Talk:Homophobia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homophobia article.
See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-24 Homophobia for mediation.
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4

Contents

[edit] The latest POV attempt

The attempt to stick the bit about racism at the top isn't even vaguely encyclopedic; it's nothing more or less than an argument for one POV. It has to go.

Beyond that, however, the article has gotten rather schitzophrenic. The "popular culture" section remains largely irrelevant to the rest of the article, but the section on "discussions of the term" argues against the rest of the article, because it is the only section where the connotation issue is being allowed to peek out at the moment. Even it is contaminated by a last graf about Fred Phelps which is there simply for guilt by association (and which removal is going to be my next act in editing Wikipedia).

So now we have a bunch of citations which argue against the claims of the article, and while we're at it, a lot of sections which argue, by implication, that homophobia is a mental disorder. It evinces the connotation problem whils refusing to admit that it is there. In my opinion we've arrived at this point by the consistent suppression of the etymological (and originally intended) meaning of the word. It is high time that the article was up front about this. Mangoe 13:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

While I will not contest that the article is disjointed and could well use a rewrite, there is no way you can justify deleting the comments of a notable person addressing precisely that point which has been claimed to be the invention of opinionated editors. A more blatant suppression of evidence is not imaginable. So while I will not enage in a tug of war over the article, let me simply state that the quote by Ms. King will be one of the elements of the article, in a section to be named "Assimilation to racism and other forms of bigotry" regardless of the political complications it may cause those who wish to present homophobia as a spurious agenda-driven issue whipped up by the homosexual lobby. Haiduc 13:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm deleting it because it's not any such thing. The paragraph in question is editorial comment with a small dash of Phelps; it doesn't have Phelps explaining his statements, so it isn't evidence. It is of course germane to have Phelps discussed in this article, but a paragraph of weasel words isn't it.
I've now used up my three reverts on the offending paragraph, so I presume someone is going to come along and put it back in since I can no longer defend it. It is not consonant with Boggs's article, which no more than alludes to Phelps. Mangoe 21:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Planned Parenthood reference

I've been trying to fix the more visually broken references, and I find that the one to the PP site cannot be fixed because the page isn't there anymore. Can anyone help? Mangoe 21:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A waybacked copy: [1]. Horribly mirrored, but at least the text is intact. -- Face 21:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Using that copy I was able to find a current version (I think).
Note that the first sentence of the reference says "Homophobia is the fear of homosexuality." We seem to be increasingly finding references that follow the "phobia" line and not the "prejudice" line of argument. It seems to me that we are going to have to step back a bit from the "common knowledge" we have of the word's usage and confront the references better. Mangoe 01:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objections to homophobia as "pejorative" are invariably from homophobes

Homophobia means hatred of or disgust felt for LGBT people. Objections to having the word used to identify social or religious policies that are sourced in hatred/disgust of LGBT people are invariably (as indeed this Talk page shows) from homophobes who want their homophobic views to be regarded as normal, rather than identified as homophobic. Yonmei 17:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The citations from the article itself refute this. Mangoe 19:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
anyone who has lived in cities with gay or straight liberal friends and acquantances know also that "homophobic" has been applied to political opponents of public policy such as gay marriage. i certainly believe that, even if the label is "correct" (whatever that means), it is still decidedly pejorative. no one calls another a "homophobe" without a modicum of disrespect and/or disapproval. to say "Objections to homophobia as "pejorative" are invariably from homophobes" is indicative of prejudice/intolerance on your part. it's like saying Republicans are invariably greedy fascists. r b-j 16:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
i think everyone agrees that homophobia means hatred of or disgust felt for LGBT people. there is a conceivable use of "homophobia" that is sorta clinical. somewhat if someone who is a little mentally ill and has such hatred of or disgust felt for LGBT people similar to a clinical observation of a blatantly (and possibly irrationally) racist person. sorta like "psychopath". but even so, "homophobe" is decidedly pejorative until anyone can cite a class or significant group of people who would not mind being identified as homophobes. small hateful groups like Westboro Baptist Church who might be proud of the "homophobe" label are insufficient because these groups are marginalized and derided by nearly all of society.
even though racists abound who might feel differently, calling someone "Irish" or "Italian" is, of course, not decidedly pejorative. i would think that most folks in that group are pleased and proud of their heritage and ethnic label. but virtually no one (leaving out Phelps, et. al.) wants to think of themselves as homophobic. virtually everytime "homophobe" is used to label or describe someone, it is with disapproval and contempt for the homophobe. that is the very definition of pejorative. if no one else puts it back, i will, and am willing to defend it. i certainly do not understand the objection of some to describing the terms "homophobe" or "homophobia" as pejorative or derogatory. outside of Phelps and Westboro, you show me a single credible application of the terms where disapproval or contempt is not implied. if you cannot, the deletion of the word "pejorative" is POV. r b-j 04:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The very first sentence of the article, where it's defined. That is not pejorative. CovenantD 04:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
so what? that very first sentence of the article is one that i have defended multiple times (from someone trying to change the definition to their favorite POV). it is a dictionary definition (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary), except it could use the word "irrational" to be complete. saying that it "is defined" to be what the definition is, is an unnecessary recent addition, but does not hurt it, but i think i'll take that out if i bother to edit this again.
the problem with your point, CovenantD, is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. not only do articles here with a one-word title mention the definition of the title word (and they should, an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic ), they discuss other aspects of the topic, such as its common usage. calling a person a "homophobe" is as pejorative as calling someone a "racist". calling a political position or a policy "homophobic" is as derogatory as calling it "racist". virtually no one approves of or admits to approving of racism and the same can be said for homophobia as defined in the dictionary and in the first line. you still have to come up with a credible example of a common use of "homophobia" that is not disapproving of the person or policy or movement that the term is directed to.
it is false (and your POV injection) to claim that the use of the word is not inherently pejorative. of course it is. just as "racist" is a pejorative. r b-j 04:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It is the opinion of one commentator in the article (and yourself) that it is inherently pejorative. You are setting up a false comparison between "racist" and "homophobia." The correct comparison would be "racism" and "homophobia." Are you arguing that a word like "racism" is pejorative? CovenantD 15:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
i was comparing "racist" to "homophobic" and stating the obivious that to call any person or organization of persons or action or policy of persons or groups of persons, to call any of those things either "racist" or "homophobic" is decidedly pejorative. very, very few people would admit to either without a little shame and in normal everyday usage, if one person identifies another as "racist" or as "homophobic" the first is disapproving of the second. that's the definition of pejorative. the word applies. neither "homophobic" nor "racist" are a terms of endearment ("oh my, you're such a sweet homophobe, let me give you a kiss on the cheek."). if you look at the discussion about this above (around July and August) this was well hashed out and stable and acceptable language was found (that was not necessarily my preference), but it was stable and accurate. r b-j 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Directly from the article on Pejorative "Pejorative expressions that are not inherently dyslogisms may also be used in a non-pejorative way, however, and determining the intent of the speaker is problematic — as with any implied meaning. Conversely, a common rhetorical ploy is to apply "pejorative" to a factual descriptor — as "toxic" might be applied to poison — and then decry it as "pejorative" to suit the agenda of those defending the substance as harmless.
Not every breath of criticism is pejorative."
I think that sums it up better than I could. CovenantD 02:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pruning back the first section

The definitions in the first graf are now largely contradictory. I'm not going to touch them, but the second paragraph I pruned of a lot of quite tendentious and largely unnecessary explanation of how anyone who objects to the term is a benighted opponent of the rights which of course all homosexuals et al. possess quite beyond any considerations of morality. The explanation in the first sentence of how anyone who objects is of course a bigot was particularly offensive. Mangoe 00:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see this before I reverted, but I stand by my revert, as I really can't see how any of what you said logically follows from a reading of the current text. CaveatLectorTalk 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I've left out the word "pejorative" because it is self-evident; saying that someone is bigoted (one meaning) or in the thrall of a phobia (the other meaning) is clearly negative.
The coupling together of "hatred/disapproval of LGBT people" is a problem. "Disapproval" is potentially neutral, but "hatred" is in no way neutral. The phrase was constructed so as to imply that disapproval can be presumed to be motivated by hatred. THe sentence needed none of this, so I've cut it all out. Mangoe 01:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ. "Disapproval" is inherently negative, just as "approval" is inherently positive. One cannot, even potential, disapprove neutrally. --Chesaguy 02:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I was unclear. It's potentially neutral in that disapproval can be reationally based. Hatred is ipso facto emotional. In any case the word "right" is a problem because it doesn't just have a specific legal sense; it also signifies the ethical obligation to grant the legal right. Also, the issue isn't just about rights; it is also about disapproval in general, including that which isn't expressed politically. Mangoe 03:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
"It's potentially neutral in that disapproval can be reationally based." True - but there is no rational basis for disapproving of someone's sexual orientation, any more than there is any rational basis for disapproving of someone's skin colour. That is, disapproval can be rational, but disapproval of a sexual orientation is irrational. Yonmei 08:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to call that an expression of your opinion. Mangoe 10:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the other side also an expression of YOUR opinion? CaveatLectorTalk 10:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but evidently Mangoe prefers to privilege their opinion above the fact that homosexuality/heterosexuality/bisexuality are natural and normal human sexual orientations - for which there is no rational basis for disapproval. Yonmei 13:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You say that, and that is your POV. Obviously plenty of other people say that you are wrong. You are trying to edit this article into an endorsement of homosexuality; I'm trying to put this article in the position of endorsing neither side; therefore, the statement of opposition to use of the term has to be put in words that do not presume that the oppoents are wrong. You presume a great deal; while up to now I've been trying to work a path between the two parties, your last edit was so flagrantly biased that there seemed to be nothing to do but revert it in toto.
The fact of disapproval is just that: a fact. That it is an expression of hatred is often enough interpretation, and therefore opinion. It follows that valid moral disapproval of homosexuality may be coupled with a certain repugnance, and since that validity is something that Wikipedia cannot take a stance on, there's a limit to how far interpretation of that repugnance can be taken. Mangoe 16:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
We privilege science over religion in the Western world, and in the Wikipedia. Science does not recognize any "valid" disapproval of homosexuality, any more than it recognizes "valid" disapproval of baobab trees. From a scientific point of view, homosexuality is morally neutral. Thus anyone who presumes to argue that homosexuality is better or worse than any other sexuality is presenting a non-neutral point of view. So I think we can take a stance on that "validity." Haiduc 02:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't recognize science as a moral authority, and really nobody else does either. It is as incapable of recognizing bigotry as it is any other moral assessment; we could no more make a stance for or against this than we could against murder. We are appealing to social norms in making these judgements, not science; and since this is as yet the subject of extensive public dispute, we cannot pass moral judgements in this article. Mangoe 03:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mangoe's reverts

Mangoe, if you're trying to assert a rational reason for disapproval of someone's sexual orientation, please cite one. Yonmei 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, your consideration of what is rational and my consideration are beside the point, are they not? Our purpose here is not to write our own POVs into the article, but to present the sides of dispute and let the readers decide for themselves. Therefore my purpose in the last several edits has ended up being largely to prevent you from writing your POV into the article through the use of prejudicial language. Mangoe 16:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
While my purpose in the last several edits has been to remove the homophobic POV from the introductory section. I would be perfectly happy to simply remove the second paragraph in which the "critics" are claiming that the use of homophobia is "pejorative", but if it remains in, it must remain in with the clarification that invariably, such "critics" always want to be able to claim their homophobic views aren't "really" homophobia, because they have some reason which they claim as "moral, philosophical, or religious" for disapproving of specific civil rights for LGBT people: or else to argue that their disapproval is "normal", whereas being LGBT is not.
This homophobic POV is skewing the rest of the article. There's no reason why that paragraph should be there at all except that homophobes object to being identified as such. Yonmei 16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the version you keep trying to cut out said that. Here's your last version, with the problem words emphasized:
"This criticism generally comes from people who prefer to believe that their homophobic views about LGBT people ought to be regarded as normal or moral, when in fact they are based on an irrational disapproval of homosexual or bisexual sexual orientation'."
All that bolding is your usourceable opinion. Mangoe 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It is for people expressing bigoted opinions (such as disapproval of sexual orientation) to come up with a rational reason supporting their disapproval. That the entire range of sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual is normal and natural has been a widely accepted scientific fact for many years now - even WHO finally took "homosexuality" off their list of "mental illnesses" in 1990. I have been unable to find any source arguing that disapproval of LGB sexual orientation or civil rights for LGBT people "isn't homophobic" that is not itself homophobic. If you can find such a source, or some rational argument for disapproval of sexual orientation, then you should cite it. Or just accept the new paragraph I've put in, borrowed directly from Racism, which I hope will be less controversial. Yonmei 18:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual prejudice

I don't think anyone has yet brought up the term sexual prejudice. Looking at the mess that Homophobia has turned into, it might be easier to scrap it, start again, and use Sexual prejudice instead with redirects. Thoughts? Yonmei 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


I think this latest round has gone on long enough. Just as pro-pedophilia activists will always insist that any opposition to pedophilia is driven by irrational bigotry, homosexual activists use the same rhetoric. In this latest debate here, the rhetoric has been extended to claiming that anyone who questions the rhetoric must themselves be bigots.

Wikipedia articles are not supposed to present one political view, but rather a balanced look at both sides. CC80 18:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried doing that - one sentence presenting the homophobic POV and one sentence presenting the anti-homophobic POV - but Mangoe kept reverting it, objecting to the anti-homophobic POV. I believe now it would be better to acknowledge the controversy without presenting the homophobic POV that causes the controversy. Homophobic activists appear to have infested this Talk page and this article, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral resource, and I have hopes that the neutral version will prevail rather than the homophobic POV. Yonmei 19:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That's quite enough. Repeating accusations of "homophobia" as the chief component of your argument is a good example of why the accusation is controversial in the first place. CC80 19:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Given that the chief component of your argument appears to be an equation of being LGBT to pedophilia, and a presumption that only LGBT activists will object to having a pro-homophobic POV presented in an article on homophobia, I really don't think your criticism is warranted, CC80. Yonmei 19:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I said that your argument concerning "irrational prejudice" is similar to the rhetoric favored by pro-pedophilia activists. CC80 19:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
the point is that it is not a settled fact that anyone who disapproves of homosexuality is irrational. it's likely that gays believe it is irrational and that hard-core Christian conservatives do not. i removed the text that associated the actual disapproval of gay behavior and "homophobe" to loaded language and left that to the political opposition to particular LGBT issues (such as legal gay marriage or inclusion of "sexual orientation" as a class in civil rights legislation). there can be dozens of reasons that people might oppose legal gay marriage or the inclusion of "sexual orientation" as a class in civil rights legislation and not hold anything against homosexuals per se. this inclusion of the religious/moral opposition to homosexuality with the misuse of the term "homophobe" was something i wanted to leave out in July but Mangoe and others resisted it. now, i feel my discomfort with that was vindicated. (it says too much.) r b-j 19:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To rationalize is not to "be rational"

The tactic of arguing that one is "against" homosexuality for "valid" reasons is well known, and is identical to that used to repress other groups over the course of history. As has been discussed here before, in the eighteen hundreds slavery proponents waved the bible, arguably a manual for slave-owners. But in the end they were recognized as racists, and refuted on humanitarian grounds.

Likewise the homophobes who have "valid" reasons for "disagreeing" with homosexuality. This is discussed by others, and can be referenced. Allen Hevesi: "Bigotry towards gay men and lesbians has been reinforced in institutional America with a variety of rationales."[2]. Rationalized homophobia is actually a psychologically identified and analyzed type of homophobia (probably a section of this article could be devoted to it). Here is an abstract of a professional article discussing it, "Personality structure and attitudes in encounters with homosexuality."[3]

So while we should welcome and engage individuals who claim that they are "justified" in their anti-erotic attitudes, we need not be bamboozled by them or their polemic. Haiduc 00:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but the encyclopedia is an illegitimate venue for this battle. The refutation will have to take place elsewhere, and when it is complete (which it is not, not at this time) it can then be related. Mangoe 00:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Mangoe, this brings us back to July when some editors wanted the word depicted as normative even for use in defining political opposition and that was way over-the-top POV. it's like giving Rush Limbaugh license to call anyone who opposes his extreme reactionism a "communist". you can't do that. however, and i brought this up last July, you are over-reaching when you insist that it can't be applied to any person who reacts to the idea of homosexuality with disgust (religious/moral disapproval, etc.). while it cannot reasonably be claimed that all who disapprove of homosexuality per se are homophobes, it also cannot reasonably be claimed that the term is never appropriate. that's why this usage should be left off of that intro paragraph completely, both POVs are extreme. but it is just not reasonable, at all, to label political opponents to some gay agenda a homophobe (in an effort to define the opposition) which is why something about that should be there.
Mangoe, besides the fact it is so POV, if you keep insisting to put that there, there will always be conflict with others in defining the terms. since it isn't in the dictionary, there is no certain use that can be claimed as normative. (is it or not appropriate to call a person who disapproves of homosexuality at all, a "homophobe"? you say "no", others say "yes".) why don't you compromise and allow neither side to answer that question in the intro to the article? r b-j 00:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The following phrase, transplanted here from the intro, is an obvious "weasel" phrase and cannot be used in the article unless sourced. "Critics of the term argue that when the term is applied to opposition to particular goals of LGBT social movements, it is a loaded term intended to associate such opposition to irrational bigotry." Haiduc 00:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A source is in the bloody article, as I said earlier in the day when someone demanded a reference:

Kelly Boggs, writing for the conservative Christian website Lifeway, identifies "homophobe" as a "pejorative term" and says: "I have grown weary of being accused of hating someone simply because I disagree with or oppose their behavior. While there are right-wing radicals that despise homosexuals and wish them harm, they represent only a tiny fraction of the conservative constituency. In fact, those who spout hate toward the homosexual community usually aren't overly thrilled with my belief that the God of the Bible loves homosexuals and wants to transform their lives."

It has been there since 3 July, and it's even cited! Mangoe 00:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, it looks fine to me. I see there is a reference there now, which puts this issue to rest. Haiduc 01:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
it's never at rest, no matter what compormise is made. BTW, Mangoe's reference is far better than the reference i put on. someone should change it but i have been getting a little gun-shy. if i fix it someone will accuse me of 3RR vio, even if it isn't a revert. r b-j 01:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule violated left and right

I've tried to make some sense of the many reverts and sort-of reverts, and by my count a bunch of us are over the three revert limit. I think that technically I'm not over, but certainly in spirit I've tried to back up a lot of times. Yonmei is in the same boat, though I think to a greater degree. There's at least one editor who is flatly over the limit.

The trouble all seems to stem from this edit: 13:15, 17 October 2006 by User:Yonmei. For months the second paragraph had stayed pretty stable; after that edit, all hell broke loose.

I see that edit as an attempt to put Wikipedia in the position of endorsing a LBGTQ claim that their behavior is morally justified. And it seems to me that his subsequent edits have had the same intent. On the other hand, I am not saying anything about who it can or cannot be applied to. It is applied, apparently, inconsistently. The confusion between the simple bigotry meaning and the phobia meaning continues to appear, and the objection to the term goes beyond simply complaining about the name-calling. We have this already documented in the article. The problems seem to be that (a) Yonmei wants to make sure that the second paragraph identifies the opponents as bigots out to cheat LBGTQs of their God-given rights, and (b) plenty of other people either want to fix this (or overcorrect), or are using the fight as an opportunity to get in a few licks of their own.

It's time for me to sleep, and in any case I sense that others hit "refresh" so that they get the drop on whatever adverse changes are made. So I'm not going to make any further changes in the article tonight. But I think we need to agree on some neutral language here, because the "bigot" version is going to attract reverts pretty much indefinitely. Mangoe 03:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am definitely over the 3RR limit, as another editor already pointed out to me, and am therefore staying away from editing the page itself for 24 hours minimum. But I did want to point out this one sentence here, which strikes me as illustrating the main problem: I see that edit as an attempt to put Wikipedia in the position of endorsing a LBGTQ claim that their behavior is morally justified.
That in itself makes it clear that you are not taking a neutral POV on homophobia. The idea that LBGTQ people have to make a "claim" that our behaviour is "morally justified" is not neutral: it is homophobic. The neutral, encyclopedic POV is that the range of human sexual orientation from heterosexual to homosexual is normal and natural. There is no need to make a claim for "moral justification" for LGBTQ "sexual behaviour" in an encyclopedia: an encyclopedia has no business making moral judgements such as the second paragraph once expressed.
You are using the word "normal" here improperly. It is also normal for people to violate their own moral principles. You are really trying to sneak in normative, not normal, by implying a contrast with "abnormal", not with "unusual" (which would be the antonym in a strictly scientific sense). This is not really a scientific evaluation, but a moral judgement based on your POV denial of other moral viewpoints.
No, I'm using "normal" in the ordinary dictionary sense - Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, but for clarification, by "normal" I mean the ordinary dictionary sense of "normal", as above, and by "natural" I mean the ordinary dictionary sense of "natural": Present in or produced by nature: Of, relating to, or concerning nature: Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature. It is a scientific evaluation that it is normal and natural for human sexual orientation to exist on the range heterosexual to homosexual. Moral disapproval of a normal/natural human sexual orientation exists: such disapproval is homophobic. Yonmei 23:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
And your argument is essentially circular. Basically you are trying to overrule the argument that the label is improper by using it on those who object. That's essentially their criticism in the first place: that the word is being used as a sort of character assasination. It's pretty ironic that you are trying to suppress their POV this way, but in any case I think we were better off without a lot of question-begging use of the word itself as a characterization in that paragraph. Mangoe 15:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I take seriously Wikipedia's NPOV goal, so naturally I am trying to suppress the homophobic POV that was expressed in the second paragraph. It is inappropriate for any POV to be given primacy in an encyclopedic article: the basic facts should be given primacy.Yonmei 23:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I went to look at the section on Racism and discovered that a second paragraph existed there, neutrally acknowledging that controversy over the use of "racist" exists. I believe that paragraph should be the model for the second paragraph in the Homophobia article, and should not include any justification by homophobes of their disapproval of LGBTQ people.Yonmei 07:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yonmei, I was one of the people reverting the paragraph of Mangoe. I'd like to bring my own opinion. That is, regardless of the personal opinions of Mangoe, his paragraph was not so POV as you're describing it. However the new version by Yonmei is definitely better (and briefer and clearer, apart from POV issues). I hope it is the version that stays stable. --Cyclopia 09:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Me too, but I'm not quite clear when the 24-hour period ends, so I'm not editing it again tonight.Yonmei 23:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I have edited the article to a version similair to Yonmei's. The other paragraph is clearly a POV insertion into the article meant to placate those who oppose LGBT people on moral grounds. As has been stated, this has absolutely no place in an encyclopedia article. The Wiki should follow the scientific judgements, and the scientifical and psycholological community has clearly stated that homosexuality is natural and normal. No other rational basis can be found to 'oppose' homosexuality, so the opposition is therefore irrational and (yes) homophobic. Whether or not they like being called that means absolutely diddly. We might MENTION they're discomfort further down in the article, but only in the same way other pseudo topics have been mentioned (that is, against the grain of rational thought). And do we even check ANY of these sources before we use them as references? Why is LIFEWAY being used as a voice of moral authority in the other version? Why is there ANY voice of moral authority in this article? CaveatLectorTalk 01:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
That is, of course, your opinion. Clearly those with moral objections do not agree. And this attempt to essentially accuse morality of being by its nature irrational is painfully POV enough to be a standing issue in philosophy.
Yonmei, the problem word in your definition of "normal" is the second one: "standard". You are using the ambiguity between "unusual" and "abnormal" to establish a scientific basis for morality here which is completely untenable. Again, it is also normal-- statistical sense-- for people to violate their own moral precepts. Tehrefore it is not valid to define what is moral by what is usually or often done.
The obvious point of your argument is that you want the article to endorse homosexuality as morally neutral. I think that it should neither affirm nor condemn it, but that it should be honest about the terms of the argument. It is a fact that the term is objected to as a kind of intelectual dishonesty, and increasingly we seem to find more evidence that the two sense are not separate and that the objectors have a point. It seems of late that I'm coming across more and more attempts like this to force a POV on Wikipedia by suppressing the opposing views through specious and tendentious application of the rules. Mangoe 04:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes. The normal and natural range of human sexual orientation is morally neutral. It's a scientific fact that humans are normally and naturally, sexually attracted to both genders. Homophobia encompasses a whole range of antagonism to this fact - from refusal to acknowledge it to opposition to equal civil rights for LGB people to outright violence.Yonmei 08:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
And this will be the third time I've pointed out that behavior that we all agree is immoral is also normally and naturally attracted to lying, cheating, stealing, bullying, extorting, insulting, murdering, and while I'm at it going to war with each other. As a principle of moral calculus this simply doesn't work.
Why should we equate normal human sexual orientation to "lying, cheating, stealing, bullying, extorting, insulting, murdering, and war"? I ignored previous attempts to equate them because they seem absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.Yonmei 16:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
But beyond that, you are taking for granted that there is a common, consensus moral calculus which can be appealed to as an authority in writing this article.
There certainly is: the scientific consensus, which is morally neutral.Yonmei 16:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
That is manifestly untrue. I already don't accept it, and it is simple to find people who don't accept it. No branch of Christianity or Judaism accepts it
But how is that relevant? Wikipedia is not a Christian encyclopedia.Yonmei 16:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
and insofar as one finds acceptance of homosexuality, it is because those who accept it mean "natural" in a different sense than you claim to mean it here.
I have already pointed out that by "natural" I mean the dictionary sense of the word, or I might even say the "common sense" sense of the word: "found in nature". Any other sense of the word "natural" is generally an attempt to impose a moral POV on scientific facts.Yonmei 16:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
There is inevitably going to be a problem with trying to write this as an article that writes from the basis of having Wikipedia endorse the morality of homosexuality, particularly from one theory of morality. It is inevitably going to get tagged as POV. Mangoe 11:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
While your version is factually correct, it still needs the sentence you removed. The lead section should be a brief synopsis of the article itself, and like it or not the dispute about the motivation and impact of the usage of these words is a part of it. I haven't checked the LIFEWAY reference, but if it reflects what they, as critics of the word, actually claim, then it passes the reliable sources test. CovenantD 04:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The LIFEWAY reference is from an outspoken and public proponent of denying equal civil rights to LGBT people, and the article linked to includes the following judgemental and ignorant remark: Physiology 101 provides sufficient evidence that homosexual practices are aberrant. I have neither the time nor the space to go into detail -- and I seriously doubt you would want me to, but suffice it to say that homosexual sexual activity forces the body to perform in ways that the Creator never intended. As a result, homosexual practices not only are unhygienic but also extremely unhealthy. I have removed the reference from the second paragraph and created a new section further down entitled "Critics of the term".Yonmei 16:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] discussion: move article to anti-gay bigotry

