Anti-homosexualism), we should of course continue to discuss them on this page.  bikeable (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and closed out the move request to "misohomo".  After 3 days, it was pretty clear that there's no consensus to rename the page in that way. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't know about misohomo, but the term homophobia has nothing to do with human sexuality. And it seems to have given birth to a brother, used in the same introduction: homophile. The Greek philosophers must be mud-wrestling in their graves. Don't move it - demote it to a slang section of the homosexuality article.--Shtove 00:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus for move to [[misohomo]]