I propose that we fork this article into two; one discussing the incidence and causes of anti-gay bigotry/prejudice/dislike and one discussing the term homophobia (word) What think ye? MPS 04:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, "This page is 32 kilobytes long." implies it's about time for forking anyways MPS 05:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the article would be helped in one sense (echoing a criticism I made months back) but that the argument over the word wouldn't let up at all. Mangoe 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "normality" issue

Picking out a passage from above:

Why should we equate normal human sexual orientation to "lying, cheating, stealing, bullying, extorting, insulting, murdering, and war"? I ignored previous attempts to equate them because they seem absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.Yonmei 16:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing you see them as irrelevant because in the commonplace sense of the word as used in the context of moral discussion, they aren't "normal"-- which is to say, they step outside norms-- standards-- of behavior. The point of the comparison, however, is that your appeal to normality is simply a step within your moral system. Your moral system. The whole thing fairly shouts "point of view!", because even with my religion turned off, I don't accept the way that you are doing morality, and I'm hardly alone in this. A large chunk of 20th century philosophy has been devoted to wrestling with this point.

All of this is preface to the real point: you are editing Wikipedia to have it endorse your moral position. The defects in your moral calculus aside, if you are having to appeal to a moral calculus at all, then you are engaged in writing to one POV on this. And you are appealing to one, a calculus that interprets scientific findings as endorsing the comnclusion you desire. That calculus is not science. I'm trying to position the article so that it reflects the two-plus points of view without privileging either. You as much as state that one POV should be privileged.

OK, I am really trying to stay cool here, but this is extremely difficult. It is painfully obvious, Mangoe, that the one who wants to insert some sort of moral argument into this article is YOU. Wikipedia should not be a battleground for whether or not homosexuality is moral or immoral. I am not saying that morality doesn't exist, I am saying that it doesn't *bleeping* matter to an encyclopedia. We should NOT put some sort of disclaimer in the first paragraph of the article for people who are just darned uncomfortable with being called a spade if they're a spade. A couple of senetences like those found in the racism article will do just fine. (One wonders why you're not going to that article and saying that it shouldn't portray race as a 'morally neutral' issue if your intents are soley to conform to POV here). The truth is, you want something in the article that gives a POV voice to those who are uncomfortable being called homophobes when they meet the definition. Even that would be FINE, but it doesn't belong in the article's introduction. We do not put a paragraph about abstinence in the intro for the article sexual intercourse, and we do not use some silly logic of 'presenting both sides'. We are opperating under a calculus of moral neutrality, it is you who insert some sort of moral judgment into the article. Wikipedia is NOT your soapbox, or a soapbox for homophobes. CaveatLectorTalk 21:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The "spade" here IS immorality. Calling someone a "bigot" is a moral judgement. The issue is entirely about morality. Entirely. And I point to the article on abortion, which confesses that the topic is morally controversial in the second paragraph. I don't accept that this issue is that much like racism; or rather, whether this issue is like racism is part of the controversy.
I am trying to exclude a moral argument from this article: the claim that opponents to homosexuality are bigots without a moral leg to stand on. What I find particularly annoying is that I don't think the versions of the article I have edited present a judgement either way; the reader can look at those and say, "well, yeah, the moral arguments of the opponents are irrational and they really are bigots"; or they can look at it and say, "yeah, the term really is dishonest." And they could even endorse the latter view and still maintain that the opposition is (morally, because that's what counts) incorrect.
What you want is to write in the "yeah, they are too bigots" position into the article. This is an article about public discourse about morality, and its fallout in politics. The claim that it's not about morality because you (in particular) believe in the moral indifference of homosexuality is specious. "Morally indifferent" is a position in morality; you are simply privileging that moral statement, not taking a position of indifference.
I personally do think that the term is dishonest. But I'm not trying to write a "Homophobia is a term created by LGBTQ advocates to imply that their opposition is mentally ill" article. The versions I edited did not say that; they simply reported the complaint in neutral terms. The versions that you prefer are precisely the opposite viewpoint version of the "homophobia is dishonest term" article; they are biased out the wazoo. Mangoe
An [version I proposed] of the controversial second 'graph, which did not use the word bigot/bigotry, was edited by CC80. We could remove the word bigotry from the first 'graph, if it's that word that's bugging you. A revised version along those lines would be:
Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.[1] It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of LGBT people, or of perceived LGBT lifestyles, sexual behavior, or cultures, or of opposition to civil rights specifically denied LGBT people.[2]
The term homophobic, meaning "prejudiced against homosexual people"[3], is often considered pejorative in the same manner that racist is pejorative, and the identification of a group or person as homophobic is often controversial.
Is that better? Yonmei 00:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "unreasoning"

It's right there in the cited definition, right along with "irrational". I think it stays. And I don't see why we have to redefinte the word in the second paragraph. Mangoe 19:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent people can disagree on this issue. Calling the other side "unreasoning" or "irrational" asserts that they haven't thought about it and that their opinion is prima facie illogical. If you are going to say these sorts of things about the "other side," at least give the reasoning/evidence/logic that they are ignoring. Even better, cite sources, not your own opinion of their opinions. MPS 16:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no! I'm talking about what appears in the first paragraph. Here's what we have:
  • Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
and here is what the citations actually say:
  • unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. (Random House Anabridged)
  • Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men (American Heritage)
  • irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals (Mirriam-Webster's Medical)
  • prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality (WordNet 2.0)
Note that our def is word-for-word identical to the M-W Medical version, except that the word "irrational" is omitted. Why the omission? Mangoe 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
the short version is that somone took it out. The long version is that a medical dictionary may or may not be appropriate since the article deals with more than a medical condition since it also talks about bigotry (which is has an ideological root not a medical one). The longest version is that "irrational" is a hard-to-prove, hard-to-diagnose claim that probably wouldn't stand if you added it back in sans a compelling description of the irrational-ness of all forms of attributed homophobia. MPS 17:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't think this really addresses this particular problem. What you've given me is a reason not to use the present definition at all. But if we replace it with the first definition listed, we still have "unreasoning", which if anything is more negative.
Some time back we went around over the question of what the word "means", with a preference for the dictionary meaning taking precendence over the "-phobia" etymological implications. Now we've gotten to the point where the "-phobia" aspect is better documented, and coincidentally or not, the dictionary definitions reflect the mental illness connotations of "-phobia". It's not a minor point because the objection to the term centers precisely on that connotation, as again the article documents through citations. Whether one person can accrautely diagnose another as being unreasonable in their antipathy is not ours to judge; if the dictionary definitions can be taken as evidence, people are making such judgements, not matter how reasonable it is to do so. Mangoe 18:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] normative use of "homophobic".

Cavaet and Yonmei (and others who have recently come around this article). you need to read a bit above this in the talk page before you ignite a content dispute that was settled and stable (with language not so much to my liking) months ago.

it is editorializing if you get to define as normative the use of "homophobic" to describe people who simply do not support the same political agenda that you might or that the LGBT movement does. if the article says (especially in the intro) that "xyz is homophobic" without qualification that if is disputed or critcized (likely by xyz and possibly by others), you are injecting a political agenda into the article. it is not NPOV to be able to identify a political opponent and label them a pejorative name, unless, at the very least, it is qualified that not everyone feels the same way about it. Yonmei made that very clear in this very talk page. if you do not agree with Yonmei, you must be a homophobe and that kind of setting the terms of the conversation is just not allowed here. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. r b-j 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph as Yonmei has it reads:
Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.[1] It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of LGBT people, or of perceived LGBT lifestyles, sexual behavior, or cultures, or of opposition to civil rights specifically denied LGBT people, and is generally used to assert bigotry.[2]
Note how the words 'it can also mean' introduce a sentence that will include the uses of the term 'homophobia'. 'Homophobic' as used to describe those who oppose the LGBT rights movement IS a use in common parlance. This is not about whether or not the term is justified. It is about whether or not it is used. Surely you will not deny that. WE are labelling nobody anything. Those who use the term in this context are doing that. We are merely reporting it. The one who is using Wikipedia as a soap box would be those editors who wish to insert a paragraph which basically says 'no no no, we cannot be called homophobic!!' into the article. OUTSIDE of the context of the wiki, i WOULD call you homophobic (that much has been made clear within your rhetoric regarding this argument); however, here I am merely telling readers HOW THE TERM IS USED. If you've followed ANY of my edits on wikipedia, you'll find that I see essentialist ideas of the 'meanings' of words to be damaging to the wiki and violations of POV. Especially in cases of words such as 'homophobic', we should report how the word is USED by people. In this case, the word IS used within the context of those who oppose the LGBT rights movement. CaveatLectorTalk 06:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, it is amusing how you ostensibly crusade for NPOV while you consistently revert the first paragraph to say 'dissaproval of homosexuals, their lifestyles' as if ALL homosexuals have an ESSENTIAL 'lifestyle'. Just thought I'd point that out... CaveatLectorTalk 06:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
fine, then take out "lifestyles" (it's ill-defined anyway, not all gays - i would even think very few gays - have the "lifestyle" of Christopher Street on a Saturday night). but you don't get to inject the partisan POV of gays denied civil rights IN THE VERY DEFINITION in the first sentence. particularly without alledging that POV to whom it belongs. not everyone agrees with the factuality of it. r b-j 14:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
No one can disagree that LGBT people are denied certain civil rights in many countries: that's a fact, not POV. And as Caveat has observed, it is a fact that the motivation for opposing certain civil rights for LGBT is commonly described as homophobic. Yonmei 14:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
well, some people do disagree despite what you and Caveat wish to promulgate. it is not a widely accepted fact by all parts of society.
The existence of legislation specifically written to deny LGBT people equal civil rights is not a matter for "acceptance" or "non-acceptance" - it's a fact. The legislation exists. Yonmei 09:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
there are people that have an honest disagreement with some parts of affirmative action legislation (which is why legislatures have been whittling away at it since the Reagon era). even though i think such legislation is necessary until there is no significant statistical liability to being female in the workplace (it used to be 59 cents on the dollar, what is it now?) or being a person of color, but i would not call every opponent to any particular part of affirmative action a racist or sexist. if i were to call them that, that would be my perogative, but if i were to write in the WP articles of racism an sexism that such words apply to opponents of affirmative action, that would be injecting POV.
But we are not talking about affirmative action. We are talking about equal civil rights. To argue that one can oppose equal civil rights for black people without being racist, or equal civil rights for women without being sexist, I'm sure you'd agree, is nonsensical: to argue that one can oppose equal civil rights for LGBT people without being homophobic also makes no sense. Yonmei 09:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
if that were in the intro to the articles and not attributed, that would be WP telling the world that such use is normative. maybe a hard-core affirmative action proponent might agree with it, but the non-neutral POV would be obvious and WP would become a partisan rag. r b-j 15:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The current frozen version of this page is a non-neutral POV, giving primacy to a homophobic POV that argues that opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people is not homophobic if you can come up with a religious or philosophical reason for "disapproving of homosexuality". The article linked to from [4] (the last reference in the second paragraph) includes explicitly homophobic comments such as "Physiology 101 provides sufficient evidence that homosexual practices are aberrant. I have neither the time nor the space to go into detail -- and I seriously doubt you would want me to, but suffice it to say that homosexual sexual activity forces the body to perform in ways that the Creator never intended. As a result, homosexual practices not only are unhygienic but also extremely unhealthy." this is bigoted and ignorant nonsense: and yet this is being linked to to justify claims that "disapproval" of LGBT people isn't necessarily homophobic. What this amounts to is your defense of your partisan POV as "neutral" and arguing that presenting a neutral POV is a partisan attack because you don't like being condemned as a homophobe.Yonmei 09:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I also have a stunningly good proof of why opposing hate crime laws is not homophobic ... but it's too long so I will just assert that my POV is NPOV. }; ) MPS 17:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I have protected the article due to the ongoing edit dispute. When a resolution is reached, request unprotection. --Slowking Man 14:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to resolve this?

Given that the version currently frozen on the front page is the version that the intransigent homophobes kept trying to revert to, does this mean those of us trying to have a neutral, NPOV, scientifically-detached based-on-usage definition of homophobia on Wikipedia might as well give up and accept that on Wikipedia, homophobia is to be defined by homophobes? Yonmei 14:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yonmei, you are proving the point of those "intrasigent homophobes" simply by doing precisely the behavior these "intrasigent homophobes" have cited. you gotta read WP:NPOV and WP:NOT.
this is not a dictionary, the article really should discuss other uses of the word other than it's strict definition. we should discuss that homophobia can be and has been used to identify persons who oppose political aims of the LGBT movement. we should discuss that the word has been used to identify people who disapprove of all things that are not either heterosexual or celibate. that needs to be said because that is how the word is used. but when it is said, it must be attributed to the people who are saying it and point out that the people it is directed to might not agree with the label. if you put it in the intro without attribution or qualification, you are telling the reader that this is the normative use of the word. that it is basically the definition. you are telling the reader that it's okay to use the word for anyone he or she believes is opposing some LGBT agenda that the reader happens to have. that is so full of POV it belongs on some LGBT website. but WP is not a LGBT website. if some LGBT website wants to label any or all of their opponents "homophobes", fine. but WP is not a LGBT website, nor is it a website for the Christian Right or for Rush Limbaugh fans.
FYI, this "intrasigent homophobe" has worked as a voluteer for the Howard Dean presidential campaign in 2003 and 2004 (and even introduced the Gov. to a town hall meeting during the New Hampshire primary in Jan 2004). being that you're in Scotland, you might want to educate yourself about who Howard Dean is and what kind of legislation he signed while governor of Vermont (civil union). i am also a member of a Mennonite church in Manhattan that openly welcomes lesbians and gays to the chagrin of the many other churches in the denomination.
the fact that you have labeled me a "homophobe" is proof of the very complaint that these "critics of the term" have made. why not also label me a "communist" since i am for single payer health care in the U.S. (sometimes called socialized medicine)? r b-j 15:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
we should discuss that homophobia can be and has been used to identify persons who oppose political aims of the LGBT movement. we should discuss that the word has been used to identify people who disapprove of all things that are not either heterosexual or celibate.
Certainly we should discuss how people who oppose equal civil rights for LGBT people do not want that opposition defined as "homophobic" (just as people who oppose equal civil rights for black people do not want that opposition defined as "racist", &c). But the place for that discussion is not in the opening 'graphs - not in Homophobia and not in Racism either. Trying to give the homophobic POV primacy in the article on homophobia ought to be unacceptable in a neutral encyclopedia.Yonmei 15:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The racism analogy

Yonmei, you keep raising this analogy with racism. That's largely where the POV conflict figures, because the claim that homosexuality is like race is a disputed point. I figure that your response to this is to drag out the usual references about the inateness of sexual urges. I frankly don't care to go through that again, because it seems to me (my undoubtedly highly biased view, of course) that your mind is made up about the actual moral issue, and that from that certainty proceeds an inability to see the greater context of the controversy.

I don't see how this controversy can be resolved without you backing down from your insistence (and for that matter, anyone's insistence) that the moral issue be resolved and then reflected in the article. I think we can outline the positions, in reasonably neutral terminology, remembering that for the opposition this isn't just about law. Mangoe 13:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mangoe, this is where i get into it a little with you. the article can and should be written in such a way without settling at all the issue of whether or not homosexuality, per se, is "okay" or "not okay". whether or not, homosexuality is okay or not okay, "homophobe" is a pejorative. it is a disapproving label of contempt for the person it is directed to. that is true in either case. whether or not these "critics of the term" are correct or incorrect, these critics argue that when it is applied to political opposition to particular goals of LGBT social movement]]s, it is a loaded term intended to associate such political opposition with bigotry. that is true whether one agrees with the critics or not. that is why i am dumbfounded (especially since i am a liberal straight guy who is completely in favor of legislation granting commensurate rights, such as next-of-kin and rights of survivorship to gay couples) when i and these straightforward and neutral edits are attacked as homophobic. so let's not try to settle the issue if homosexuality is "okay" or "not okay" or "normal" vs. "deviant" or whatever that argument is. we don't need to settle that, or even address it in this article. it is about what is meant when the word "homophobe" or "homophobic" or "homophobia" is used to describe people or positions or actions or politics (including the politics within a family or church or any organization).
this, in fact, does prove the point that they want to either shut up the opposition or define the debate by framing anyone who opposes even the slightest thing (such as their semantics of the debate) as "homophobe". if i am a homophobe for insisting that the first sentence be the raw dictionary definition and putting in that neutral language addressing the common use of the word, then it is clear that these folks are so full of POV that they can't even see it in themselves. r b-j 14:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm having a little trouble following this but I think perhaps part of the difficulty is that the question in the large is not just about politics and the law. It about how someone can live next door to a gay couple and not oppose a certain legal recognition of their household, but at the same time maintain and act upon moral disapproval of their situation. It is clear that this disapproval itself is labelled "homophobic"; whether or not that is appropriate is a little beside the point. That's why I've opposed edits in the second paragraph that try to paint this strictly as a rights issue, when it is far more than that.
I think we've gotten to pretty stable first paragraph, except for the reluctance to include the word "irrational" or "unreasoning", both of which can be justified out of the dictionary listing that is cited. I personally think that should be included. Mangoe 15:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

George Weinberg's original comment included 'Such homophobia is based on understandable instincts among straight people, but it also involves innumerable misconceptions and oversimplifications'. The word has been used differently by those who think of it as 'irrational' and those who do not. Misconceptions, oversimplifications and misunderstandings will continue unless language neutral to both sides is utilised. The dictionary listings will inevitably follow common use - eventually but with a term so recently adopted / introduced, care is needed when justifying useage based upon dictionary definitions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.25.106.209 (talk • contribs).

Mangoe, you can't use the dictionary definition of irrational to prove that homophobia is irrational. Take a look at WP:NOR under "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position." even if the dictionary is a source for the definitions of homophobia and irrational, you can't combine them and say that your synthesis is sourced. MPS 16:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
it's that one Merriem-Webster definition of homophobia that has "irrational fear or aversion ..." in it. that is why i think Mangoe is saying it is justified to go in. r b-j 01:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm finding this a bit frustrating at the moment because I keep getting presented with arguments I've "made" which consist of conflations of discussion of the topic and the topic itself as discussion. At this point I can't figure out what I'm supposed to have meant by implying that "homophobia is irrational", because a central point of contention is what the word is intended to mean. One group wants to push to viewpoint that it means "prejudice against GLBTQ people"-- period. Enough evidence has turned up, including the dictionary citations, to demonstrate that the situation isn't that simple. And one could even advance the view that "prejudice" implies irrationality.
What we are finding, it seems to me, is that the pro-LGBTQ isn't consistent within itself about what the word means. So if synthesis is forbidden us, I don't think we can step up and say what the word means, because we can cite diffferent people meaning it differently. What we can do is indicate some of the range of meaning and document opposition to usage. Mangoe 18:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
And why is it that we have to place opposition to standard usage of the term within the first paragraph? Why are those people who are insecure that they might be called homophobes by this usage getting special treatment in this article? CaveatLectorTalk 23:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Because they are editing this article and they outnumber us?Yonmei 03:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) Why are you saying this? The issue with the dictionary definitions is that they say that homophobia itself is intended to mean an irrational or unreasoning impulse. If you want to disagree with that, then, well, you're setting yourself up as the expert against the dictionary writers. And from what I can tell, against Yonmei, who has all but stated this connotation.

All this is assume bad faith all over. Mangoe 03:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Re CaveatLector's question: Hear, hear! This is a matter that must appear, but not in the intro. Haiduc 00:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
well, the first paragraph says:
Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.[1] It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to assert bigotry.[2]
i don't see opposition to the standard usage in that paragraph. this paragraph (the second) is:
The term homophobic, meaning "prejudiced against homosexual people"[3], is pejorative in the same manner that bigoted or prejudiced is pejorative. Critics of the term argue that when it is applied to political opposition to particular goals of LGBT social movements, it is a loaded term intended to associate such political opposition with bigotry.[4]
now, the first sentence says nothing about opposition to the term, but identifies it as clearly pejorative and compares it to "bigoted" or "prejudiced". How is that controversial? The second sentence (and last sentence in the introduction) notes an also common use of the term and that "critics of the term" don't like it. it does not say that if it is applied to political opposition to particular goals of LGBT social movements, it actually is a loaded term intended to associate such political opposition with bigotry, it says that critics of the term argue or alledge (maybe that's a better word) that it is. r b-j 01:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
"Critics of the term" is a fine example of weasel words. And the example of "critics of the term" that has been provided is blatantly homophobic.Yonmei 03:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
it's not a weasel word at all. it is attributing the (debatable) statement that "homophobe is a loaded term intended to associate political opposition to particular goals of the LGBT social movements with bigotry" to those critics (maybe those critics are wrong). would you rather it say that the "homophobe" is a loaded term intended to associate political opposition to particular goals of the LGBT social movements with bigotry as if it was normative the without attributing it to those alledged homophobic critics of the word? attributing that criticism of the word to only the critics tells the reader that such criticism might not be justified and lets the reader decide for themself whether or not they believe that "homophobe" is a loaded term intended to associate political opposition to particular goals of the LGBT social movements with bigotry. r b-j 16:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)What a question-begging response! In which sense is Ms. Boggs a homophobe? Simply because she (I gather) opposes you?

I quoted a couple of particularly bigoted and offensive sentences from the article she wrote in my last comment to 3RR violated left and right.Yonmei 12:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Because she objects on moral grounds (a basis she does claim for her objections)? At one point I cut out the "weasel words" and laid it straight out: "The term is controversial; those with moral objections to homosexuality have held that it is used to avoid consideration of moral issues and to stigmatize them." [4] Someone else didn't like that, and then two edits after that you "Edited second 'graph to conform to Racism model" (I quote your change comments).

I don't understand why you think homophobes (such as Kelly Boggs) who object to a normal/natural human sexual orientation "on moral grounds", giving offensive and ignorant rationalisations for their objections, ought to be given primacy in a discussion of the word "homophobia" merely because they don't like being identified as homophobes.Yonmei 12:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to the phrase "critics of the term". But calling them "homophobes" at that point is obviously tendentious. You are in essence telling the reader to understand that these people are bigots, and that their objections can be therefore ignored. There is no way you can have a NPOV in that sentence while insisting on labelling them with the very term to which they are objecting. And you don't seem to understand that among the various differences there is the issue that is actually being raised about the word. "Racist" is not "negrophobe" or some other such construct, though no doubt some strategist slapped his forehead for not having thought of that soon enough. "Heterosexist" apparently wouldn't do, though it would be the analogous term.

That's what keeps bringing us back to the first paragraph. The connotations of irrationality (and dare I say mental illness) to which the dictionaries-- and for that matter, the coiner of the word--- testify are a problem for the way you want to edit the 2nd graf, because they make the bias in your version too obvious. Using the dictionary definitions, straight up, gives us "People with an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuality object to the term because"-- well, yeah! THe real weasel word problem is with the first paragraph. The dictionary definitions keep getting bowdlerized. Mangoe 11:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And I'd like to ask Mangoe and R.B.J. again why you insist that these 'critics' be given a voice (not just an NPOV mention, but a VOICE that amounts to ADVOCATION!) in the INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH of the article, almost as though its a DISCLAIMER for people who don't want to be called homophobic. If you'll pardon the loss of cool, how the holy hell is that NOT a POV violation? CaveatLectorTalk 04:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, I dunno, maybe they have a point? What see is that it is violating your POV.
The article as a whole has a case of schitzophrenia which I for one have given up on trying to clear up. Over half of it is written from a LGBTQ perspective assuming that their opposition is nothing but bigots and needs nothing more than a re-education campaign or, failing that, consignment to the deepest ignominy. The first section isn't too bad, talking about the origins of the word (although it was an uphill battle to get it that way), and the section of quotes is really pretty good-- once the "guilt by association" mention of Fred Phelps got sufficiently quashed. The "popular culture" section is unedifying bilge, in my opinion, though perhaps some of it could be hammered into something that sheds some light on the way the epithet is used in popular discourse. Actually making much progress on the body of the article seems to be impossible because the POV that the opponents are bigots is defended zealously, because documention of the fairly contradictory evidence on how the word is being used has been hard to come by (except for the dictionary, which has been all but rejected as a source), and because owning up to the reality of controversy has been fought tooth and nail by-- I must be blunt here-- the proponents of your POV.
We had a reasonably stable version, and then Yonmei came in and upset the apple cart with a blatantly tendentious revision. Using the disputed term to identify the people who are objecting to it is a statement that they are wrong to do so. Period. Yonmei has stated, in several variations, that he is editing it that way because of his claim that they are wrong to object. Period. POV. Period. Mangoe 13:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The version that was stable gave primacy to homophobes who object to being identified as homophobes. I can see why this group should be discussed in the body of the article, but I see no reason why they should be given a voice in the introductory paragraphs of the article. And I still don't see why that should be so.Yonmei 12:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This has gotten to the point where I can only see your arguments as circular patent nonsense. The POV of those uncomfortable with being homophobes should be included in the first paragraph because its their POV? Can something REALLY be 'written from an LGBTQ perspective' or have an LGBTQ POV? It's very obvious that we're getting nowhere on this. I'd like call in mediation to get some cooler heads in here. CaveatLectorTalk 21:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

no, Caveat, the circular reasoning is yours. you identify people who disapprove of or are opposed to something (sexual behavior, perhaps political goals) related to homosexuality as "homophobes" and when they object to that label, you respond "that's just because you're a homophobe, your objection doesn't count because, of course, homophobes don't admit they are homophobes." there is no way to defend against such reasoning, other than to dispute the original application of the label. r b-j 21:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to say, CaveatLector, that I don't understand why you keep referring to the first paragraph, when the controversy has almost entirely centered on the second. The only issue about the first, from where I sit, is the reluctance to make the definition conform to what the dictionary actually says. I think this reluctance reflects some of the controversy about the second paragraph, but after the one edit I made I haven't tried to put it back into an accurate (if one takes the dictionary as the sole standard) state.
So the answer to your first rhetorical question is, "nobody is advocating any such thing." As for the second, the answer is "Yes." You and Yonmei want the article, in that paragraph, to condemn those with any objections to the term. The basis you and he give for that condemnation is that Wikipedia should endorse the viewpoint that moral condemnation of homosexuality is wrong.
It would be churlish to oppose mediation, but I frankly don't think it is likely to get us anywhere, given the nature of the dispute. Mangoe 21:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I agree with CaveatLector.

We're not getting anywhere.

There appears to be a small group of editors who want "moral objections to homosexuality" to be rationalized as "not homophobia" and this given primacy in the introductory 'graphs of the article. Unfortunately, it's their approved version that's currently frozen.

There is another small group of editors who want the introductory 'graphs to describe what the word means and how it is commonly used. I belong to the second group and I'd be all for having a section further down in the article describing the distinction "moral objectors to homosexuality" say they make between themselves and homophobes.

But at the moment, we seem to have two groups, both saying the other group is trying to promote its own POV. Whether or not mediation would get us anywhere is unknown, but it would certainly be better than hissing at each other on the Talk page.Yonmei 12:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, CaveatLector has put in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-24 Homophobia, so there you go. Mangoe 12:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
dunno which group i'm in. i don't want "political opposition to civil unions or same-sex marriage or political opposition to the inclusion sexual orientation as a class in civil rights and hate crime legislation" (both of which is legislation that i happen to support) to be rationalized as "homophobia" but i do want the introduction to repeat its dictionary definition and to describe how the word is commonly used. if the word is commonly used in a manner that does not fit the dictionary definition, that must be included in the introduction, but if that common use that is not the dictionary definition is also controversial that fact must be included. an NPOV way to state that common usage and the controvery is to attribute the fact of the controversy to those who say it is. r b-j 14:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe you represent a third group: you want opposition to equal civil rights for LGBT people not to be defined as homophobic.
you have to be careful about how you represent the position of another (or an opponent) if you want to have a modicum of open mindedness. political opposition to civil unions or same-sex marriage or political opposition to the inclusion sexual orientation as a class in civil rights and hate crime legislation is not precisely the same as political opposition to equal civil rights for LGBT people.
Given that marriage is, in the US, defined as a civil right, political opposition to civil unions/same sex marriage is, in the US, political opposition to specific civil rights which have been specifically denied to LGBT people. (And often this is the case in other countries, too: South Africa, for example, currently dealing with this issue.) If a person objects to hate crime legislation in general, it would clearly be unfair to class their objection to hate crime legislation as homophobic: but if they specifically object to legislation against homophobically-motivated hate crimes, but have no objection to legislation against racially-motivated hate crimes, then their objection would seem to be homophobic - they want (for example) a thug who targets a man for a beating because the thug thinks he's gay, to be dealt with more leniently than a thug who targets a man for a beating because the thug thinks he's black.Yonmei 23:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
certainly not in the minds of those who take the first position. but since they are just homophobes, what can you expect?
Isn't that precisely what we're arguing about? The argument appears to be here that homophobic behaviour ought not to be identified as such if the people who are behaving homophobically claim they're not homophobic.Yonmei 23:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
yawn. Yonmei, you are proving your opponents' point. simply from what you say. why do that for them? r b-j 06:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
But I have literally never seen any argument against equal civil rights for LGBT people that was not either directly homophobic or based on homophobic suppositions: specifically, I have never (and I have done a fair amount of reading on this) seen any argument against LGBT people having an equal right to marry that was not fundamentally homophobic or used homophobic assumptions as a base for their argument.
is there any possibility that you may have seen such an argument that was not homophobic but you evaluated that argument as such? no possibility at all?
Ah well, it does depend how you define homophobia, doesn't it? *smiles* As I said, I define homophobia as including all moral disapproval of homosexuality or perceived LGBT lifestyles or sexual behaviour. By that definition, I have never encountered an argument against LGBT people having an equal right to marry that was not homophobic on some level.Yonmei 23:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
you're welcome to have whatever definition you want for whatever word, but your definition of "homophobia as including all moral disapproval of homosexuality or perceived LGBT lifestyles or sexual behaviour" is not how Merriam-Webster defines it nor any other widely used dictionary. to use your personal definition without, at the very least, a qualification that it is such or that there are others with a different definition that take umbrage at your definition, to put yours in and leave theirs out is clearly tayloring the article to your POV. again, by your very words, you prove your opponents' point. r b-j 16:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If you think you can find citations showing some such argument, you would presumably already have provided them. The usual argument against equal civil rights for LGBT people is moral disapproval of homosexuality, in some form or other, so I would consider this probably to be a subset of the first group I identified.
I agree, of course, that the fact that identifying people as homophobic is controversial ought to be noted in the introductory 'graphs. But any explanation why the various subgroups find it objectionable to have their views identified as homophobic seems inappropriate for the introduction, and in any case, is likely to run too long if it's to include all the subgroups who object to being identified as homophobic. Some of the issues - hate crime law, for example - are themselves controversial. Better to have a section in the webpage about this issue, with as many subheadings as necessary.Yonmei 15:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
To clarify my earlier comment: I think that moral disapproval of bisexuality/homosexuality is a form of homophobia. It ought not to be privileged as not-bigotry not-hate merely because it is justified by some religionists by carefully selected quotations from religious texts. As far as I have ever been able to discover, people who oppose equal civil rights for LGBT people do so because they feel disapproval or repulsion either for homosexuality or for what they perceive to be LGBT sexual practices or lifestyles, and they object to having their disapproval/repulsion defined as a form of bigotry: they prefer to normalise their disapproval/repulsion and define bigotry as what other people feel. If there were rational non-homophobic arguments against (for example) two men or two women marrying, I am certain that the hypothesised non-homophobic people who oppose such marriages would have publicised them by now: yet after five years and five countries have made same-sex couples marrying legal (and a sixth by the end of this year) no such rational, non-homophobic arguments have been publicised.Yonmei 15:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
i have a moral disapproval to unchecked rampant capitalism and ostentatious materialism that such a "free economy" provides an opportunity for. what pejorative word would you say is applicable to me because i take that position? if we go into the sexual behavior sphere, i also have a moral disapproval for polygamy and what is sometimes called "serial polygamy" and "swinging". what pejorative do you have for that? whether it's "communist" or "stiff-neck" you might find those words applicable, and people who know me might find such labels odd. my hair is real long (being a male) and i have relatives that don't approve of that? what should i call them? i like to drink alchohol on rare occasions or smoke cannabis on slightly less rare occasions (and i wanna see cannabis use legalized, taxed, and regulated for adults in the same manner alcohol and tobacco is) and i know there are people who disapprove of that. what would be a good pejorative label for those folks (Republican?)? i want to see the death penalty utterly abolished. would be a good pejorative for that? ("bleedin' heart librul?)
there are all sorts of different people with different attitudes toward different behaviors other people do and different political positions they take. we could use an all-around catch all term, like "asshole". everyone who doesn't agree with every position i take on any given issue is an asshole. that pretty well covers it. r b-j 18:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
RBJ, all you have to do to prove me wrong about the civil rights issue is to find a citation (this is supposed to be an encyclopedia) of someone opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people without reference to any homophobic arguments.
Your sweeping references to other issues aren't relevant unless you can show that wikipedia editors have dealt with them similiarly to the way you want Homophobia dealt with. I cannot find that either Communism or Polygamy include justifications for prejudice against communists or polygamists in the opening paragraph.
Yonmei 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to be the mediator. We're going to discuss this here, but may I please ask all parities to state their opinions about the reference to homophobes on the the mediation page? This makes it easier for me to keep track on what's going on. Thanks! -- Selmo (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
do you want whatever our opinion/position is stated both here (where the discussion is most relevant) and at the mediation page? i can type it once and copy/paste it. r b-j 15:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some examples of how we are having a POV problem here

These are all taken from Yonmei's last set of replies here:

  • "Given that marriage is, in the US, defined as a civil right, political opposition to civil unions/same sex marriage is, in the US, political opposition to specific civil rights which have been specifically denied to LGBT people."
  • "As I said, I define homophobia as including all moral disapproval of homosexuality or perceived LGBT lifestyles or sexual behaviour."
  • "But I have literally never seen any argument against equal civil rights for LGBT people that was not either directly homophobic or based on homophobic suppositions: specifically, I have never (and I have done a fair amount of reading on this) seen any argument against LGBT people having an equal right to marry that was not fundamentally homophobic or used homophobic assumptions as a base for their argument."

Now I don't intent to argue against any of these; but all of these are expressions of a certain point of view in a context where all of these points are disputed. It is not given that marriage is defined as a civil right; the law may (or may not) treat it as such, but the law is not the only way to look at matters. We have citations as to the differing meanings for the word "homophobia", and at any rate I do not view your second point as being a proper definition anyway; I see you deriving it from a more basic definition and from your own moral conclusions about homosexuality. Your third point is simply an opinion, whether it is agreed with or not.

What I see in your complex of statements is a grounding in a particular moral vioewpoint on the topic. The reality is that the moral question remains unresolved in any sort of societal consensus. That lack of resolution is what the article should reflect, not your personal certainty. Mangoe 13:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Yonmei appears to be setting up a Catch 22... "I see no rational, non-homophobic arguments against SSM... but if somone DOES argue against SSM, then this PROVES the argument is inherently homophobic and irrational" How about the old argument "a Nuclear family with a mommy and a daddy is an ideal place to create and raise children, and so encouragement of this justifies legal/societal preference over having two parents of the same gender (regardless of their sexuality)." Obviously you disagree, but it's an argument that I am sure I could find a source for. MPS 14:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do. I've heard that argument made many times and have yet to see anyone present a source for it beyond "numerous studies" or studies that compare two-parent families to single-parent families. --Chesaguy 16:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Center for Law and Social Policy: "Research indicates that, on average, children who grow up in families with both their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage are better off in a number of ways than children who grow up in single-, step- or cohabiting-parent households." Cherlin and Fomby: A Closer Look at Changes in Children's Living Arrangements in Low-Income Families: "In any case, it seems safe to say that the benefits [of cohabiting or stepparent households] will be substantially lower, on average, than would be produced by the formation of lasting, two-biological-parent households." these "numerous studies" are well-known, well-confirmable, and well-repeated. but it's all beside the point. r b-j 00:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Also from the study: "This being said, most children not living with married, biological parents grow up without serious problems." and "children raised by same-sex parents are no more likely to exhibit poor outcomes than children raised by divorced heterosexual parents." So, unless divorced heterosexual parents are also going to be outlawed as "suboptimal", this would not be a non-homophobic argument. Additionally, opposing same-sex marriage or adoption on the basis of opposite-sex parents being more optimal (on average, not as a general rule) would only be relevant if same-sex marriage or adoption threatened to take children who would have otherwise been raised by their (psychologically health and low-conflict) biological parents and deprive them of this environment. Have you been hearing a lot of complaints about gay couples stealing straight couples' children? --Chesaguy 02:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
i am not Mangoe. i have absolutely no interest in the merits of same-sex romances vs. hetero romances or same-sex parenting vs. different-sex parenting, either in the relative merits of the quality or morality of such. so i'm not interested in arguing that. i just wanted to answer your "yet to see anyone present a source...". having done so, you dispute another thing, which is just red herring. neither homosexual relationships nor divorce is illegal anywhere i would want to live (that i know of). it has nothing to do with nothing in the present dispute. it's beside the point.
the point, again, is pretty simple. there are at least two sides to a dispute. even the relative merits of the two sides (for an observer who is not on either side) is not the issue. the issue is that one particular side wants to characterize the other side with the use of a perfect good word that is not the dictionary definition of the word. that's perfectly fine, because it is a use of the word that is in common use. but if it is not the dictionary definition, then it is to some extent colloquial. if it is that and also disparaging or pejorative, and the side that it is directed to does not own the label, it cannot be presented as the normative use in an NPOV article. it must be presented with the qualification.
i like to call Republicans, "dicks". they might not like to called "dicks". i don't get to just go to the article entitled Dick and add that Republicans are dicks without some qualification unless it's in Websters or OED or something. a qualification might be saying that the Republicans don't think of themselves as "dicks". i dunno. but, at least i don't get to say they're "dicks" in WP without qualifiaction.
i will no longer respond to points regarding the relative merits of homo vs. hetero. i don't give a rat's ass about that. that's not what the problem is about regarding the article Homophobia. r b-j 06:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Even if MPS is able to find a study that supports the argument that a two-parent family with a biological mother and father raising their children together is the best means of raising children, this wouldn't justify depriving same-sex couples of the right to marry. If marriage is stipulated to exist only and exclusively for mixed-sex couples raising their own children together, that certainly justifies excluding same-sex couples: but unless the argument is being proposed homophobically, it must exclude all childless couples from marriage, same-sex and mixed-sex, and it must also exclude all couples (whether same-sex or mixed-sex) who are not raising their own children together, but raising children who are adopted, conceived by AI, or stepchildren from a previous marriage. If marriage is stipulated to exist only for couples who are providing the best environment for children to grow up in, then all couples who are bad parents must be excluded from marriage, and all childless couples.
Simply arguing that a "nuclear family with mommy and daddy" is the best possible environment in which to raise children does not justify excluding couples who do not have children from marriage: nor does it seem to justify excluding couples who have children and who don't fit the nuclear family model from marriage. Nor do people who want to make that argument seem to want to follow through and exclude mixed-sex couples from marriage if they can't or don't intend to have children, or intend to adopt rather than conceive, or already have children from a previous marriage. All they want to do is to exclude same-sex couples, including those with children, from marriage. So, I think that argument is homophobic, but if a source can be found that argues that marriage is exclusively for couples with children, and no couple who can't have children (not even if they have adopted children) ought to be allowed to marry, I'll concede that there is evidence for a non-homophobic example of that argument.Yonmei 23:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
there is just no lifting the blinds on Yonmei. Yonmei gets to define what it means to be homophobic. Yonmei gets to canonize his/her definition of "homophobic" in a world-wide public resource such as Wikipedia. Yonmei gets to exclude any dissenting opinion of that definition when presenting it in this world-wide public resource. and Yonmei sees absolutely no problem with that and naturally cannot understand why someone opposes it. (actually Yonmei does understand, people oppose it because they are homophobic. don't believe it? check the definition.) r b-j 00:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I consider this to be a personal attack, r-b-j. Yonmei 07:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
call it what you want. but there is content in it that you are trying to evade. i am attacking your assumption that your POV is, by definition, the NPOV and your assumption that you get to, using your POV, evaluate any argument in opposition solely in terms of your POV and that evalutation is what counts in determining what is NPOV for the Wikipedia article. it is nakedly immature, circular in reasoning, and simply weak and unpersuasive. r b-j 16:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about the phrasing, but for the most part this gets at the problem.
I have tried not to pick out any editor by name on the other side of this dispute. If I had done so, I would expect to have been notified that I had committed a personal attack. r-b-j is muddying the dispute by this personal attack. We are all stating our own opinions: and for this r-b-j vilifies me? This is a problem. R-b-j needs to either cool down or get out of the discussion. Yonmei 11:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You are taking for granted that you can define the word and apply it; and you are applying it as a participant in one side of the dispute. I also notice that you aren't committing to one particular definition of the word.
As far as the ambiguities in its meaning, we have that well-cited at this point (something we didn't six months ago). That is why we have an unresolved issue with the first paragraph: the specifically pejorative sense of an irrational, ungrounded and unreasoning repugnance is cited sufficiently (in the dictionary, no less) but for some reason there is resistance to admitting this and letting the article say it up front. But at any rate, what you are claiming, on your own authority, is that you have determined that the position of your opponents is irrational, ungrounded and unreasoning. I don't accept your authority; I am willing to let this stand as an unresolved moral/ethical conflict, and I see no reason to accept that you have settled it.
So let's revisit the opposition's objection to the epithet. They are complaining that it poisons discourse because it presumes that their arguments are irrational; and you're saying that they're right in identifying that prejudice in its usage, but that it's OK because they are irrational. So you are, pretty much, the kind of person they are complaining about. If that assessment comes across as a personal attack, it is because you keep insisting on interposing your personal assessment of the merits of the sides. You are editing as a participant in the dispute, not as an observer of it. Mangoe 11:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Part of the problem with this dispute, Mangoe, is that we have people on both sides who are participants rather than observers. You have cited a homophobic article (ref [4]) as "evidence" that some people who oppose civil rights for LGBT people are not homophobic. I have repeatedly invited you and other editors to try to find a source for opposition to civil rights that is not homophobic, and none of you have done so.
I have searched myself for arguments against equal civil rights for LGBT people that are not homophobic. I have not found any.
You and others appear to want to define moral disapproval of homosexuality as not homophobic: I agree that controversy should be cited in the article, but I disagree that it ought to be given primacy in the introductory 'graphs.
The issue about whether homophobic beliefs ought to be defined as irrational bigotry is indeed one I believe ought to be left out of the introductory 'graphs. I do think that homophobia is always irrational bigotry, however presented, but that is my POV, and I would not wish to introduce my POV into a wikipedia article. I'm aware that it is precisely that issue - that many homophobes argue that their homophobic beliefs are not irrational and not bigotry - that renders this controversial.Yonmei 11:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem with all this is two-fold. First, I am not sure that you aren't using "homophobia" to mean specifically "irrational bigotry", in which case your statements are indeed quite circular. But if we step back from that, we seeme to be finding three different definitions of the word:
  • That it means simply any opposition to homosexuality, without other connotations.
  • That it means anti-homosexual bigotry, without any other qualifications.
  • That it means a (presumably unfounded) fear of homosexuality, which then is manifested in bigotry.
The last is what Weinberg meant, and what we have plenty of other cites for. I'm inclinded to make that meaning primary, and the others derivative from it. But the place we seem to be ending up is an overt denotation of the first, and then writing with the connotation of the second. That's what I take your meaning to be, Yonmei. And therefore the article ought to be upfront about this variation of meaning, in the first paragraph.
Second: Contrary to your statement, I do not claim that Boggs is someone "who oppose[s] civil rights for LGBT people [and is] not homophobic". But surely one's assesment of these qualities depends upon one's POV. If I take up a hard commitment to the immorality of homosexuality, then no, I think she is not homophobic in the second sense, and perhaps not in the third. In the first sense, of course, she is homophobic by definition-- but the whole point of her complaint is that in general the second and/or third senses are implied. If I take a hard commitment to the moral acceptibility of homosexuality, she is clearly identified in the first sense, but it is a matter of opinion whether she qualifies under the other two senses-- at least based solely on the cited passage. So the score comes up to be objectively "yes" by the first meaning, and a matter of POV/opinion on the others.
Ms. Boggs certainly may be wrong in her assessment of the physiological evidence. We do not in fact get much of a glimpse of her position in the cited article; it is mostly a complaint against what she views as tendentious labelling. If I may be blunt, it seems to me that you are fulfilling her complaints. Except for the "threat" in her last sentence, she doesn't use pejorative labels for her opponents. You do. Mangoe 13:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Mangoe, I would be agreeable to listing all three of the definitions you mentioned above as variations on the meaning of the word. I think mentioning that folk don't agree on any one definition gives the NPOV that we're looking for. What does every one else think? -- Chesaguy 21:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Even if MPS is able to find a study that supports the argument that a two-parent family with a biological mother and father raising their children together is the best means of raising children, this wouldn't justify depriving same-sex couples of the right to marry. Yonmei, for those who see "marriage" as the natural biological setting for child-producing and family-rearing, the right to marry is biological, not government granted.
That's absurd. Marriage can be variously defined as either legal or religious: but the one thing for sure it is not, is biological.Yonmei 12:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The right to marry doesn't come from the government; the government has to recognize this biological fact: man + woman = babies. The Government doesn't make babies; it therefore behooves the government to recognize where babies come from and make laws that tend towards the healthiest babies. Simply arguing that a "nuclear family with mommy and daddy" is the best possible environment in which to raise children does not justify excluding couples who do not have children from marriage: nor does it seem to justify excluding couples who have children and who don't fit the nuclear family model from marriage. Agreed that the government gets to define families for the purpose of benefits etc and that LGBTs sometimes suffer for the government not granting these basic family legal arrangements....
Thank you for acknowledging that same-sex couples, and their children, do suffer by being denied the civil right of marriage.Yonmei 12:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
but the definition of "marriage" is step 1 in the Government defining and incentivizing the ideal family as a mom and dad who stay together to make and raise their own kids... one last points is that most people don't have children prior to becoming married, so childless couples may procreate later... (note that this argument doesn't disparage gays at all) Many (but certainly not all) proponents of marriage amendments do not see them as banning same sex legal arrangements, but as ensuring legal definition of marriage to prevent judicial activism from changing the definitions all the time. Peace, MPS 14:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
That argument works as non-homophobic if, and only if, it is used to ban all couples who either cannot or do not intend to have biological children from marriage. (For example, this would ban all men who have vasectomies from getting married, and all women with tubal ligations.) But, if it used only to ban same-sex couples from marriage - whether or not they intend to have children, then it is a homophobic argument, and not a pro-child argument. Or - as you seem to be arguing - if the government should (it isn't) be using marriage as a prize for a fertile woman and a fertile man who intend to have children together and raise them together, then again, that's a non-homophobic argument if you're arguing that marriage should be restricted only and exclusively to such mixed-sex couples, and all other couples - infertile men, infertile women, second marriages creating step-parents, couples who intend to adopt or use AID to engender children - should be banned. But no such marriage amendment in the US has been proposed or has passed: a man with a vasectomy can legally marry either a man or a woman in Massachusetts, but can only legally marry a woman in Virginia. He can marry a man and adopt children in Massachusetts: he can marry a woman with no intention of having children in Virginia. So, marriage laws in the US have not been changed - not anywhere - to "incentivizing the ideal family as a mom and dad who stay together to make and raise their own kids" - and there appears to be no such intention anywhere of passing marriage laws that ban men with vasectomies, or women with tubal ligations, from getting married. Only of banning same-sex couples from getting married - even though there are at least a million familes with children in the US headed by same-sex couples. Yonmei 19:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
passing marriage laws that ban marriage laws don't ban gays; they simply clarify that the current laws refer to married couples implicitly as opposite-gendered couples.
Some marriage laws do and some don't ban LGBT people from marrying. Currently, five countries (six by December this year) have marriage laws that recognise same-sex marriages: the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, and the United States. Over 20 countries worldwide have legislation that recognises same-sex partnerships as equivalent to marriage. So, current legislation in the US and in the other four countries has to recognise that same-sex couples can and do marry: or else explicitly ban LGBT people from marrying/refuse to recognise same-sex marriages as valid. Of the five countries in which LGBT people can marry, so far only the US has passed legislation which bans legal recognition of same-sex marriage - legislation which is explicitly unConstitutional, as Article 4 of the US Constitution requires each state to give recognition to marriages performed in all other states. Yonmei 12:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Reread DOMA. Lots of laws (for instance adoption laws) have been written with the assumptions in mind that the word "marriage" is defined as being between a man and a woman. A judge changing the definitions without evaluating each law is recklessly rewriting adoption laws and other laws without considering all the implications and without consulting the will of the people. Until we know more about the effects of Parenting by same-sex couples people are hesitant to conclude that these non-traditional family couplings ought to be considered "equal" with respect to Adoption by same-sex couples. It seems to me that your argument makes an assumption that couples ought to declare their fertility before marrying... maybe you're on to something, but that would be legislation that should be handled by the legislature, not the courts. (Who gets to define "fertility"... the judges or the legislature?... and if somone opposes my personal definition of fertility, does that automatically make them a bigot? ) MPS 20:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
No, your argument makes an assumption that people ought to declare their fertility before marrying, since your argument (not mine!) rests on the assumption that marriage is exclusively for mixed-sex couples who can and will have children together. We already know - after more than thirty years of social researchers examining the issues - that children reared by same-sex couples experience no difficulties comparable to children reared by mixed-sex couples, and that LGBT parents have no adverse effects on children they parent. Of course these facts are disputed by homophobes, but adoption agencies round the world (and throughout the US) accept that same-sex couples make good adoptive parents. Yonmei 12:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Since we have now reached the point where one of the editors (See RBJ's Talk page) is resorting to personal attacks rather than reasoned argument, and since mediators have already been called in, I will await their mediation and refrain from comment on this page until then. I suggest that Rbj do the same. Yonmei 19:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This discourse between Yonmei and Rbj is worth putting here on this Talk page:

[edit] Homophobia: Yonmei

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Yonmei, when you use a template, you're supposed to fill in the blanks. {{#if:{{{1|}}}|With regards to your comments on [[:{{{1}}}]]: }} didn't make it. would you be so kind to point out where i was attacking you personally and not the quality of your argument? r b-j 16:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice about using templates.
Quoting your personal attack from the Talk: Homophobia page:
there is just no lifting the blinds on Yonmei. Yonmei gets to define what it means to be homophobic. Yonmei gets to canonize his/her definition of "homophobic" in a world-wide public resource such as Wikipedia. Yonmei gets to exclude any dissenting opinion of that definition when presenting it in this world-wide public resource. and Yonmei sees absolutely no problem with that and naturally cannot understand why someone opposes it. (actually Yonmei does understand, people oppose it because they are homophobic. don't believe it? check the definition.)r b-j 00:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks in future. Thank you.Yonmei 18:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
it's the quality of your argument i was attacking, Yonmei. and i stand by that "attack". and, by unilaterally labeling it as a "personal attack" (just like you unilaterally label an opposing argument as "homophobic"), you are again trying to avoid taking up the arguments presented therein and are continuing to present the same failed, circular, and self-convenient argument as a reason for characterizing an opposing POV as "homophobic" therefore it does not deserve to be presented in the article and dismissed outright. it's transparent. you're not fooling anyone. r b-j 20:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I have consistently said that I think that the POV of the group(s) who believe that:
their "moral disapproval of homosexuality" ought not to be described as homophobia
ought to appear in the Homophobia article - but it shouldn't be given primacy in the introductory 'graphs. It's just one POV.
I have also said that I think the fact that labelling persons or beliefs as homophobic is controversial ought to appear in the introductory 'graphs, just as it does in the Racism article.
So your claim that I think such beliefs "do not deserve to be presented in the article and dismissed outright" is completely false. I have argued for no such thing. I have simply argued that such beliefs do not belong in the introductory 'graphs. I'm not accusing you of deliberate misrepresentation, as I believe the Talk page got complex very fast - one reason why I think we should now give the argument a rest and wait for Mediation. But you have just completely misrepsented my point, and I would ask you to go back, re-read the Talk page without responding, and respond when we get Mediation to what I am actually arguing for - a neutral POV in the introductory 'graphs, not a POV that assumes homosexuality is somehow worthy of disapproval and that the POV expressing that disapproval belongs in the introduction, rather than further down in its own section. Yonmei 08:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

is this what you're talking about (on my talk page), Yonmei? otherwize, i don't get it.r b-j 13:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yonmei's opinion as requested for mediation

1. Given the controversy around homophobia and homosexuality, this page should take as a given the broadly accepted fact within the scientific/medical field that homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation: and that (whatever the cause of a person's sexual orientation) sexual orientation is not chosen.

2. It follows from (1) that the appropriate model for the introductory 'graphs of the Homophobia article is the corresponding Racism article: which would describe without any detail or POV pushing how the word "homophobia" is used, with reference to dictionary definitions: fear and hatred of, and prejudice against, lesbians, gays, and bisexuals

3. The introductory 'graphs should also briefly acknowledge, as the Racism article does, that the term homophobic, when used to describe someone who supports homophobia, has become a pejorative term, and the identification of a group or person as homophobic is nearly always controversial.

4. And that's all the introductory 'graphs should contain. (I'm aware that I have argued for and put forward slightly different versions of the introductory 'graphs, but having had some time to think without editing, 1,2, and 3 are what I think would be the best: modelled strongly on the Racism article.)

5. I think that the rest of the article needs a major rewrite, to include (for example) the homophobic prejudice that leads to supporting denial of certain civil rights specifically to LGBT people, and an outline at least of how some people feel that their prejudice against LGBT people ought not to be described as homophobia because it comes from a "moral disapproval", or a judgement based on religious belief. It might be best if those of us involved in the dispute could agree on sections that we want in this page and divide them between ourselves for writing.

Yonmei 10:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mangoe's mediation statement

The central dispute about this article involves the reality that homosexuality is now the subject of public moral and political dispute. In that wise the application of the word "normal" to it is already tendentious, since that word has moral connotations. And although Yonmei has carefully tiptoed around saying this outright, it seems to me that he wants to draw the additional conclusion that, if it is innate, homosexuality has no moral implications. This particular aspect, however, has not made its way into the introductory material.

What I've been following for some months prior, however, is another dispute about what exactly the word homophobia means. It is quite clear now what Weinberg (its acknowledged coiner) meant, becuse we can cite him on the matter. He was quite literal about the "-phobia" aspect, a point which I added to the article over the summer (including the quotation). However, it is clear that its meaning has escaped from this box, which is where we end up with the dictionary definitions.

This is where the disputes about the first paragraph arise, because the dictionary definitions cited in the first paragraph have consistently been resisted. One dictionary says "irrational"; another says "unreasoning". I've tried once or twice to put this in, only to have it reverted immediately. I think anyone who really checks the cites should wonder why this descrepancy not only persists but is being enforced. (to be continued)

I agree that homophobia is irrational/unreasoning. However, it's my general experience that people who hold homophobic beliefs will usually vehemently deny that their own beliefs are irrational/unreasoning. Yonmei 00:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haiduc's completely uninvited opinion

The condemnation and moral indictment of homosexual relationships and desires, in the modern world, has gone through the same progression which racial discrimination underwent perhaps fifty years earlier. Racial discrimination went from being seen as normal, natural and supported by biblical scripture to being seen as a recidivistic aberration, and being forbidden by law.

Likewise, the freedom to engage in homosexual relations at the present time is universally protected by regulations and legislation in the overwhelming majority of developed nations. Which is not to say that a vociferous minority is not still waving archaic texts from long-dead cultures to justify self-serving interpretations of these obscure materials, claiming them as a foundation for presuming to dictate to others how those should live their love lives. They are; just as there most certainly remains an active white supremacist movement in Europe as well as the US and even in Africa. But these remnants are just that, they are marginal and atavistic, and most certainly do not deserve pride of place or anything even approaching equality in an article on the modern meaning of homophobia.

When in all countries males and females are free to associate with others of their sex, when in many if not most countries they are free to enter into legal compacts with each other, the debate is over. All that is left are some malcontents railing at the progress of social evolution. They should be mentioned here as such, no more. Haiduc 13:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CC80's opinion

Since Haiduc added an unsolicited comment, I will likewise add one.

Some of the above statements are a good example of why this article has a POV dispute. It should be pointed out, by way of balance, that the arguments which gay activists use to try to silence all moral opposition are essentially the same as those used by supporters of prostitution or pedophilia. The revealed prohibitions in the Bible and the later mystical writings of the saints are dismissed as "archaic" or otherwise irrelevant. Any persons who cite such precepts of the Divine Law are automatically denounced as bigots. During the debate over this article, Rbj (a secular liberal, no less) was accused of homophobia merely for attempting to introduce some balance into the article. In like manner, the issue of gay marriage has been distorted by dismissing any Biblically-based opposition as "homophobia".

Those who practice a given act (whether sodomy or incest or soliciting prostitution) will always reject any possible moral argument against that act, and will always attempt to change the focus of the debate by accusing their critics of intolerance, bigotry, or reactionary politics. But for Wikipedia's purposes, the issue is not whether the gay activists here will ever accept such moral arguments: Wikipedia is supposed to present a neutral point of view, not the gay activist point of view. CC80 14:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum: it probably should also be noted that opponents of homosexual sex can hardly be characterized as a tiny minority - the rationale given for marginalizing this position in the article. Even in the U.S., I think public opposition to same-sex marriage is somewhere around 50% or so. Worldwide, most Catholics and Muslims abide by their religions' prohibition against homosexual sex, and their combined number is estimated at some two billion - about a third of the global population. I would not characterize this as a tiny minority. CC80 14:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

We live in a secular world, and we abide by secular law, those of us fortunate enough to live in the developed world. The fact that various religious sects, more or less populous, hold this or that view should certainly be noted, but as far as I know, the position of the Wikipedia is that of a secular rationalist platform, which evenhandedly describes both secular and religious points of view but does not take a position for or against. But it must note what the mainstream position is, and that mainstream position is indeed that we have reached the point where established law has extended state protection and support to interpersonal love relationships regardless of sex. Established science has likewise reached conclusions consistent with that position. The struggle for legitimacy which various anti-same-sex doctrinary players are engaged in has failed on a state level and remains only as internecine warfare within those sects (whose followers are by no means of unanimous opinion, despite the claims of CC80). Whether the materials on which this struggle is based are revelations or relics is ultimately a personal issue for the followers of those religions to untangle and of no interest to anyone else. Thus this article cannot privilege these marginal arguments and raise them to a level of equality of importance with the consensus of law and science. What is pov about that?! Haiduc 15:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CaveatLector's opinion

It's rather obvious that this case is one of the most difficult on the mediation board, and I'd like to take a moment to thank Selmo for taking it. I believe that Wikipedia should remain morally neutral on all matters. I personally believe that the innate nature of homosexuality alone does not remove moral implications from it (plenty of things that are innate have moral implications). There are much better arguments to use if I wanted to prove that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. I'll be up front and say that I also believe that moral implications against homosexuality are, by definition, homophobic (this is using the dictionary definition, as well). However, I do not believe that this article should say that there are or are not moral implications to homosexuality. I think it the article on Homosexuality should report that there people who think there are moral implications, but that isn't even the place of this article. This article deals specifically with anti-LGBTQ prejudice. The body of the article should mostly contain the history of homophobia (that is, anti-gay/LGBTQ discrimination). It should also mention that some 'critics' of homosexuals are offended by the term and do not think that it applies to them. However, it should not advocate whether they are wrong or right. In the article for spade, we call spades 'spades'. If enough 'spades' got together and started protesting that they don't like being called 'spades' for one reason or the other, I would advocate for including a paragraph within the article that talked about these spades who disliked being called spades. However, that paragraph should not argue anything. It should merely present the information on these spades who don't like being called spades and allow the reader to draw his/her/hir own conclusions. This article should not suggest that homosexuality is morally 'right' or morally 'wrong'. It should only present the facts and history on homophobia, and allow the reader to draw the conclusions they will. As it stands now, the article includes within its introduction a sentence that acts as a sort of disclaimer for those who hold anti-LGBTQ beliefs, but do not wish to be called homophobic. It is THIS placement that is POV, not the placement WITHIN the article. CaveatLectorTalk 15:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, those parties interested should note that our mediator asked you to post the opinions on the mediation page as well. Oh, and Haiduc's opinion WAS solicited, CC80. He was just being self-deprecating. CaveatLectorTalk 16:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additions i would like to make

[edit] Homophobic behavior in animals

Main article: List of animals displaying homosexual behavior
Main article: Animal sexuality#Homosexual behavior

Homophobia too is observed among animals,an example with white-tailed deers [5]

The last link, to the Salon article, makes the claim that deer exhibit homophobia, but doesn't provide any more detail than that. I think we should cite the book directly, but unfortunately I don't have access to it. bikeable (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The notion that white tailed deer are "homophobic" is nothing more than Salon's conceit. Bagemihl describes nothing of the sort. What he does describe is the behavior of ordinary white-tailed deer towards transgendered deer known as "velvet-horns." The latter are apparently seen as alien and are "harrassed and attacked by the other deer." Bagemihl reports that "Non-transgendered White-tails (both does and bucks of all ages, even fawns) threaten velvet-horns who try to aproach them - forcing themn to remain no less than ten feet away - while bucks may actively charge velvet-horns to drive them away." (Bagemihl, p.380) In consequence velvet-horns associate only among themselves, forming small groups and avoiding interaction with other deer. But "homophobia"? I don't think so. Haiduc 18:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quote. It definitely doesn't belong in here, then, although it might be an interesting mention in transphobia. bikeable (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MPS's totally unsolicited opinion

I have suggested that this article be broken into two subjects; one for the word "homophobia" and one for the concept of anti-gay ideology, possibly aligning with Slogans of anti-gay ideology. Most of the heated discussion in this article is over the use of the word "homophobia" rather than the notion that there are viruently anti-gay people out there. The fact that there is disagreement (here and elsewhere) about the word usage is a subject of much cultural discussion regardless of the truth of anti-gay bigotry, and should be captured in as NPOV a way as possible. Nigger and Bigotry are articles that deal with relevant content -- Nobody wants to be called a bigot or a nigger but the article deal with the history of these words rather than listing "examples of bigots" or "examples of niggers." There is a deep thought here. reread and ponder MPS 19:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Racism is a better model to follow, at least for the introductory 'graphs. Acknowledge the controversy exists, without attempting to find examples - which examples are bound to be controversial. Yonmei 09:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation discussion

Now that all parties' opinions have been aired, I would like to air my own.

Well, actually I had just started, but as it turns out this isn't going to matter much. Mangoe 04:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts on the definition of the term: I don't think you need to go any further then to explore the word "homophobia". Although the word literally means "afraid of homosexuality", the emotional charge on the word has a huge range. For instance, homophobia may represent suppression of rights, or it may be thrown out to slander anybody the criticizes any aspect of gay life, but it is never used as a description of a balanced, even-handed treatment of homosexuality. Nobody would say that a champion of gay rights is a homophobe, even if that person feared their own gay sexuality. Consequently, we need to distinguish between "homophobia", and and the social consequence of homosexuality.

As I was reviewing diffs, I came across a secondary issue, the inclusion of what "critics of the term say".[6]. Per WP:LEAD the opening paragraph should summarize the entire topic and prepare the reader for a higher level of detail. On the bases of this, I personally think inclusion of this is entirely appropriate.

We'll try to work on this until everyone's satisfied. -- Selmo (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving on to the second paragraph

The second paragraph is where the current fight broke out, though it isn't the first time we've disputed over it.

Through dint of some searching I've managed to come up with some critics explaining their objections to the term. I've tended to focus on the quote from Kelly Boggs, though the quote above it is also plenty appropos.

At one stage we had a "guilt by association" reference to Fred Phelps following the Boggs quote, which seems to have finally been removed in this edit: [7]. This passage reflected (albeit much more tendentiously) the position that Haiduc expresses (and which seem to me to be essentially Yonmei's position as well).

The basic criticism is that the ambiguity between the "phobia" root (and initially intended meaning) and the more general use to mean any kind of opposition to homosexuality is being used to poison public discourse by implying that such opponents are mentally ill, or at least ipso facto bigots. (And believe me, I can find much more pointed complaints-- from, however, sites which people would complain about us referencing.) Keeping this complaint in the article has been difficult, though once we got the Boggs quote in the article itself (as opposed to just a citation) it appeared to become implausible to deny that there was criticism (an issue fought out in the summer).

So now I see a different tack taken: Yonmei in particular has taken to wording the the second paragraph in a "when did you stop beating your wife" form that implies (to just short of the point of saying outright) that anyone who expresses opposition to anything about homosexuality is an bigot who is determined to deny homosexuals their god-given civil rights.

Using the word "homophobe" as the label for those critics is absolutely unacceptable, a blatantly prejudicial construct. And it seems to me that the argument for accepting this construct is not that it is neutral, but that since they are bigots it is OK to refer to them prejudicially.

This edit epitomizes the dispute: [8]. My version eschews judgemental language and (accurately) expands the issue beyond civil rights; Yonmei's version is flagrantly judgemental.

As far as Haiduc's long disquisition on this is concerned: Almost every step of his argument is disputed by someone, starting with the claim that we have a secular society here. If we have to resolve the whole debate on homosexuality to write this article, then it will remain locked forever. Mangoe 05:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Mangoe's claim that Wikipedia is not secular surprises me: is there really any dispute about this? If there is, what religion is Wikipedia supposed to support, and why wasn't this mentioned in the introductory material for Wikipedia that I was sent when I registered?
Well, that's not what Haiduc said, now, is it? He said that we live in a secular world; and if Wikipedia be the world, then God help us all.
But I am saying (a little flippantly, originally) that Wikipedia is a secular institution. It is not a religious institution. (If it were, Wikipedia would then have to decide which religion ruled: and if that were determined by popular vote, I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster might well win.) Yonmei 19:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
dunno if this will help you feel better, Yonmei, but FWIW, i completely agree with this (and have recently said so in a dispute at the Talk:Pacifism page). but also, Wikipedia is not the place to settle the homo (or bi or trans) vs. (straight) hetero issues. even though i am a straight male, you might be surprized (unless you picked this up earlier when i said as much) that, politically, i am not very far at all from the LGBT political agenda (check out Howard Dean, i was a "Deaniac" in 2003 and 2004 and one of the reasons, among others, is the civil union legislation that he pushed and signed into Vermont law when he was the guv). but, i know people that i respect that do not align with me on that agenda and i would not characterize them as "homophobic". as MPS wrote above, there are reasons, many reasons, that are orthogonal to the relative merits homo vs. hetero for why people would oppose including sexual orientation as a class in hate crimes legistation or affirmative action, etc. and similarly to why people would oppose state recognition of gay marriage. you do not agree, but what you have come to terms with is, just because you do not see how there can possibly be a non-homophobic reason for opposition to such legislation or judicial action, you are not omniscient (as none of us are) and for your finite perspective and finite ability to reason this out must not be the limitation for the perspective of Wikipedia. that is essentially what NPOV is about. r b-j 20:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't be patronising, Rbj: it doesn't come well from someone made a personal attack on me and has still declined to apologise for it.
What you have to accept, Rbj, is that people who want LGBT people to be treated unequally (by excluding homophobic hate crime from hate crime legislation, or by excluding same-sex couples from marriage) are taking a homophobic position. See the section I just added with the two quotes on homophobia. The argument that one can oppose equal civil rights for LGBT people without being homophobic is about as foolish as arguing that one can oppose equal civil rights for black people without being racist. One may not make long racist statements or commit ugly racist attacks, but the basic belief that black people deserve unequal treatment under the law is racist, and the basic belief that LBGT people deserve unequal treatment under the law is homophobic. One can argue, of course, what "unequal treatment" means: but US marriage law is an explicit example where, although same-sex couples have the right to marry in the US, they are discriminated against by unConstitutional state-by-state laws denying them recognition of their legal marriage in their home states, although they are entitled to such recognition under Article 4 of the US Constitution.
To argue that because such people do not wish their views defined as homophobic it is NPOV to say that their views are homophobic is making a real mockery of Wikipedia's neutrality.
20:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Mangoe's assertion that the use of homophobia is being used to poison public discourse by implying all opponents to equal civil rights for LGBT people are "mentally ill" is odd, since s/he has also (as s/he points out) been the most persistent supporter of including "irrational" or "unreasoning" in the definition.
Well, oddness is in the eye of the beholder, and I would have thought by now that the connection would be clear. But it appears I have to spell it out more plainly. In this discussion, it is quite clear to me that Yonmei intends "irrational" and "unreasoning", and I would guess that Haiduc intends them too. And therefore part of the struggle over the second paragraph centers around trying to get the opponents labelled as "homophobes", while at the same time trying to cover over this a bit by softening the first paragraph to not make the denunciation so blatant. Mangoe 12:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
In order to assert that one can oppose equal rights for LGBT people without being bigoted against LGBT people, Mangoe would need to find a cite from a source that opposes equal civil rights for LGBT people without expressing bigotry against LGBT people. The article Mangoe cited by Kelly Boggs expresses some deeply bigoted views against LGBT people, such as the idea that all "homosexual practices" are "unhygienic", which is bigotry on the level of "all blacks stink". Yonmei 08:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Bogg's comment is in no fashion equivalent to such a phrase -- her comment addresses specific sex acts, not people. It is the equivalent of saying that smoking is detrimental to one's health. Your "racist" analogy has become a stock method of demonizing the opposition, but it's no more valid than the ubiquitous "Nazi" accusation favored in Usenet discussions. CC80 11:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Bogg's comment does not address "specific sex acts": she does not reference any specific sex acts. She says "homosexual practices" - which can only mean, sexual acts between two people of the same gender having sex, as opposed to sexual acts between two people of different genders having sex. Bogg is saying, effectively, that when a man has anal sex with a woman, this is hygienic: when a man has anal sex with a man, this is unhygienic. When a woman has vaginal sex with a woman, this is unhygienic: when a woman has vaginal sex with a man, this is hygienic. And so on. This is the equivalent of saying that when a gay man smokes, it's bad for his health, but not when a straight man smokes. This presumption that when two people of the same gender have sex it's "unhygienic" is absolutely identical to saying "all blacks stink".Yonmei 19:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not what Boggs said at all. You're taking her words out of context, interpreting them as you see fit and then using that interpretation as an excuse to continue using the "racism" analogy as a justification for applying the term "homophobia" to anyone who opposes your political views. This is precisely why the term homophobia has become so controversial in the first place. CC80 11:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It's exactly what Boggs said. You should read her article in full: I did.
Prejudice against another person because of their sexual orientation, leading to assertions that LGBT people have unhygienic sex - precisely what Boggs asserted - are on a level with the crudest kind of racist prejudice. Yonmei 15:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Boggs never claimed that "all" sex by anyone with homosexual tendencies is unhygienic in a manner that "no form" of heterosexual sex ever can be - she was referring to specific forms and circumstances. To clarify the point bluntly: sticking your virile member into someone else's anus (and the fecal matter contained therein) is by definition unhygienic, but that doesn't mean that Boggs would claim that anal sex between a man and a woman is not similarly unhygienic. She never says that at all. You're putting words into her mouth in order to justify a claim of bigotry. This isn't fooling anyone. CC80 16:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
So who is going to judge whether they are bigoted or not? Certainly not Yonmei, who can't quote her accurately (see didn't say "all"). At any rate, I'm not here to defend the accuracy of Boggs's statements about homosexuality. If you will skip ahead to the end of her message, she does claim an openness to debating the issue. What she complains is that labelling her a "homophobe" is an attempt to cut of the debate by dismissing her. And that's pretty much the way this has gone: Yonmei knows that all the opposition is bigoted; therefore their objections can be dismissed with well-deserved prejudice. Mangoe 12:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Plainly, people who do not agree that Kelly Boggs is homophobic will continue to pay attention to her. People who perceive homophobia in Kelly Boggs' statements will never listen to her, whether or not Boggs thinks of herself as a homophobe. I really don't see where this argument is coming from that claims she's being "silenced".Yonmei 19:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To respond to a few of the points made by various people farther above:

Do science and secular law truly support the arguments of gay activists and thereby justify marginalizing the opposing view in this article? In the realm of secular law, only one U.S. state currently allows same-sex marriage (achieved by judicial fiat rather than by a popular vote), whereas at least 44 (I believe) states have enacted laws explicitly designed to prevent a similar legalization of same-sex marriage. Only four foreign countries currently allow same-sex marriage, and many ban it. In the sciences, all that has been established is that homosexuality occurs in a small percentage of animals, a point which has been cited to "debunk" the argument that homosexuality is unnatural but which in fact skirts that argument entirely. This argument has always used the term "unnatural" with the meaning of "being contrary to the norm within nature" rather than "completely unknown in nature" (two entirely different things). Gay activists have consistently misrepresented the Christian argument in order to conveniently debunk a straw-man. If scientific studies have found that only eight percent of sheep exhibit homosexual behavior then that statistic would clearly further confirm that it is not the norm within nature - even for animals, much less people - thereby reinforcing the argument rather than refuting it. Similarly, if we assume - just for the sake of argument - that science will eventually prove that same-sex attraction has a genetic basis (as is true also of numerous diseases and pathological behaviors), that point likewise entirely sidesteps both the biological reality (there are numerous genetically induced behaviors which are nevertheless unethical) and also the chief Christian theological argument. The latter has always held that a genetic or innate basis for a bodily impulse does not make the slightest difference: in fact one of the Bible's chief themes is the inherent sinfulness of the flesh and the need to overcome its various impulses. Again, gay activists have somehow turned this argument on its head in order to create a convenient straw-man. Finally, to address the idea that religious opposition has been marginalized and therefore does not deserve more than a passing mention in this article: the steady success in outlawing gay marriage in so many U.S. states has been driven largely by conservative Christians and supported by clear majorities in the general public. Such a large group can hardly be termed a "fringe" movement. Worldwide, the vast majority of Christians and Muslims still oppose same-sex relations. Those few members of such religions who support same-sex intercourse are largely limited to minorities within the churches of Europe, Canada, and the U.S. Even most of those nations with few or no Abrahamic adherents likewise ban same-sex marriage. If anything, it's the other side which remains in the minority - hence, perhaps the article should gloss over or minimize that view instead? CC80 11:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two quotes on homophobia

Well, directly, on the same-sex marriage debate: but bearing strongly on homophobia.

Two quotes on the same-sex marriage debate, which seems to have become somewhat entangled in the argument about what-is-homophobia:
"In contrast, SSM opponents implicitly assume that it is acceptable to force queers to remain unequal, in order to “protect marriage as an institution” in an unproven and marginal fashion. In doing so, they endorse a devaluation of same-sex couples that they would never endorse were they talking about blacks, or Jews, or women. That assumption - unstated and not even consciously thought about - is homophobic. And anyone who opposes SSM but also considers themselves opposed to bigotry against queers, should seriously consider this contradiction in their views.
Just as dispensing with women’s rights to protect marriage on the margins would be a misogynistic policy; and just as dispensing with racial equality to protect marriage on the margins would be racist; dispensing with equality for same-sex couples in order to protect marriage on the margins is a homophobic policy.
It’s true that sometimes “homophobia” - like many other words - is misused as a way of “placing opponents beyond the pale of debate,” as my correspondent said. But - unfortunate as that is - it should not be used as a reason to put genuine and reasonable concerns about homophobia beyond the pale of debate, either." Bigotry and the opposition to same-sex marriage
And another one from the same writer:
Anyhow, the thread is interesting for showing how many GNM (gender neutral marriage) opponents are opposed to the very concept of “homophobia”; peel their rationalizations away, and it’s clear that their real agenda is to erase the concept of “prejudice against homosexuals” from the language. It’s loathesome. A couple of gender-neutral marriage related links
Yonmei 19:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
to repeat, this is not the place to settle the relative merits of homosexuality (or bi- or trans-sexuality) vs. good, old-fashioned, American, man-on-top-get-it-over-with-quick heterosexuality. it's not! it is flawed reasoning (and a rat-hole to go down into) for either side to expect to score points or to settle the issue placed in front of us (the NPOV lead introduction to Homophobia) by arguing either the normality (or lack thereof) of homosexuality or the normative use (or lack thereof) of identifying some person or policy as either perverted or as homophobic. there is NPOV for the intro even if this is not settled. r b-j 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, this article / this Talk page certainly shouldn't have had to become a place where we discuss the normal range of human sexual orientation. It should be a place where we discuss the word homophobia and how it is used. This entire argument has been started and fuelled by people who vehemently do not want their POV to be identified as homophobic. But since these people are participating in this argument, we are necessarily having that argument: though I agree that we shouldn't have to. We should simply be documenting how homophobia is used, and its range of meaning, rather than fighting people who believe that their beliefs should not be called homophobic.Yonmei 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Nicely put, Yonmei. Kukini 21:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The problem in a sentence

  • "What you have to accept, Rbj, is that people who want LGBT people to be treated unequally (by excluding homophobic hate crime from hate crime legislation, or by excluding same-sex couples from marriage) are taking a homophobic position."

We are right back to the question: what does "homophobic" mean? And we are also at the point which is complained about, where you are conflating a whole list of subjects as if they weren't matters about which one could hold differing positions for different reasons.

And this also leads to a point we haven't really addressed yet, but which has been lying latent in the discussion for quite some time. I do not believe that for you that this is just a matter of civil rights. To take an example, this is about Wikipedia as expressing societal approval for same-sex marriage. Civil rights, after all, are in large part about being allowed to do things that other people disapprove of (see the first amendment). The position that you are trying to have Wikipedia portray is that society approves of such marriages, a point which one can go to Gallup to get a reading on-- and it isn't positive. As far as the world is concerned, it would not surprise me to find that what Euro-American approval there may be is drowned out by second and third world voices.

And the interesting thing is that the blog you quote, Yonmei, provides evidence for a lot of societal disagreement. The blogger is quite happy to follow a "slippery slope" into polyamorous marriages-- which may be approved of in Africa, perhaps, but not in much of the rest of the world (and I would think certainly not in the United States). The court-driven mandating of same-sex marriages is not a done deal; still less need it reflect general societal mores. The ontology of marriage is extremely deeply imbedded in Christianity, and it is hard to imagine that Roman Catholics or Southern Baptists are going to change their mind on this. And saying that religion doesn't get a say in public moral discourse-- which is pretty much what Haiduc is trying to argue-- puts one right in the middle of yet another controversy. Pretty soon we'll have all modern social controversy resolved, simply by Wikipedial fiat. Mangoe 21:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

All I can really say in response to this is that no, I do not believe that Wikipedia rules the world, or even the US. However, I do believe that when an individual (or an organisation) opposes equal civil rights for a specific group, it can be assumed as a default position that the individual/organisation is motivated by prejudice against that specific group: if you believe otherwise, the onus is on you to make that case by citing (as another editor has suggested) academic sources that support your argument. Yonmei 08:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular opinion = Wikipedia's NPOV?

It's obviously true that a great many people don't consider discrimination against gay men and women to be bigotry, but simply correct morality.

However, should that be important to this article?

Wikipedia's POV standards aren't typically guided by popular opinion, but by academic consensus. Homosexuality is controversial in academic circles as well, but the controversy looks very different than it does "on the streets."

I think arguing about whether people feel offended by being called homophobes is irrelevant. The question is - how is the term used by psychological and sociological professionals?

DanB†DanD 01:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the article itself states that academic usage tends to favor "homonegativity" or other, more neutral and honest, terms, although the gay activists in academia certainly use "homophobia". CC80 11:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, actually the next question would be, "since when are psychologists and sociologists acceptable experts in issues of public moral disputes?" The answer is going to be, "they aren't."
Or to put it another way: the academics in this cases would need to be taken to included moral theologians of all stripes. Anyone able to summon up the nerve to tell me that there is a consensus among them on this?
I personally consider the word "homophobia" to be pseudoscience; I don't think for a moment that anyone can scientifically establish that all opposition to homosexuality is grounded in a kind of neurosis (going back again to Weinberg's original sense). But as a practical matter, nobody has made any effort to present such evidence (Yonmei's personal evaluation clearly being excludable as original research). And in any case, what we are seeing is that the word isn't being used in any rigorous way; but we can easily document that it is used as polemic.
I suspect that what we are going to find, if we really pursue this route, is that we are going to find that the "research" is likely either to take Yonmei's position as a given, or is going to try to use "homophobia" as a synonym for any negative expression towards homosexuality. The former is obviously bad science, and the latter is precisely the kind of usage that is attracting the complaints-- and not incidentally one of the chief arguments over the second paragraph. It is possible to identify opposition to homosexuality (and opponents) as exactly that, without resorting to prejudiced (or potentially prejudiced) language like "homophobia". That in large part has been the difference between the good and bad versions of that paragraph. The problem is that Yonmei in particular wants that paragraph to condemn the opposition by implying-- when it doesn't state so-- that their objections are unwarranted. Mangoe 12:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I have not been active in this conversation because I can't bear it, but Mangoe: 'I personally consider the word "homophobia" to be pseudoscience; I don't think for a moment that anyone can scientifically establish that all opposition to homosexuality is grounded in a kind of neurosis... Are you saying that this page is about homophobia as a scientific, psychological and diagnosable concept? Because I don't think that's even remotely the case. "Homophobia" is certainly not a medical condition, but an attitude, and while we may scientifically document the use of the term, we needn't document its use as a scientific term. If I am misunderstanding your point, I apologize. bikeable (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, "diagnosable" points again at the faux-clinical construction of the word. The objection to its use is based in the perception that the word is never really free of the implication of mental illness, even though the clinical community disowns it (which latter fact we seem to have managed to cite).
In the larger picture there is the public debate about apparent desire of the sociological community to "own" these issues of public policy, against (among others) the philosophical and theological communities. We're in an area where the expertise of the academy lacks consensus. I note by comparison that the feminism article identifies it with abortion rights advocacy, and then vitiates that in the very first listed "feminist" organization: Feminists for Life. Likewise, the controversy over the word is, in the larger picture, part of the struggle to gain the upper hand in public discourse, and it figures there as control over the terms of discourse (something one sees with respect to abortion too as far as "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are concerned).
I can see an appeal to the academy for research into how the word is actually being used, but so far I haven't seen that offered. Mangoe 14:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Mangoe has (I think) both been the editor most anxious to push the idea that homophobia means neurosis/mental illness/irrational behaviour, and one of the editors most anxious to exclude homophobic beliefs about LGBT people and homophobic discrimination against LGBT from this wikipage.
If this is the problem, I suggest that Mangoe give up on editing the page about Homophobia as the word is currently used (hatred, fear, or prejudice against LGBT people), and begin a page specifically about Homophobia (or Homonegativity) as a mental illness/neurosis. Yonmei 15:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice gambit, but no dice. As far as "irrational" is concerned, I'm only "pushing" the dictionary definition-- which is, not incidentally, at least the connotation of your use, when it isn't what you intend outright. You have characterized the opponents as irrational bigots throughout this, so as far as neutrality of language is concerned, you aren't using it. Indeed, I would summarize your argument as follows: "Neutral language should not be used because Wikipedia should not take a neutral position on this."
I think that's our primary problem: you have explicitly said that neutral language should not be used because Wikipedia should take a "moral" position on homosexuality. *smiles* Yonmei 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Your language here is full of vague accusations, when I would hope that I've been clear about the source of the problem. Saying "Homophobes object to being called such because...." is tendentious; it all but states that their complaints are groundless. If they are identified in neutral language ("opponents"), then the problem goes away; but Yonmei may continue to view them as bigots if he likes. The reader also is still free to conclude that the opponents are in fact bigots, but on the basis of considering their arguments, rather than taking it on the authority of Wikipedia editors (which is to say in this case, "Yonmei"). And as far as the context of disagreement, it just isn't true that the contorversy is restricted to civil rights.
You know, I think it's clear by now that the position that homophobia means "fear or hatred of, prejudice against LGBT" and that positions can be identified as homophobic whether or not the individuals who hold those positions wish to be identified as homophobic, is far from being my position alone, and I'm certainly not the only wikipedia editor that holds it. I would ask you, therefore, to refrain from muddying the issue with what look very much like personal attacks on me.Yonmei 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, what you propose, Yonmei, is a WP:POV fork, which we all know isn't permitted. Mangoe 16:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it? I thought you were arguing that homophobia is a mental illness, and that the page therefore ought to deal only with the mental illness aspect. If so, then that's an identifiable clear separate topic. My personal POV apart, I'm anxious that this page on Homophobia should neutrally describe how the word is used, and if you feel that it ought to be used to describe a mental illness/neurosis only, that's plainly a separate topic from ordinary fear/hate/prejudice. If you don't feel the need for a separate topic on mental illness called Homophobia or Homonegativity, then I must ask you to stop pushing for this page to be used for that purpose. Yonmei 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I've said before and I'll say again, although the word may have an apparently clinical construction, that most certainly does not mean that it is a clinical term. It is not, after all, in the DSM. Reducing it to a clinical term rather than describing the common usage is misguided. (Compare "xenophobia", which has a well-understood non-clinical meaning.)
Academic papers describing current usage would be helpful. A pretty good (but not perfect) one on the origin of the term is Herek GM 2004 in Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1(2): 6-24, here. It would be a violation of Fair Use to post it, but... email me if you're interested.
The paper does not do a great job of explaining modern usage, but does cover the history well:
Weinberg told me he did not intend to suggest that homophobia represented a diagnostic category on a par with irrational fears of heights or snakes. Yet, he also observed that some heterosexuals react to being around a homosexual in a manner that is not qualitatively dissimilar to the reactions of someone with a snake phobia. ... Some activists and commentators have embraced the language of psychopathology in discussing homophobia ... Most of their analyses can be considered mainly rhetorical.
More research along these lines would help us fill out the usage, rather than being hung up on the faux-clinical terminology. Comparison with xenophobia might be useful as well. bikeable (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time to read the whole thing now, but an initial look suggests that it would be a valuable reference. Mangoe 18:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments

With regard to Yonmei's latest comments about gay marriage and the alleged "bigotry" behind any opposition. I would start by asking this: if you truly consider it an act of "bigotry" to deny anyone the right to marry whomever they wish, you would have to say that it is also bigoted to oppose incestuous "marriages" between a father and daughter, pedophile marriages between a man and a young boy, polygamous marriages with multiple partners, etc. If you yourself oppose any of these, should we assume that you are "bigoted"? You support gay marriage only because you happen to feel homosexual urges yourself, whereas most other people regard such acts as every bit as objectionable as incest or pedophilia.

Moving on to the concept of an alleged "double standard" which was brought up: The main principle behind the current definition of marriage is (or at least was, traditionally) simply that certain classes of sexual behavior - same-sex intercourse as well as incest, pedophilia, bestiality, etc - are forbidden by Judeo-Christian moral strictures and therefore do not need to be given formal sanction by the State. While it's true that some heterosexual couples cannot, or choose not to, fulfill the chief aim of marriage (procreation), it's also true that : 1) at least they fulfill the other requirement; and 2) the government would have a difficult time determining whether a given heterosexual couple will ever be able to conceive or not, and an even more difficult time determining whether they were genuinely committed to raising a family. In short, heterosexual marriage has been allowed in all cases largely because it's too difficult to make reasonable differentiations based on circumstance, whereas homosexual marriages would have no legitimate justification in any cases whatsoever just as incestuous unions would have no legitimate justification. CC80 11:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mango writes:
the academics in this cases would need to be taken to included moral theologians of all stripes.
Not at all. The academics in this case would need to be all those academics who use the term homophobia (including those who use the term only to criticize or reject it). This article is not a debate about morality or theology, it is the definition of a term. And the term is defined by expert use, not by the correctness of anyone's moral position.
DanB†DanD 16:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You know what's homophobic?

Equating gay relationships with "incest, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.". Those things are considered by all mainstream psychologists, scientists and anthropologists to be paraphilias or fetishes, whereas homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a fully developed sexual orientation. Scientifically speaking, incest, pedophilia and bestiality in most cases violates a specific set of criteria the APA uses to determine unealthy or abnormal sexual behaviors. Homosexuality does not violate these criteria. Homosexuality is not considered by any reputable science or medical organization to be abnormal or harmful. And for that matter, no advocate of gay marriage is arguing that "anyone gets to marry whoever or whatever they want". That's a straw man created by opponents of gay rights.

The fundamental flaw is this: anti-gay or homophobic people see the world in black-and-white, and divide the entire array of human sexual diversity into two oversimplified groups: straight people (who are good and right and loved by God), and everyone else (who are all perverts). In their very HOMOPHOBIC assessment of the world, gay relationships, no matter how loving, monogamous, committed, long-lasting, honest or open, are lumped together with every other non-heterosexual behavior under the sun, and all are seen as perversions. This process has the converse side effect of raising every heterosexual relationship to a superior status, even if that relationship is less loving, committed or honest than another between people of the same sex.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with incest, pedophilia and bestiality. For one thing those behaviors almost always feature one party having dominance over another immature or otherwise non-consenting partner. For another, these definitions exist in two completely different realms that cannot be compared: one focusing on paraphilia, the other on sexual orientation. Surely a man who rapes a young girl or has sex with a female goat is engaging in a HETEROSEXUAL act, and yet certain people want to compare that to gay relationships??? It makes no sense. Gay people are under no obligation to explain or justify the actions of pedophiles, zoophiles or anyone else, nor is there any logical connection between accepting gay relationships and being "forced" to accept everything anyone does.

And as far as civil rights go, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks about gay people, as long as they understand they do not have the right to infringe on other people's rights. Conservative Christians or any other group has the right to hate homosexuals and their relationships all they want, but when they start actively working to harm those groups, by changing laws to ban legal recognition of gay couples for example, then they overstep their right to free expression and begin infringing on the rights of others.

It doesn't matter what beliefs anyone justifies their actions with. "My religion says so" doesn't mean you get a free pass to violate other people's civil rights. It also doesn't mean you can say anything you want to degrade or demean gay people and relationships, and then turn around and say it's unfair to label you a "homophobe". When the word "homophobia" equates with "anti-gay", which is how it is more commonly used rather than its literal scientific definition meaning "possessing neurotic fears of homosexuals or homosexuality", then it is logically and literally true that people who are against homosexuality, gay people or relationships, can be considered homophobic. And if bigotry is defined as one who discriminates or opposes someone else based solely on one facet of their appearance, personality or being, at the expense of judging them by their character or contributions to society, then people who are against gay people or relationships are quite literally "bigots".

Otherwise, nobody could be called a bigot. Slavery is condoned by the Bible, does that mean people can be pro-slavery and think they can escape the label of bigot if they just point to all the passages that condone it? Give me a break.

Furthermore, as far as gay marriage in the U.S. is concerned, there is no legal precedent for the notion that the purpose of marriage is to have children (even if there were, just because people are gay doesn't make them infertile or unable to adopt). We also have this little thing called separation of church and state, which says the government will not make decisions based on the beliefs of any particular religion. Whether to bless same-sex unions in a Christian ritual will always be up to churches, and many already do; but the current debate over gay marriage is over its definition as a legal contract with the state and federal governments. It's about whether gay couples can be recognized by the law as having a relationship with one another - or if they should go on being ignored and not have access to health benefits, sick and bereavement leave, property and custody rights, the ability to make medical decisons in a crisis and the basic human dignity of having society acknowledge whether or not you've been in a relationship with your partner for thirty, forty even fifty years. Rglong 04:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)rglong

ya know, i might agree with 99% of this (and to slip in a little gloat to Mangoe and others that in any way referring to or comparing the merits of gay, lesbian, bi, or transwhatever to whatever might be considered "straight", only opens multiple cans of worms that can never be dealt with here) but it makes no difference. in a NPOV document, you simply cannot identify a political opponent with a pejorative label of which the dictionary definition is not directly applicable without, at the very least, the qualification that some such opponents do not accept or identify with the label. Republicans don't consider themselves as corrupt, hypocritical, uncaring, capitalist, war mongering pigs even if i consider them as such (or as nearly brain-dead sheep of the corrupt, hypocritical, uncaring capitalist, war mongering pigs). but i don't get to go to such a WP page (like hypocrisy) and, in that article, state anywhere in the article (even more so not in the intro) that Republicans make a good example of hypocrisy unless, at least, it is qualified with some denial of the label from Republicans. r b-j 06:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This continues to look rather like an argument asserting that because people who hold homophobic beliefs don't like to be told their beliefs are homophobic, Wikipedia mustn't identify their beliefs as homophobic even though every neutral and scientific source would agree that their beliefs are prejudiced, ignorant, and often just plain wrong.
And somehow, allowing these people to spell out their wish not to have their prejudice and bigotry against LGBT labelled "homophobia" is defined as "NPOV", whereas neutrally pointing out that these beliefs are homophobic is "POV". It's almost as if this Wikipage has more homophobic editors determined to put their views forward and call them "NPOV" than it has neutral editors who want to honestly and neutrally describe homophobic beliefs, without being concerned that some of the people who hold those beliefs want to think that their beliefs are neutral.
Yonmei 07:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
no, it is an argument that you do not get to change the normative definition of homophobia so to apply it to your political opponents. you have done that repeatedly, even calling me a homophobe (a Howard Dean campaign volunteer who has consistently supported civil unions and some other pro-gay legislation) because of an internal political difference here at WP. (take a look at the recently archived refutation[9][10] i had with User:Di4gram in the talk page of the article.) this transparent victim mentality (it's unbelievable it's a red link) technique of forensic debate of yours is repeated when you falsely accused me of personal attack (repeatedly) and keep demanding apologies. you're the one who is personally attacking your opponents. if someone opposes your POV, you call them homophobes. if someone frankly points out what the POV obviously is, you accuse them of personal attack. you want complete freedom to define all sides in a debate that you actively take part in. moreover, you want your definition (which is semantically not identical to the dictionary definition) of your opponent to go unanswered in the context where you make that definition giving your definition an unbalanced primacy in the article. you are the one who continues to insist on injecting the POV of one side into the article without balance. rather than calling you a blatent hypocrite and hard-core POV pusher (like User:Exploding Boy) i will just continue to point to the fact that you are trying to get your POV elevated in status to definition. and when people oppose that, you just keep repeating your definition of what it means to be a homophobe, dismiss such opposition as "homophobic" and rely on nothing else.
political opposition to some particular goal of an organized group of people does not, in and of itself, make one a bigot against the class of persons that such organization purports to represent. it would be like me saying that everyone who opposes the school budget (which has failed on occasion in Burlington VT to my chagrin and sometimes by just a few votes) is prejudiced against school children. i don't get to define Republicans as war-mongering fascists and they don't get to define me as a communist. not on a public resource with rules to be NPOV. r b-j 13:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
That's absurd, R-B-J. You keep trying to identify near-universally-held scientific and sociological theory,
there seems to be someone else in the universe that doesn't hold to such "scientific and sociological theory". but "invariably" they're just homophobes, so you don't have to engage their argument.
as if it were my personal opinion. Then you claim that when I defend scientific and socialogical theory, I'm defending my own POV.
you need to do something to differentiate the two. when you make sweeping generalizations ("near-universally-held"), that's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. but all your opponent needs are a couple of counter-examples to disprove such a sweeping generalization. even so, you still don't prove anything other than to repeat your sweeping generalizations: "Opposition ... invariably comes from homophobes." it doesn't work to keep supporting your position with more of your pronouncements.
Then you accuse me of committing personal attacks.
geee, where did i get that idea from??
Please now state clearly that you will cease your personal attacks on me, argue the question of whether or not we shall define homophobia on Wikipedia as it is used (covering the range from irrational mental illness to the belief that LGBT people should not have equal civil rights), and, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, please quit citing irrelevant personal anecdotes that only drag out the discussion! Stick to the point! Yonmei 21:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
the point: political opposition to some particular goal of an organized group of people does not, in and of itself, make one a bigot against the class of persons that such organization purports to represent.
the lie: "Opposition to [whatever it is you are pushing] invariably comes from homophobes." your position is that no one can disagree with anything you say unless they are a homophobe. you, my dear, need to grow up and learn some honest forensics. you will not win any arguments with, what i would understand, immature high-school level methods of debate. you really need to understand and confront what the other side is thinking and contending rather than pre-emptively dismissing that other side as "homophobic" when the very issue is their denial of such a label. you must climb out of your convenient, self-serving, and circular reasoning and draw support from outside of your own prejudice. otherwise, you'll only be preaching to your own choir. r b-j 22:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, Rbj: you need to quit the personal attacks on me, or we can't continue this discussion. Yonmei 07:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Since some of the commentators above base much of their argument upon a big distinction between homosexual sex and pedophilia - by expressing contempt for the latter - I would ask the following. Given that the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) contains member organizations such as the pro-pedophile "North American Man/Boy Love Association"; given that the gay activist and editor of the prominent "Journal of Homosexuality" (John P. DeCecco) has praised pedophile relationships as "nurturing"; and given that a number of prominent gay organizations have long issued position statements stating flatly that they intend to actively promote the legalization of pedophilia as soon as the public is more open to accepting it - thereby making pedophilia a cherished "civil right" in the eyes of such gay organizations - should we assume that your clear contempt for pedophilia indicates "bigotry" on your part? The issue is not really a matter of "equating" homosexuality and pedophilia except to the extent that the same arguments can - and have - been used to promote both, and the same organizations have often promoted both. The same allegation of "bigotry" can be applied to opponents of both if you want to use such allegations with any degree of consistency. Remember that pedophiles consider their tastes to be an innate part of their "identity" just as you consider your tastes to be an innate part of yours.

In like manner, you say that homosexuality differs from pedophilia because the latter is still considered a disorder by the APA. This is already beginning to change: the APA has allowed pro-pedophilia articles to be published in its "Psychological Bulletin", such as the 1998 article "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples" - which claims that pedophilia is not harmful. More to the point, homosexuality was also listed as a disorder in the APA's Diagnostic Manual up until 1973 when the APA removed it under pressure from gay activists. Pedophilia is likely to be removed from the list of disorders whenever the above mentioned gay organizations begin to press the APA to remove it. The current distinction is therefore rather meaningless.

I should also respond to the tired misconception that the Bible "promotes" slavery, which is again being presented as an argument against the Bible's morality code. It does not "promote" slavery. Instead, it: 1) acknowledges that slavery in the ancient Middle East and Mediterranean Basin was an ingrained part of the economies of these societies and it therefore asks people to patiently submit to this existing structure just as it asks the early Christians to humbly obey the pagan rulers of the Roman Empire. Neither of these positions are presented as an absolute, much less as an endorsement for either slavery or pagan despots: the main principle in both cases is simply humble acceptance of one's circumstances. 2) The Bible provided new rules for slavery among the Hebrews which effectively made slavery untenable - such as the requirement that slaves be granted their freedom at the end of each seven-year cycle. When the Roman government later agreed to adopt these rules for Hebrew slaves held within their domain, this made the purchase of Hebrew slaves so senseless that the Roman upper class adopted the proverb: "He who buys a Hebrew slave buys a master for himself". In short, these rules had the effect of moderating or phasing out slavery rather than giving an endorsement to it - regardless of how the matter was distorted by 19th century American slaveholders to justify their own practice. CC80 11:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning, unapologetic 'personal attack' oncoming.
CC80: You are full of shit, and your statements are not based in any fact whatsoever. These comments have no place on this page, as we are NOT discussing the 'legitimacy' of homosexuality, and the talk page for homophobia is certainly an ironic place to spew such tired and cliche homophobic filth. IMO, any such future stupidity should be considered disruption. You have just insulted and degraded many members of the Wiki community. You owe all of us an apology (not that I expect that you'll give it) as your comments here show absolutely no civility whatsoever. CaveatLectorTalk 05:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Your comment above was a response to a post in which the most "inflammatory" comment I had made was to merely point out that certain gay organizations have long openly promoted pedophilia as stated in their own published policy positions or as reflected in their membership lists. My posts have been polite and issue-oriented, whereas your post above utilizes - by your own admission - personal attacks which in fact are of the most crude variety. This is in profound violation of Wikipedia policy. At minimum I would ask that the mediator take note of the manner in which the other side of the debate has conducted itself. CC80 08:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
i don't think it's reasonable to paint all gays with the brush that some (notably some RC priests) might be pedophiles. i'm sure the portion of straight men who like underage girls is at least as high if not higher, yet heterosexuality is not tarnished by that. it's a mischaracterization to associate homosexuality with pedophillia per se just as it would be to associate heterosexuality with pedophillia. i think that whole thing should be dropped like a hot potato. r b-j 10:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
At no point did I ever claim that "all gays" are pedophiles. I pointed out specific examples of support for pedophilia, nothing more. This in turn stemmed from a discussion over whether any opposition to any type of sex act would qualify as "bigotry" in the eyes of gay activists, and if so, then whether that principle should apply also to opposition to pedophilia and incest, etc. Nothing I said justified the response by CaveatLector, which was an obscenity-laced personal attack by his own admission. CC80 11:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
CC80, you have 'pointed out' nothing. You have hurled outright lies about gay activist groups without any corroborating evidence. THIS discussion is completely out of line with the purpose of this talk page, and you created it only to slander LGBT people and LGBT activist groups. You are fooling no one when you say you were not drawing a connection between being gay and being a pedophile. Your comments are a disturbing form of slander, and I still believe you owe an apology to the members of this board. CaveatLectorTalk 18:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Accusing me of "slander" is particularly absurd given that the examples I gave are well-known and part of the public record. I don't think there's any dispute over whether the editor of the "Journal of Homosexuality" (John P. DeCecco) has praised pedophile relationships as "nurturing" - it's printed in the introduction to "Male Inter-Generational Intimacy". Do you really deny that he wrote such a comment?
Likewise, ILGA has never denied that NAMBLA and several other pedophile organizations had been allowed into their membership, and the UN has issued reports on their decision to reject ILGA for that very reason (see the URLs at the end of this paragraph). The rationale ILGA has offered - i.e., they claimed they didn't have the administrative apparatus to weed out such groups - makes very little sense given that NAMBLA's very name itself contains the phrase "Man/Boy Love". Are we to believe that ILGA had no inkling that a "Man/Boy Love" organization might be dedicated to promoting man-boy love? In any event, the fact that such groups were allowed to join their association has never been in dispute, and it was only after ILGA was denied consultative status by the UN that they began a PR campaign designed to dissassociate themselves from such groups. The reason they were once again denied consultative status in May of this year is because many offiicials are skeptical that they have genuinely changed their policy, especially since they won't reveal their current membership list. This is all well-known - for example, take a look at the following report on the UN's own site concerning the denial of consultative status in 2002 and some of the prior history of this issue: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/ECOSOC6004.doc.htm
Here's another UN report, concerning the rejection of ILGA again this year. It also mentions the similar rejection of Germany’s Lesbian and Gay Federation. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ecosoc6203.doc.htm
An example of gay activist groups explicitly linking the two forms of sex on equal terms would be the sex education materials in Toronto public schools which encourage sex between men and boys by declaring it to be just as "natural" as gay sex between two adult men. It assures the children reading the book that sex with an adult is no more "scary" than "coming out", thereby further making the explicit claim that one is just as proper as the other while also sending a not-so-subtle message to critics that since the two issues are being linked anyone who opposes the textbook can expect to be accused of homophobia. For a description of this textbook's material, see for example the article in the May 15th, 1995 issue of "Alberta Report/Western Report".
Any number of other examples can be given if you wish. Certainly most of it is not legitimately in dispute, although it is often denied by gay activists who don't wish to admit what some of these groups have been doing.
You question my motives for pointing out this issue, but I already explained how the pedophilia thread developed and why it is relevant to the discussion. There would have been no need to go into such detail on this point if the others here had been willing to concede the obvious - that the accusation of bigotry being applied to critics of sodomy is also applied to critics of pedophilia, both cases involve a failure to make any distinction between criticism of behavior versus hatred towards people, and in some cases (emphasis on "some") there is overlap among the activist groups involved. I have never said that "all" gay activists support both. The latter accusation is a strawman which has only further pulled us away from the main point. CC80 15:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Your citation of 'proof' ('It's in THIS general direction! Go find it!) Hardly gives any grounding to your statements. I have read as much of the introduction to the book you are speaking of as Amazon will allow, and the author has not yet called pedophilia 'nurturing' and has spent most of his time talking about how different forms of 'intergenerational love' (as he calls it) have presented themselves in different societies. It's quite clear that, most of the time, he is talking about pederasty and not pedophilia, and this leads me to believe the quote you mention has been ripped from any sort of context it was in. Also, the claims against the ILGA are shaky, at best, considering every statement against them is circumstantial (once again, at best) and the UN isn't exactly the best decision maker on these types of issues. PLUS, citing a right-wing Canadian magazine as some sort of 'proof' (once again 'GO IN THIS GENERAL DIRECTION!') doesn't help much.
All of this matters for nothing, because it is still clear that you wished to draw some sort of connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Your argument of 'this shows that pedophiles call people who object bigots' makes no logical sense. People who are of a certain RACE call people who hate them 'bigots'. That does not imply that racists cannot be called bigots (and they use just as many excuses and deterministic statements about 'behavior' that homophobes do). The very clear distinction between pedophilia and homosexuality is that the FIRST clearly violates the rights of another human being who cannot consent, while the second harms NO ONE. The hatred for homosexuals (or for homosexuality in general) is born out of fear and ignorance. That is bigotry, plain and simple. THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION should not even be happening on this talk page! (Gay people should NOT have to defend themselves on wikipedia, for christ's skae!) So I will end my participation in this particular discussion here. CaveatLectorTalk 02:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's go through your objections. You've dismissed one of my sources based solely on the fact that the small snippet of it available at Amazon does not contain the quote in question - which is no surprise, given that Amazon only allows you to see a small portion of the text. You've dismissed the other sources using even less substantive rationales. I would add again that ILGA has never denied that it had originally allowed NAMBLA to join: they merely try to excuse that decision. Their own position on the subject can be found at the following URL - note that even though they are trying to backpeddle from the controversy by claiming that they don't support pedophilia, they concede that NAMBLA had been allowed to join and they give an excuse which simply doesn't make any sense: http://www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?LanguageID=1&FileID=861&ZoneID=7&FileCategory=10
You have again touched upon the main reason this subject was brought up here, since you've dredged up the tired attempt to justify the bigotry charge against opponents of homosexuality but not opponents of pedophilia. Since you state that pedophilia is harmful - a charge which the many pro-pedophilia/pederasty activists would hotly dispute - do you realize that they would consider you a bigot for making a charge which they claim is false? This is the point I've been trying to make: a charge of "bigotry" and the constant attempts to equate the matter to racism may be a convenient rhetorical tactic but it's an absurd argument when applied to issues which concern behavior. CC80 11:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


Just to be clear, do you feel that the article Homophobia should include a lengthy paragraph on the Biblical rules on slavery?
DanB†DanD 16:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
My comment about the Bible's treatment of slavery was a response to something which Rglong had brought up. While I agree that this shouldn't be the topic of debate here, nevertheless if the subject is relevant when one side brings it up then it's equally relevant when the other side responds. CC80 08:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
then we should remove it from the table (which is what i've been advocating from the beginning). whether someone is a person of faith or not (which may or may not be a basis for their "moral disapproval" of homosexual behaviors if they even have such a disapproval) should not affect whether or not, for whatever other reasons, it may be reasonable and NPOV to identify such a person as homophobic. i personally think that Fred Phelps is a homophobe for "hating fags" whether or not he thinks and says that God does the same. r b-j 10:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Fred Phelps does indeed qualify as a bigot, yes. But Phelps is so far out of the mainstream of conservative Christianity that he has ranted against Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Pope Benedict XVI - because they refuse to hate the sinner as well as the sin. Phelps can hardly be held up as a typical example of conservative Christianity, nor does his ideology have anything to do with this debate. The debate concerns whether or not any opponent of sodomy (i.e., those who condemn actions and behaviors rather than promoting hatred against people) can be fairly labeled "homophobes" or "bigots". My point throughout has simply been that if I'm a bigot for opposing sodomy, then I'm also a bigot for opposing any other sexual behavior which is forbidden by Christian theology, whether pedophilia, incest, necrophilia, bestiality, etc. The people promoting all of these behaviors use the very same "bigotry" argument against their opponents, so gay activists need to stop pretending that their own rhetoric is either unique or uniquely justifiable. That's what the debate over this article ultimately comes down to. CC80 11:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
so you're not removing it from the table. earlier you said "While I agree that this shouldn't be the topic of debate here.." so which is it? are you going to take a consistent stand on whether or not religious belief provides cover or not against a charge of homophobia? i hope it's "not", but if you're comfortable with the label, you should say so clearly, because i might have to back-pedal one particular point that i have repeated (regarding the pejorative nature of the label). r b-j 11:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Phelp's ideology is not theologically based - it's his own personal invention. I.e., he's rejecting a basic doctrine, and thereby separating himself from the faith by an act of heresy, when he claims that God "hates" people rather than merely the sin. If he were Catholic rather than Baptist, canon law would require that he be formally excommunicated. His practice of harassing people at the funerals of gays and lesbians clearly has nothing to do with theological or intellectual disagreement, just as those few gay activists who kill Christians are not motivated by merely a difference of opinion. CC80 12:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a newcomer's opinion

I usually stick to monitoring the bisexual pages, but for some reason decided to give this page a look, specifically to see how it addressed the homophobia as a phobia / homophobia as a predjudice issue. These discussions are probably more enlightening than the article itself. I kept wanting to respond to the ongoing discussions, but there are so many, and they all bring up different points and go on different tangents that it became an impossible task to decide which one - and i certainly would have problems staying on top of so many. Basically i see it as this:

1. there are people who would like to descibe non-self-identifying people as homophobic. This in itself is POV, we're all adults, and we can go look up these things in Biography guidlines and such, so i won't be providing links.

2. there are people who would like to identify actions that people engage in as homophobic. There isn't anything wrong with this, as long as how the term is being applied is understood.

3. there is the fact that many people feel that using homophobic to describe themselves, other people, or specific actions is unjustly painting them as being irrational, this is citable. therefore, care must be taken when identifying actions as in #2.

4. there is the definition of phobia as being "an irrational fear" such as the fear of flying a commercial airline. so #3 is justified

The odd thing about 3 and 4, though, is that it is editors who want to specifically define "homophobia" as "irrational" who also object to having their bigoted opinions about LGBT people defined as "homophobia".
but "irrational" or "unreasoning" is actually in the M-W dictionary definition. and the "definition" you are using to identify them as "homophobes" (that definition is that a homophobe is whomever you declare to be a homophobe)
r b-j, your personal attacks on me are not helping us resolve the situation here. Please quit, or else I will have to ask administrators to step in. Yonmei 21:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
victim mentality: she (or he) calls me a homophobe (i haven't thunk up a good one word response), but that isn't a personal attack, of course. but by claiming victimhood she (or he) gets to sidestep having to deal with the content of opposing editors: "Objections to homophobia as "pejorative" are invariably from homophobes". what else can we say. since we're just homophobes, nothing we say counts for anything. just let Yonmei decide what is NPOV. r b-j 22:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
is not the dictionary definition. are you saying that the POV of the "homophobes", as you call them, has been canonized into the Merriam-Webster dictionary? and what's more is that neither "irrational" nor "unreasoning" got into the lead definition of the article. so those "homophobes" score 0 and Yonmei 1 on that issue. at the moment, at least. r b-j 18:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It is almost as if they want their bigotry about LGBT people, their false beliefs about LGBT lifestyles, to be defined as rational, sensible opinions, and "homophobia" to be classed as something irrational that does not include them and their opinions. There is nothing new about this: no bigot ever believes their own opinions are bigotry.Yonmei 17:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
the "homophobic" edit you are objecting to (that's currently frozen) says nothing about bigots objecting to the label, but of political opposition to particular goals of the LGBT movement as objecting to the label of "homophobic". try to make an argument without circularly relying on your own authority and definitions of terms for a change Yonmei. it might get more respect. r b-j 18:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
r b-j, your personal attacks on me are not helping us resolve the situation here. Please quit, or else I will have to ask administrators to step in. Yonmei 21:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
repeating a canard doesn't make it more persuasive. stop threatening me and respond to the issues placed before you. (or "get outa the kitchen" as Harry Truman would put it.)
Yonmei, phobias are specifically defined as irrational behaviors. Bigotry does not necessarily equate with Fear. It is much more closely linked to Egocentrism or Ethnocentrism. An opinion of superiority and distaste for inferiority. -Zappernapper 23:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

5. there is the definition of homophobia as being any anti-gay act or person. this is indeed citable and noteworthy. The fact that a term has been so notoriously misused should be included in tthe article, and it should be understood, that oftentimes when someone uses the term "homophobic" they are often only meaning opposed to GLBT political goals or lifestyles, or have a hatred for GLBT people. While hatred and fear are typically related, not all acts that become deemed as "homophobic" are inspired by either rational or irrational fears of homosexuality. Phobias are typically expressed through avoidance not confrontation. Gacy may be used as an example in that he avoided his feelings and this consquently made him unstable (there may be debate about this, but is serves for the sake of discussion). Oftentimes, people who are identified as "homophobes" are not unstable in anyway, and do not engage in odd behaviors to avoid gay people (like not going to the grocery store).

Quite. People who are identified as homophobes often "merely" hate/hold bigoted opinions about LGBT people. More often the "odd behavior" to avoid LGBT people is the disowning of a son or daughter who has come out: at least, I consider this odd.Yonmei 17:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
disowning a kid for their sexual orientation is akin to hatred, aversion, etc (unlike political opposition, per se). who is saying that such is not homophobia? r b-j 18:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Any parent who's done it would claim that it's not homophobia to tell their gay son or lesbian daughter they can't come home: that's just what Mangoe would call "moral disapproval". Yonmei 21:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
it must be true (that's just what Mangoe would call "moral disapproval"), if you say it. you have complete authority to represent Mangoe's position. r b-j 22:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that Mangoe is a parent who has disowned his/her son or daughter? I had no idea, not being that closely acquainted with Mangoe, and I wish you hadn't identified Mangoe as such a person, if you knew that as a personal fact about them. It's unfair to Mangoe for you to share your personal information about their life on a public wiki page. Don't do it. -Yonmei 07:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
sarcasm is not conducive to a discussion, please refrain, both of you. Yonmei, there is no academic proof saying "any parent... would claim that it's not homophobia...." And rbj, disowning children is not always motivated by fear, although, i do agree with the two of you that it could be construed as such. The point remains, though, that unless there is a psychological evaluation done on subject X, naming people as homophobic based purely on their actions is POV. By so naming them, you are assuming an omniscient knowledge of their motives.
Example: My, admittedly limited, research in global history has revealed that when laws and social morals become lax regarding prostitution - said society quickly declines into poverty. Ere go, because my political position allows me to veto laws seeking to legalize prostitution I do so judiciously, only wanting what is best for my nation.
To someone who is seeking this law be passed, using the argument - against=bigotry, bigotry=fear, fear=phobic, they might perceive me as being "prostitute-phobic", or Neophobic. They are not taking into account my own rational fears. They may have better knowledge about the subject than I, and know that prostitution was not the deciding factor in societal decline. So while my fears seem irrational, they are only ignorantly rational. Ignorance does not equal irrationality. However, if i feel that I am more knowldgeable on the subject (changing the example), I find their arguements ridiculous and ignorant - seeing their only true motives as being monetary and indulgent. The parallels between this example and say, marriage rights, are hard to ignore. -Zappernapper 23:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

6. there are GLBT people who dislike being equated with pedophilia. the assumption that because a man is gay he is a pedophile is unfair and ignorant. but men who are attracted to pubescent boys are in fact gay. men who are attracted to pubescent girls are straight. so both sides of the coin need to accept that pedophilia is part of their "group".

So shall we make a point of including, on Heterosexuality, that straight men molest pubescent girls? Yonmei 17:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
i agree with that point. but the last time i agreed with you Yonmei, you accused me of patronizing you. so maybe i don't dare tell you when you say something that's more broadly held by others. r b-j 18:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
shucks! she didn't accuse me of patronizing her this time. r b-j 22:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I wish the mediator would do something about these sorts of comments, they detract from the discussion... neways, in response to the question, "So shall we make a point of including, on Heterosexuality, that straight men molest pubescent girls?" the answer is decidely NO, however it is useful to cite gay pedophilia in this article because it is a major factor of homophobia in its literal sense, i'm sure this is citable. If you are seeking balance, if someone could find something that states a factor for Heterophobia is straight pedophilia, i would encourage inclusion. I was making this statement, and #7, b/c in the poltical air, GLBT people tend to become vehement about their exclusion of pedophiles. The simple fact is that, pedophiles use the same arguments as GLBT people use in seeking acceptance. They have also had no success in psychological and psychiatric therapies, and there is conflicting evidence concerning how young is "too-young" paralleled with the conflicting evidience of psychological trauma among GLBT people. Whether gay or straight, pedophiles differ in their sexuality by preference of age. Predation is the only definite "psychological disorder", along with pre-pubescent attraction. No culture, to my knowledge, allows intimate relations with 4-year olds, but several condone tose with 10-12 year olds, occasionally even marrying off girls who are younger than that (often societies use a girl's first period as the symbol of her womanhood). This was only to augment the pertinent discussion going on elsewhere in this talk page. -Zappernapper 23:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

7. a reason for #6 is b/c GLBT people feel that pedophilia is between non-consenting or immature people and is therefore by definition different. Pedophilic rights activists have been using the same arguments GLBT rights activists were using in the 80's. Pedophilia, as applied to pubescent youths, is largely a social construct that is ethno-centric. Boys as young as 10 or 12 are allowed to marry in their cultures - they are seen as adults. However in our culture we feel they are "too young." There is well documented research showing that these cultures have existed for hundreds of years and not had any negative effects. surly, if 10 or 12 was too young, the society would have crumbled because everyone was emotionally damaged. -Zappernapper 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

i get the fact that you wanted to reply within my post to address specific issues, but could you all please add sigs in the appropriate areas so i know who's saying what? -Zappernapper 22:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So it has come to pass

I haven't had the time to wade through all of the most recent exchanges, but this bit caught my eye:

The odd thing about 3 and 4, though, is that it is editors who want to specifically define "homophobia" as "irrational" who also object to having their bigoted opinions about LGBT people defined as "homophobia". It is almost as if they want their bigotry about LGBT people, their false beliefs about LGBT lifestyles, to be defined as rational, sensible opinions, and "homophobia" to be classed as something irrational that does not include them and their opinions. There is nothing new about this: no bigot ever believes their own opinions are bigotry.Yonmei 17:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, I don't know about that. But I do know that you've now stooped to calling me a bigot. Mangoe 03:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mangoe, she did that long ago (2 weeks) when she declared that "Objections to homophobia as 'pejorative' are invariably from homophobes". pretty clear POV. that's when my red flag went up.
but you better be careful if you frankly point any of this out to her. that's when she defines it as "personal attack".
so Yonmei doesn't have to respond to such objections because they invariably come from us homophobes, and she doesn't have to respond to frank contentions of her POV pushing because it's a personal attack. she gets to define the debate and need not respond to the substance coming from opponents since they're just homophobes who are personally attacking her. r b-j 04:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
r b-j, that's a complete muddle about what's been going on.
no, it is accurate and you are trying to avoid responsibilty for your own expression of prejudice. it is not a muddle.
I've repeatedly asked editors (specifically, you, I think) who assert that there are non-homophobic reasons for opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people to cite your sources. Instead of doing so, you repetitively either attack me personally
no, i don't accept the terms in which you frame the debate. i never said anything about some academic source saying that opposition to some particular piece of legislation is or is not homophbial. i refer to the dictionary definition which does not include political opposition to legislation proffered as pro-gay on its list of definitions of homophobia and continue to assert that political opposition to some particular goal of an organized group of people does not, in and of itself, make one a bigot against the class of persons that such organization purports to represent.
or indulge in lengthly rambles about your own personal history, neither of which are appropriate responses to a request for sources.Yonmei 10:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
you haven't learned a thing, Yonmei. you're still a hard-core POV pusher. and you still misrepresent the other side when you frame what they say. it's not honest. i only mean what i say, and i grant you no authority to represent it. think what you want about it, but only i get to say what i mean. r b-j 19:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

The only way to get this issue out of limbo is to actually keep this NPOV. In order for it to be readable by both sides. Readers need to be allowed to come to their own conclusions. I know of noone that would consider homophobe endearing. I think the state of the second paragraph is caused by the fact that people choose to use a word on the discussion page that is trying to determine it's meaning. like using a word in its own definition. The reason for using "critics of this term" is clear. Anyone can call any person or group anything if the word is not firmly defined. I could say that every mailman is a homophobe if I wanted. My use does not justify it's meaning or appropriateness. There is a reason there are critics of this term and it's current usage. When used with a politician it implies that they hate lgbtq though they may just object to the implications of the bill. There is no way a npov can just say in for example the article for Faigot. Most faigots do not agree with the use of the term in refering to themselves.

In the same way I think Homophobes reguardless of right or wrong deserve the same respect when it comes to a pejorative about them. --Igimaster 06:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Committment to using academic sources / avoiding Wikipedian opinion

As DanBDan suggested: I commit to using only academic sources who publish on peer-reviewed journals for the Homophobia page. If others wish to make this commitment, please add your own name below.

1. Yonmei 08:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Corollary: The Homophobia page is intended to be about the word homophobia, and how it is used, not about how Wikipedian editors feel about LGBT people or about equal civil rights for LGBT people. No Wikipedian editor should express their own views on LGBT people, their views on equal civil rights for LGBT people, or their feelings about how homophobia is used, but stick to academic sources only. To confirm your commitment to this corollary, please add your own name below.

1. Yonmei 08:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

2. rglong 3:59, 3 November 2006


[edit] Discussion about commitment to using academic sources

And I will challenge any statement that is bigoted based on the very fact that it does not have any basis in RELIABLE academic resources (these do not include the unscientific findings of religious interest groups or politically motivated pseudoscientists).rglong 3:59, 3 November 2006

That may be, but making this commitment means that if you wish to challenge someone else's academic sources, you can only do so by either showing that the author has no publishing history on peer-reviewed journals (checkable via Google Scholar) or by finding an academic source that disproves/disagrees with the academic source you wish to challenge. Yonmei 10:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Nonense. If someone is going to make outrageous negative judgments about an entire class of people, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THEM to provide accurate, reliable, academic sources. You are basically implying that, if someone says something awful about gays and lesbians, like that we are comparable to child molesters for example, that it's up to us to "clear our names" and "prove" ourselves. I don't have to justify myself to other people. They need to justify their own beliefs with facts if they are going to post them here.rglong 3:59, 3 November 2006
Please pay attention. This commitment means all participants must provide academic sources by authors who publish in peer-reviewed journals: and it means that to challenge a statement from an academic source, a participant must find an academic source to support their challenge. That applies to all participants.
My hope was that the "Commitment list" will remain a list of editors who agree to participate only using academic sources, and not itself turn into a discussion.
Please sign/date your comments. Yonmei 10:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I do not disagree with the commitment to academic resources

Stop writing that. The following is not a disagreement with the commitment to objective, verifiable facts. On the contrary, it is an appeal to them. No anti-gay statement has ever been verified by reputable academic thought or agencies.

If people write things that are not true and that are defamatory then I will question them. If people say things that are clearly based on bigotry rather than research I will call them out. Some people here have repeatedly tried to draw a logical connection between pedophilia or pederasty and homosexuality. The connection does not exist. NAMBLA has absolutely nothing to do with the mainstream gay and lesbian movement, and gays and lesbians are under no more obligation to answer for men who have sex with little boys than straight people are to answer for men who have sex with little girls. This is not just a moral point of view, it is a logical and academic one. If people can display some self-control and keep their misinformed and bigoted propoganda to themselves, and focus instead on facts, then there will be no reason to correct their erroneous statements. A very valid point has been raised, which is that the word "homophobia" has come to mean "anti-gay" in common usage. Its original clinical definition is rarely used anymore. Rather, it is primarily used to identify bigots who harbor anti-gay beliefs. Most people already understand the word to mean "anti-gay" and thus it can be justifiably applied to people who hold and express anti-gay beliefs, including some of the people who have posted here. And that has everything to do with this article and the discussion of the word's usage. 24.196.83.29 08:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)rglong

[edit] Comments by 24.196.83.29

1. The idea that gay people need to "prove" that their relationships or behaviors are morally justified is absurd, and yes, bigoted. Whether or not it can be labeled as homophobic is the real subject of debate, because:

2. Some people seem not to want to acknowledge that the word "homophobia" has come to mean, in common usage, "anti-gay". Beliefs and sentiments that gay people and relationships are inferior or morally objectionable are quite literally anti-gay. THIS IS NOT A MORAL ASSERTION IT IS AN ACADEMIC ONE. THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT "ANTI-GAY" MEANS. And by extension, when the word "homophobia" is used as a synonym for "anti-gay" (as it most often is in common usage), then we should not be surprised when people who harbor anti-gay beliefs are called "homophobic". When others accuse people making anti-gay statements of being "homophobic" they nearly always mean those people are "anti-gay".

3. Ridiculous, bigoted assertions about gays and lesbians that, for instance, they are somehow comparable to pedophiles and should have to answer for what pedophiles do, are rooted in bigotry and/or homophobia (in both senses of the word) and ARE NOT ACADEMIC. THERE IS NO RELIABLE RESEARCH TO JUSTIFY THESE CLAIMS AND THEY ARE INHERENTLY ILLOGICAL. Therefore they have no place in this discussion.

4. Does the discussion on whether or not some anti-gay politicians, religious leaders and others object to being labeled as "anti-gay" and "homophobic" belong here? Perhaps. It literally does occur, making it of interest due to its implications in a number of academic arenas, not least of which include sociology, history and political science. Their reactions are hardly surprising either. People who make comments that most others deem racist quite frequently claim they are not racist. But do we need to endlessly debate whether or not an anti-gay or racist person can be labeled anti-gay or racist, respectively? Common sense tells us no. Obviously people who harbor resentment toward gay people are anti-gay. The definition of a bigot is one who makes sweeping judgments about an entire class of people based on one characteristic rather than the character or contributions of the individual. This means that people who make generalized statements against gay people based solely on their sexual orientation are bigots. That is the definition of the word. The conclusion is derived through pure logic and requires no appeal to morality.

The implication for this article is this: The objections of anti-gay people to being labeled as such do occur and should be noted. However, it would actually be biased to give their point of view equal weight. Their assertion that they can be anti-gay and not be considered anti-gay is literally and logically incorrect. The phenomenon should be noted but this article should not pretend their illogical assertions are somehow logical. That would be like saying in an article about the planet earth, it would be bias if we didn't give as much weight to the idea that the earth is round than the idea that it is flat. 24.196.83.29 09:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)rglong

By now have established that the word doesn't just mean opposition to homosexuality, and that it means at least bigoted opposition, and that we have enough documentation of the "and it means that their bigotry is grounded in something like a phobia" sense to where it cannot be ruled out. It's next to impossible to find neutral language here anyway, because of the phenomenon I call "pejoratization": any label the LBQT-whatever side claims for themselves is going to acquire a pejorative color in the mouths of bigoted opponents.
The complaint against this word for the opposition arises from the two-sense meaning. I've read a large chunk of the Herek article, and he takes in solely in the "based on a phobia" sense. Indeed, his point thus far seems to be that heterosexism is a better term because it more accurately parallels racism and avoids the problem connotation.
And the "equal time" argument is a complete strawman. Nobody is arguing that-- at least, I am not. The original problem was that people kept trying to to your line of argument to eliminate any admission that there was contoversy about the term; now the problem is that Yonmei wants to hide within that admission a condemnation of the opposition as bigots. Mangoe 12:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


The ongoing attempts by a handful of gay activists here to apply the label of "bigot" to anyone who disagrees with any of their positions is only further poisoning this debate, and the arguments being utilized are not fooling anyone. As Rbj pointed out, a circular argument which merely plays off its own definition is not a valid line of reasoning.

In like manner, the repeated claims that I am allegedly linking "all gays" to pedophilia (and hence am engaging in "stereotyping") is also absurd: my comments farther above have already clarified what I had actually said on that matter. To wit, I never claimed that "all gays" support or practice pedophilia, but instead pointed out specific cases of such support to refute the idea that there is allegedly no overlap between the two causes. There is in fact a reasonable amount of overlap - and the very same accusations of "bigotry" against the opponents of both forms of sex, which of course was the main point of bringing up the issue in the first place. CC80 15:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's funny that you are criticizing the use of the word "bigot", but are just as willing to label anyone who disagrees with YOU as a "gay activist". But anyway you are just attacking straw men. You are not a bigot if you "disagree with gay activists". That is not the definition of the word, and that's not something anyone ever said. If a gay activist says "I like ice cream", and you disagree and say "I don't like ice cream", that does not mean you are a bigot. YOU ARE A BIGOT IF YOU JUDGE AN ENTIRE CLASS OF PEOPLE BASED ON ONE CHARACTERISTIC THEY ALL HAPPEN TO SHARE, regardless of their individual differences or merits. There's no circular argument there. It is very direct logic. This definition is common sense for anyone who has ever spoken the English language. And what is the "overlap" between homosexuality and pedophilia? I never quoted you as saying "ALL gays practice pedophilia". What I am challenging is the assertion that pedophilia has any logical meaning to discussions on homosexuality. The problem does not need to become a moral argument or anyone's personal beliefs. It is solved through simple logic which you appear not to have a grasp on. Pedophilia means one desires to have sex with children, the word does not imply the sexual orientation of anyone involved. In fact the vast majority of victims of pedophilia are victims of HETEROSEXUALS. I could easily quote reliable APA and other studies right now that clearly state heterosexuals make up at least 98% of all pedophiles. I won't. Why? BECAUSE HETEROSEXUALITY, LIKE HOMOSEXUALITY, IS NOT PEDOPHILIA. If I made any argument trying to link, or prove an "overlap" between straight people and pedophiles, even if I quoted studies, it would still NOT be logical and would have no place in this discussion.
All of the above is wrong once again.
Point #1: The term homophobia is in fact often applied to virtually any opposition - witness Yonmei's act of labeling Rbj a homophobe merely for insisting on some degree of balance in this article.
Point #2: Opponents of sodomy do not "judge an entire class of people based on one characteristic" - we oppose the behavior, just as we oppose adultery without reducing adulterers to nothing but a caricature defined solely by their particular sin. The problem here is that a large number of gay activists have chosen to pretend that their form of sex should be the defining characteristic of their "identity", but they then allege that it's the rest of us who are reducing their identity to that one trait.
Point #3: I have already explained repeatedly what point was actually being made on the pedophilia issue, but you seem to be ignoring it in order to create a straw man. I have also documented cases in which certain gay activist groups have in fact promoted pedophilia. It should be noted that pedophile groups do regard their form of sex to be an expression of their "orientation" - which can in fact be classed in its own category. They make the same "identity" arguments that gay activists do. CC80 11:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Restating the problem

The problem is that some people evidently want to justify their prejudices about LGBT people by claiming that their "opposition to homosexuality" is not bigotry: which is like claiming that "opposition to black people" isn't racism, or "opposition to Judaism" isn't anti-Semitism. Human sexual orientation varies normally from heterosexual to homosexual: "opposing" homosexuality as normal human sexual orientation is homophobia. Obviously, there are various degrees of homophobia, but if it's being asserted that some people "oppose" without homophobia, what word do we use for these people?

There exist people who oppose equal civil rights for LGBT people; there exist people who claim they're "against homosexuality" on moral grounds; there exist people who think anyone who isn't heterosexual ought to force themselves to appear so or else be celibate. Some of these people are editing this web page, and they assert that they ought not to be referred to as homophobes. They don't appear to be able to give any coherent reason why not, except that they claim the word is "pejorative" and therefore ought not to be applied to them.

(Note: I would very much like them to come up with some reason why not so that we could argue the issues. For example: if they say that homophobia is irrational, and their views are rational, then they should make a rational case for their views. If their assertion is that homophobia only refers to mental illness, and they are perfectly sane, then they should show that homophobia is in fact only ever used to describe mental illness. If their assertion is that homophobia ought not to be applied to any prejudice justified by religious belief, then they need to explain why their religious belief trumps anyone else's views. And so on. They need something better than just "The word's pejorative, I don't want it pointing at me". Because that argument just makes the whole page turn personal, as we see.)

However: let us suppose (for the sake of argument) that there is a case to be made for some people who hold negative views about equal civil rights for LGBT people, or about homosexuality, not being called homophobes or having their negative views described as homophobic.

What, then, is the accepted term for such people? They certainly represent a distinct group. They've made (we're supposing) a case for not being referred to as homophobes or having their views called homophobic. What term would they accept, and find non-pejorative, to describe "Has negative views about LGBT people/homosexuality, and opposes equal civil rights for LGBT people"? Yonmei 16:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Yonmei, i will try to be kind. The problem, in your estimation of the problem, is that some people evidently (from your perspective) want to justify their prejudices (what you judge to be prejudices) about LGBT people by claiming that their "opposition to homosexuality" is not bigotry. yes, there are people who are opposed, on different levels or different spheres to components of homosexuality or something associated to homosexuality, one such something are various political/judicial/social movements to change policy or the interpretation of law in such a way that many in the LGBT social movement (which could very well include many straight people, one need not be a woman to be a feminist) and they claim such opposition is not bigotry.
now, here is my estimation of the problem vis-a-vis the words you have been writing and the actions/edits you have been making or advocating: you continue to equate, without qualification (at the very least, qualify this with "as I understand it" or something similar) some disapproval or opposition of something, anything, regarding homosexuality that someone may have as "prejudice". you continue to do that, even when folks like Mangoe who are clear that they do disapprove of something or another regarding homosexuality (i believe i am accurately representing your position, Mangoe, am i not?) deny that label (of prejudice). you are framing the position of an opposing point of view with such a frame that the opposing point of view does not themselves own.
i do not want to "personally attack". actually, that is another example of you characterizing someone else's position, namely my input to this. i deny that characterization: i maintain that i am asserting a principle that you do not get to define my position or other people's position. only they get to define their own position. you get to say what their (or my) position sounds like to you, that is prejudice and/or homophobia (or "personal attack" in my case), but you need to, in my opinion, get in the habit of qualifying your opinion of someone else's opinion with words to such effect and, as i see your participation, you do not do that.
so, i will try to be as nice as i can, but, in my opinion, you need to respect the other editors, those that oppose what you are trying to have reflected in the article, enough that when you characterize their argument, you show some sign that it is your characterization, not simply fact. if you characterize every opposing response to your argument as simply homophobia, bigotry, prejudice, or personal attack, that person might lose patience with you eventually. when i lose patience, my rhetoric gets sharper, i begin to say, frankly, with less varnish, how crappy i think such-and-such arguement is. call that a "personal attack" if you want. but that is your characterization, and i might not see it the same way. that's fine, we can disagree with whether or not what i say is a personal attack or even if what i say is homophobic. but then, based on that characterization that i might consider dubious, if you then write off the point i make (whether i make it sharply or politely) as just a "personal attack" or one from "homophobia" and not respond to the content because based on your characterization and you might feel you don't have to respond to such a point that you judge to be homophobic or a personal attack, if you do that, i might lose my patience again. i want to debate nicely with you, but if you do that, i take that as an insult to my intelligence, and i will get less patient with it.
now i wanna debate things nicely with you, but please recognize the potiential of prejudice or preconception on your part. and please recognize that some of your opposition might be both smart and good. at least they see themselves as such. i don't think that Mangoe sees him/herself as bigoted and i know that i do not see myself as such. r b-j 17:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Rbj, I would much rather you tried to be brief: that's 685 words there.
it's comparable to the length of text you have typed before. sorry for being wordy, but i was trying to tread more lightly and i didn't want to just tersely say what i had on my mind lest it be construed to be a personal attack again.
No matter how wordy or how terse you are, if you attack me rather than discuss the issues, this is a personal attack. Yonmei 07:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I have not, in fact, met "all opposing arguments" with accusations of homophobia: I have not yet seen any opposing arguments from you or for anyone else.
call it want you want but my opposing argument continues to be that you mischaracterize your opponents position and then dismiss it, without really taking it on. stated again: opposition to some particular goals of an organization purporting to represent a class of persons is not, in and of itself, equivalent to bigotry against that class of persons.
Straw man. I never referenced an "organisation" or "particular goals". I said: opposition to equal civil rights for a group of people can be assumed to be based on prejudice against that group of people unless the opposition can show otherwise. That applies equally whether the "group of people" are LGBT people, black people, or women.Yonmei 07:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I gather from this lengthy comment that your position is that you oppose equal civil rights for LGBT people,
i didn't say that either, but at least this time you qualified that with "I gather...". in actuality, i am politically for civil unions of consenting gsy persons that would include every legal privilege and responsibility that hetero married or common-law married people would get (community property rights, joint income taxes, rights of survivorship, next-of-kin rights, etc.). i am for such legislation. i also feel that consenting and competent adults should be able to have whatever relationships their hearts desire and that those that disapprove should not be allowed to interfere. i also believe that employment, business, and housing discrimination against a person due to sexual orientation should be illegal. however, here at WP, i politically oppose you in the wording that you had been demanding for the article. that is a political opposition that i have and am convinced does not make me a homophobe. but you have said that any such objection can only come from homophobes, you're free to think it and to say it, but i reject it.
That may be a misunderstanding, however. You seem to think I'm arguing for "goals of an organisation". What I have consistently been putting forward as always founded on prejudice/bigotry against a group of people is opposition to equal civil rights for that group of people. Yonmei 07:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
and I have further gathered that you believe you do so for reasons that you do not think are homophobic, and so you do not think that opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people should be labelled homophobic.
well, i've been trying to be nice, but you keep repeating this canard, and it is frankly not honest. you are not debating honestly, in my opinion, (by misrepresenting your opponents position and that is not merely my opinion) and that can lead us down a rat hole of recrimination if it continues. so, taking a page from your playbook: STOP IT! stop mischaracterizing your opposition. the final authority of what my position is in any debate is me, not you.
Yet you have kept editing away/arguing against what I have said is specifically homophobic: opposition to equal civil rights for LGBT people. (And as I have repetitively requested: if someone asserts that they can oppose equal civil rights for LGBT people without being homophobic, the onus is on them to find a source to show that.) Yonmei 07:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC]
Okay. Please, then, provide an academic, peer-reviewed source that argues against equal civil rights for LGBT people. (Whichever civil rights you believe that heterosexual people may have but LGBT people should be denied: you haven't been very explicit about which civil rights LGBT people may not be allowed to have on terms of equality with heterosexual people.)
i'm not playing that game. i am only insisting that you don't get to characterize your opposition's position (except as per the explicit definion of the word). "they" get to define their position, not you.
"Playing that game"? R-B-J. what you characterize as "playing a game" is supposed to be the point. We're not in fact here to keep having this argument about whether or not wikipedian editors are homophobic: we're supposed to be trying to edit a wikipage.
Just shouting that it's not homophobic to believe LGBT people mustn't have equal civil rights is not encyclopedic. Providing an academic, peer-reviewed source that makes an argument against equal civil rights is. Yonmei 19:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
no, Yonmei, it doesn't work that way. you do not get to define opposition to any little thing you want to have done as opposition to equal civil rights. just as people are not allowed to (or should not be allowed to) misrepresent the desires and aspirations of LGBT folks as equivalent to pedophillia, you do not get to misrepresent what i want. what i want is that you do not get to call people homophobes in the introduction (without at least a qualification that they deny the label) who oppose some particular political goal. just because you might assume that every political goal of the LGBT social movements is equivalent to equal civil rights, some other people (who could be gay) might look at a particular goal and not come to the same conclusion. just because they evaluate such a political goal, does not mean the are homophobes.
Equal civil rights for LGBT people is not "a particular political goal". You keep characterizing it as this. Why? Yonmei 07:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC]
take racism for example. there are all sorts of organizations that promote the interests of African American persons in this country (e.g. NAACP). most of the goals (affirmative action, hate crimes legislation, etc.) i totally support, but there have been proposals that "reparations for slavery" should be paid to the descendants of slavery in this country because they were not paid to the slaves 140 years ago. i am completely opposed to that particular political goal and i am not a racist. i'm happy for affirmative action including quotas on some big orgainizations and some other programs to give various minority persons a chance (say with college or business opportunities) to fully participate in economic blessings of a wealthy society (until they, as a group, have statistical partity with the rest of society), but i completely oppose a program that cuts a Treasury check for descendents of slaves in reparation for the wrongful enslaving of their ancestors. that opposition does not make me a racist and i would vehemently deny such association for such a reason.
But would you object to characterising opposition to equal civil rights for black people as racist? I wouldn't. Yonmei 07:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC]
i dunno what will be needed for you to get this, but you're gonna have to figure it out eventually. i don't think i share Mangoe's entire worldview (maybe, but probably not) and i know i don't share CC80's worldview. and you can call them whatever you want to call them, but if it's "homophobe" and they do not satisfy the definition of homophobe w.r.t. the dictionary, and if they protest such association, in the intro, if it says that sometimes "homophobe" can mean that such are homophobes, those persons have the right to deny it in the same context that the identification was made. otherwise, it's your POV. r b-j 00:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I refuse to play this game. You want to make it all personalities, go ahead: I'm not doing that. Yonmei 07:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright here's the deal. A bigot is someone who makes negative judgments about an entire class of people based on superficial characteristics they happen to share rather than personal merit. Anyone who says things like "gay people are going to hell" or "gay couples shouldn't be allowed to get same legal benefits that straight married couples do" is clearly a bigot. They are making a judgment against all gay people regardless of any individual, which makes them a bigot. I think we could all agree on that.

An anti-gay person is one who opposes gay rights or who harbors negative opinions and judgments about gay people or homosexuality PER SE. There's no way around it. If you oppose gay people as a class of people or oppose homosexuality itself, then you are anti-gay. That's the definition of the word. Period. I think we can also all agree on that.

What we are running into is people who want to be able to oppose specific "aspects" of homosexuality but not be labeled bigots or anti-gay. Their fear is that by opposing "anything REGARDING homosexuality" they run the danger of being called a bigot. That argument is too broad a statement to be meaningful, and it is illogical. What is an "aspect" of homosexuality? What does it mean to say "regarding homosexuality"?

Technically, when one rapes another man, that is on the face of it a homosexual behavior, purely because two people of the same sex are involved. One can oppose one man raping another and nobody would think they are a homophobe or a bigot. Of course this is true, of course.

But rape is not homosexuality. If you go around trying to link them, like saying things such as "I oppose homosexual rape", then you sound like a bigot and people will call you one. Why? Because you are implying some sort of link between rape and homosexuality PER SE. But rape has nothing to do with homosexuality per se. Straight people commit rape. Bisexual people commit rape. In this case, it is not the opposition to rape, but the willingness to imply a logical link or overlap between homosexuality per se and rape that makes you anti-gay and bigoted.

That's an extreme case, but the point remains. Homosexuality per se is a sexual orientation, that's all it is. Gay people are just people attracted to the same sex, that's all. The basic definitions of the words "gay" or "homosexual" don't give us any other information beyond that. There is nothing inherently wrong or sinful or strange about homosexuality per se, just as there is nothing inherently great or noble or right implied in its definition either, on its own it has no moral implicatons, which is exactly why it was removed from the APA's list of mental disorders. Sexual attraction per se is considered by the APA a basic, NEUTRAL element of a person's personality. It is the hand people get dealt with, and how they play that hand determines what kind of person they will be. When gay people experience anxiety or depression because of society's views on homophobia, the anxiety or depression is treated, but it is acknowledged that it originated not from the person's same-sex attraction per se, but from the interaction between it and external forces such as homophobia and discrimination.

In short, you can oppose some things some homosexuals have said or done and not be a bigot. I'm gay. If you don't like the same movies as me or vote for different political parties as me, that doesn't make you a bigot. It's not enough just to disagree with a homosexual to be a bigot. When your disagreement is based SOLELY on the fact they are gay or that you object to homosexuality per se, THEN you are a bigot.

Again, this is all plain and simple logic based on the definitions of these words.

As far as labeling ME a bigot because I challenge homophobic and unacademic claims, that is absurd. I am not disagreeing with them because I don't like your sexual orientation. I don't disagree with what or who you are. I disagree with what you are saying, primarily because it is NOT academic and NOT logical. I don't need to be gay or have personal or moral reasons to disagree with the things I am disagreeing with, they are on the face of it logically and academically flawed to begin with.

If I start saying you're wrong because you're straight, or heterosexuality "overlaps" with pedophilia, or straight people as a group shouldn't be allowed to get married, then you can call me a bigot, because in that case I would be one.

Homophobes are annoying little pricks. They should be back-handed for the way they act.

As we all are aware, that sexuality is like race or religious or ethnic persuasion is a disputed point, to where I'd have to say that the best one could possibly do is persuade me that they are enough alike.
And to get back to the beginning (of this round, anyway): Yonmei, you made the first edit that started off this contest of wills. And the issue has evolved to the point where you are demanding that the article say that any negative expression towards homosexuality is bigotry. And all through this you are relying heavily on the kinds of normative ambiguity that the objectors complain about. For example, in your declaration that homosexuality is "normal", you've nicely elided over the fact that the word has nearly contradictory meanings depending upon the context from which one approaches the matter. From a Thomistic perspective, homosexuality is clearly abnormal in a sense that no amount of science can refute. Certainly Wikipedia cannot endorse that (since it is a theological assessment), but niether can it just declare the Thomist conclusion to be wrong.
But to get back on track: what I sense here is an expression of bigotry on your part against those you call "homophobes", to the point of trying to label anyone who objects to your program as such-- even those who haven't expressed any opinion on homosexuality per se. Essentially you are fulfilling the complaint that we have documented: that the word is used as a slur to silence opposition. Mangoe 19:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it bigotry on a black person's part if they express anger against racists? Yonmei 07:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


Since these threads keep getting longer despite the fact that they mostly just repeat the same arguments, I'm going to try to clarify my own position - including a few brand new points, just to be radical - as concisely as I can under the circumstances.

To clarify the Christian position while also addressing the "identity politics" nonsense which has muddled the debate: one of the chief theologians and saints of the Catholic Church, St. Augustine, admitted to having an attraction to a young man but he also said that he worked to abstain from that impulse just as he had stopped having sex with women after he converted to Christianity. In today's GLBT jargon he would be called "bisexual", but he (and most societies up until very recent times) did not view sexuality in terms of "orientation" or "identity". Most, if not all, of us have a mix of sexual impulses, meaning that the idea of a "gay identity" - and all of the "bigotry" arguments that are based upon this conception of the matter - are particularly absurd. Both science and opinion polls have confirmed the idea of a sexual continuum - 90% of "gays" say that they are bisexual - thereby further confirming the fact that we are not dealing with the type of discrete "identity groups" that many gay activists pretend we are dealing with. All of the "bigotry" arguments are baseless for this reason, as well as the fact that we are dealing with opposition to behavior rather than people. Racism, by contrast, involves hatred of the latter: i.e., someone who objects to "Gangsta Rap" is usually not a racist, since he objects only to a specific form of music rather than hating an entire class of people. Similarly, those who object to sodomy usually do not hate those who are inclined to that behavior: we merely object to the behavior itself. I would add that traditional Christian doctrine forbids anal sex even between a husband and wife, since it's non-procreative. Again, it's a matter of opposing behavior, not bigoted opinions against people.

The traditional Christian view is that the impulses of the body do not provide their own justification - someone with violent tendencies is not given permission to commit murder merely because they have inborn violent tendencies. Sex is supposed to be reserved for producing a child within marriage rather than merely as a means of indulging one's sexual appetites, regardless of what those appetites may be. There is no "discrimination" here since this morality code frankly runs counter to the impulses that we ALL have - I myself tend to be driven to desire sex with any woman who happens to be available, but that doesn't give me permission to act upon that desire. Since I'm single I have remained celibate, and so I tend to lose patience with gays who claim that they cannot or will not do likewise. People with a stronger-than-average tendency toward same-sex attraction - most of whom are bisexual and can therefore happily marry a member of the opposite sex if they so choose - are asked to abide by the same rule as everyone else, and plenty of them have done so without complaint. If you wish, I can refer you to many "gay" Christian websites run by people who have obeyed the full traditional teaching on sexuality regardless of their own sexual impulses. The other side is mainly composed of those who subscribe to the militant "identity" politics which a vocal segment of the gay community has adopted.

This brings us to Yonmei's latest restatement of his own position. The opening paragraph immediately highlights the chief problem with these claims, and it goes downhill from there. You have again repeated the argument that opposition to behavior is the same as racially-motivated opposition to a class of people without responding to previous objections on that front, such as Rbj's comment pointing out that this would be akin to claiming that anyone who opposes reparations would be a "racist".

Likewise, you have again repeated the tired claim that no one has presented any arguments against the behavior in question. I have presented religious arguments based on revealed theology. This is a perfectly rational basis for opposition regardless of whether you will concede that or not - the issue isn't whether you personally will ever view Christian theology as acceptable, since you in fact define any opposing view as "irrational" merely because it's an opposing view. You likewise claim that any opposition to behavior must have an ulterior motive based on bigotry, which you merely repeat whenever someone asks you to justify that position. This isn't going to get us anywhere.

What your opponents have been asking for is simply an acknowledgement that people can disagree on an issue concerning BEHAVIOR without one side necessarily being a bigot. Fred Phelps does genuinely qualify as a bigot, since he refuses to make a distinction between the sin and the sinner. The Skinheads who assault gay people qualify as bigots. Opposition to sodomy or other behaviors, on the other hand, would not be bigotry. CC80 11:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] An idea for making this talk page more constructive

Before you post to this page, you might want to think about a couple of questions:

  1. Have I already expressed these same ideas, or very similar ideas, on this talk page in the past week?
  2. Does my comment contain a new, concrete suggestion for improving the article?
  3. Does my point really need to be made in multiple paragraphs, or could it be expressed much more succintly?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanB DanD (talk • contribs).

[edit] Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia

Information in Wikipedia may not appeal to religious belief as an equal or opposing source to a scientifically--established fact. Religion does not oppose science: it is orthogonal to science. It is an established fact (see Homosexuality for details) that normal human sexual orientation includes homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality. Religiously-based homophobia does not contradict this: it is orthogonal to it.

A religious body may require that when its adherents are normally attracted to the same gender, they must be celibate or engage in sexual behaviour that is unnatural to them. And this may be consistent according to that religion's theology, but is nonetheless discrimination against LGBT people who wish to belong to that religious body, and is thus homophobic according to the dictionary definition.

It would be appropriate to include a section within Homophobia on religion, discussing how this form of homophobia is justified/acted on in various religions. It would not be appropriate for editors who hold religious opinions to impose their POV on the article on homophobia, and assert that religious discrimination against LGBT people is not homophobic because it has a theological justification. Yonmei 12:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice try,but we've been all over this before.
Science cannot make statements about morality; therefore it cannot establish that homosexuality is morally neutral.Mangoe 16:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Trying to claim a moral position on sexual orientation is specifically the viewpoint of believers/sects within some religions. It is therefore inappropriate to allow this religious POV to control what is included in wikipedia. Yonmei 16:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
And anyway, the big problem here has nothing to do with that. It is your continued assertion that anyone who makes any negative expression about homosexuality-- or for that matter, opposes you-- is a bigot. I don't see that as a scientific assessment either. Mangoe 16:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
As is now my policy, I ask you not to keep making personal attacks and refuse to respond to them. Yonmei 16:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is, for the most part, a secular resource. there are articles about religious topics, but Homophobia is not one of them. people might disapprove of homosexuality, bi, trans, and other variants because of religious conviction, and that is their right. but there is little reason for why that should have any airplay in this article. in fact, there is no reason why the merits of different sexual orientations or behaviors should be a topic at all in this. it's about the word homophibia, its derivatives like homophobic and homophobe. it is about what those words mean and how they are used. if the words are directed toward people who disapprove of homosexuality for religious or any other reason, that usage should be in the article. if those persons dispute that usage of the word, that should be in the article, but such usage might actually fit the dictionary definition (depends on the meaning of "unreasoning" and "irrational", but not all dictionary definitions contain such qualification which is why i never pushed for inclusion of such words in the lead definition). if the word is commonly used to identify other people for other reasons, that usage should be in the article, even if such usage does not fit the strict definition, but that variance from the definition should be noted somehow. since opposition to any given political agenda of gay rights organization is not in the strict definition of the word homophobia, a reference to such usage must be qualified somehow. (i thought the simplest way was to simply reflect that those identified might not accept such a label and to say why they believe it's been applied to them.)
please, Mangoe and CC80 and other IPs, put your opinions about why you believe that homosexuality is less than perfectly moral in a box somewhere. it doesn't belong here. but fair treatment of the topic of the word homophobia and derivatives does belong here. r b-j 18:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It says most of what there is to be said about the prejudices functioning here that everyone assumes that I have expressed moral disapproval of homosexuality, never mind writing the article (or advocating that it be so written) so as to express moral disapproval. And I say "assumes" because I've been trying to avoid expressing an opinion one way or the other. Mangoe 22:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Rbj, I had explained my religious perspective only in direct response to Yonmei's continuous calls for a description of that very position. There would have been no need to go into a theological argument if the other side hadn't kept claiming that our position is merely based on vacuous and irrational bigotry. One of the many problems in this debate is that any response to direct questions or points made by gay activists is immediately labeled either irrelevant, improper, or bigoted. Another problem is that any argument presented - even my attempt to tone down the theological issue by bringing up St. Augustine's bisexuality - is inevitably seen as hate-mongering. CaveatLector reacted to that very post by writing a note to the GLBT noticeboard claiming that I was "spewing homophobic filth" - referring to the fact that I had noted that St. Augustine and others had been willing to live according to Christian principles despite their own sexual tendencies. For this mildest of possible posts, I'm allegedly spouting hatred and bigotry. This is inane, but it's a good example again of exactly what the controversy is all about. CC80 11:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


so Yonmei, are you saying that opposition to behavior equals phobia of that behavior? and religious justification cannot be used as a "rational" reason? -Zappernapper 23:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
No. While I'm aware that this Talk page is now a tangled mess *smiles* making it very difficult to work out what individual editors are saying, in fact I agree that Merriam-Webster's definition of homophobia is a reasonable starting point. Homophobia can mean "irrational fear of" or "aversion to" LGBT people, but it also means "discrimination against homosexuality or LGBT people". Yonmei 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want science to serve as the guide for this article, let's see what science has found. It has shown that homosexual tendencies occur in only a small percentage of animals, which would not seem to indicate that it's the usual or normal situation.

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species. The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives." (1,500 animal species practice homosexuality) To argue that it's not natural for homo sapiens to have and to act on same-gender sexual feelings, one would also have to argue that it's not natural for Pan paniscus to have and to act on same-gender feelings. Scientific observation finds it usual and normal in many species - including our closest relatives - to have and to act on same-gender attractions.Yonmei 11:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The argument concerning the "unnatural" status of homosexuality generally (if not always) uses that term in the sense of "not being the norm in nature" - which science has seemingly confirmed. I don't think many people have claimed that it "never" occurs in nature. The idea that it's crucial for certain species is very recent speculation, and has little relevance to the subject of moral acceptability and little relevance to human beings. Chimpanzees and humans may be physically similar, but psychologically and spiritually we are poles apart. CC80 11:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Science has also shown that all of us probably have some mix of the various sexual tendencies, which would seem to refute the "gay identity" conception which is at the heart of your "bigotry" argument. You may be more "gay" than I am, but that's only a matter of degree. My own view (being the "homophobe" that I am, of course) is that the entire issue is senseless given that there is such little distinction between those with homosexual and heterosexual tendencies - which leads us back to the issue of behavior. Science does not in any fashion prove that one has got to act on any tendency one happens to have, nor does it prove that any opposition to any form of behavior can be labeled "bigotry".

Of course "science" doesn't prove that people have to act on either same-gender or opposite-gender sexual attractions - just that it's natural and normal for humans to have and to act on those feelings. Arguing that LGBT people should not act on natural and normal feelings is discrimination against LGBT people, thus, homophobic. To make this more plain: it is not homophobic to argue that all Catholic priests, straight, gay, and bisexual, should keep the vows of celibacy they chose to make. It would be homophobic (discrimination against LGBT people) to argue that it's okay for Anglican priests to get married to someone of the opposite gender, but not okay for Anglican priests to get married to someone of the same gender. Yonmei 11:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
No, science does not prove that it's "natural and normal" to commit sodomy, but merely that a small percentage of animals do it. A small percentage of animals also commit incest - would you therefore argue that incest is normal and must be allowed? The term "discrimination" has been repeated here again without any justification aside from the idea that science allegedly proves that sodomy is "natural and normal". It would not be discriminatory for the Anglican Church to forbid same-sex relations among its clergy just as it would not be discriminatory to forbid them from marrying their sisters. Christian doctrine forbids both behaviors. CC80 11:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Particularly galling was the claim that any theological restriction on behavior amounts to "discrimination". Again, try to apply that principle across the board to all sexual behaviors forbidden by Christian doctrine and see how your argument sounds. CC80 11:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Theological restrictions on behaviour that are applied only to women are sexist; theological restrictions on behavior that are applied only to black people are racist; theologically restrictions on behaviour that are applied only to LGBT people are homophobic. Discrimination is discrimination, whatever the justification for it. Yonmei 11:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
You are again trying to compare behavior-based restrictions and person-based restrictions, which are two entirely different things. Please concede this obvious point and then we can possibly make some progress. CC80 11:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious objections are NOT rational

Do we need to bring up here all the horrors inflicted on the world by "religious morality?" I will simply start and end with one handy example: 9/11. That was a "moral" act. Just because someone claims religious injunction as a rationale does not make an action moral. The gauge lies elsewhere. The same with activity directed against certain types of people and certain types of love. Haiduc 00:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know from which left field this issued, but as a non-neutral POV it is hard to beat. Mangoe 05:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
two things. Haiduc's example isn't persuasive to conscientious persons of faith. bin Laden is to religious faith, even how the great majority of Muslims outside of those tribelands of Pakistan, the same as Intelligent design is to science. both are distortions of what they purport to be. but i will agree that, while the gauge or morality and rationality is not exactly inline with conscientious religious faith, it is certainly not orthogonal to it.
but Mangoe, this debate really doesn't need to be here. does it? they don't get to define the other side in the article. but "disapproval of homosexuality" is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. can't that rest in the intro without the disclaimer from the other side? i think that we all know that it is also used to simply refer to any random opponent to some LGBT agenda, that it doesn't get to go in unbalanced or unqualified. isn't that enough? r b-j 07:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Claiming that Bin Laden's actions prove that religion is irrational and sadistic would be analogous to claiming that the horrors committed by Stalin's Communist regime would prove that Socialists are all irrational sadists, or that the horrors engendered by the atomic bomb would prove that physicists are irrational sadists. Bin Laden is violating the Commandment which says "Thou Shall Not Murder" and is therefore placing himself outside of Islamic as well as Christian & Jewish theology. Arguing that someone who violates his religion is a good example of the evils of his religion is not a very good argument.
The irony of this debate is that the people making the "bigotry" claim are precisely the ones who are themselves engaging in stereotyping concerning groups (in this case, religious groups) which they personally dislike. CC80 11:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
okay... calm down everyone... I admit that some statements could be construed as incindiery, but I'm hoping that we can ignore that. It seems Haiduc's point is that using one's religion as a reason for committing an act (and having a view?) allows that person to have a moral carte blanche, and that this is wrongful thinking, because it is only conducive to anarchy. CC80 would like to point out that people who deviate drastically from their professed religion's (or economist view's) core values are a poor example of using religion to rationalize reasoning. Firstly, Haiduc, you used the word rational in the title of this section, but it seems you are only attacking the moral justifications of religion. I may agree with you that religion cannot always be used as a moral motive (logically), but i cannot agree that religion isn't a rational reason for disapproving of something. Take the oft targeted Christian, if they believe that homosexuality will send your soul to eternal damnation, it makes perfect sense why they don't condone it. Christian's also beleive it is their duty to try to help as many people as they can, so by putting up roadblocks to homosexual/bisexual acceptance they are in effect possibly saving souls. Preventing harm is rational. Whether the harm is real or imagined doesn't matter. Christians who are willing to talk, debate, and discuss the moral, political, and societal effects of homosexuality are not "homophobic", they are indeed rational. -Zappernapper 16:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
If we say that opposition to homosexuality based on one's religious beliefs is not rational, then is opposition to murder, theft and perjury also not rational? After all, these values originated in the Bible and date back over 3500 years, long before any current day laws. Bible values became part of British common law, which became basic law in countries that originated in the British Empire. As such, these values became part of Canadian and American law. Opposition to the behaviour, though part of scripture, does not give anyone the right to hate people who practice it, because that is in contravention of the Great Commandment. If opposition to murder, theft and perjury can be rational, if based on religion, then so can be opposition to homosexual behaviour. I take great exception to people being labeled as homophobic based on their rational rejection of an unhealthy and unnatural behaviour. GBC 01:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
i know that some here have asserted that making a value judgement based on one's religious belief is not rational, and i am not one saying so. but Wikipedia is not a religious encyclopedia. it has an article on Catholicism but it is not written as the POV of the Roman Catholic Church. just because some people reject the practice, social culture, whatever about homosexuality because of religious conviction is really non sequitur for the article itself.
on the other hand, Wikepedia is not an encyclopedia for the collective LGBT movement. various LGBT organizations are free to define any opposition as "homophobic" on their literature and web sites, and if such a definition becomes so common and normative that it finds itself into Webster or OED or similar, than that definition should go into the article unqualified. but if such usage is common, but remains colloquial, that usage should both be mentioned (simply because it is a common usage) but it should also be qualified as colloquial (because it is colliquial, not normative). otherwise i should be able to go to the WP article on corruption and, without qualification, define Republicans as an example of "corrupt" simply because i think they are and they oppose my political agenda.
again, i wish we would just ditch the whole religious issue. the article ain't about whether homosexuality is worthy of honor or even tolerance in whatever religious tradition. (the Unitarian Church and Westboro Baptist Church might see that as diametrically opposite.) it is about the word homophobia and derivatives homophobic and homophobe and their meaning and usage. r b-j 03:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that the religious issue, though it doesn't really appear in the article that much now and never really did, is being used to justify pretending that there is no systematic moral/ethical objection to homosexuality, and therefore editors hostile to those objections can suppress mention of them with impunity. As far as I am concerned, the objections are what they are, and it is irrelevant whether they are religiously motivated or not. Wikipedia, when religion bears upon a subject, IS "an encyclopedia of religion"-- not to advocate it, nor to denounce it, nor to ignore it, but to document it. Mangoe 12:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
In any case, a phobia is "an irrational fear or hatred". Homosexuals and their sympathizers seem to disregard the word "irrational" and also personify the feeling against homosexuals even when the person stating their dislike is objectifying it at the behaviour and not the person. There are very few truly homophobic people. And whatever its motivation, the act of killing Matthew Shepard was not an act of homophobia - it was an act of assault and murder and was to be punished as such, no matter what the behaviour or "lifestyle", as they like to call it, of the victim. There is no need for laws specifying punishment for "hate crimes" against homosexuals - a crime of assault or a crime of murder is a crime no matter what the sexual behaviour of the victim is. GBC 05:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
the use and definition of homophobia is not simply a phobia, in the clinical sense of the word, with the homosexuals as the object of the phobia. according to the dictionary definitions and most certainly the common use of the word, homophobia includes discrimination against homosexuals of some sort. now, i am not certain what scope of discrimination would be needed (being straight, i might discriminate against a homosexual pass at me prefering a heterosexual proposition) but certainly killing someone solely for the reason that they are gay is homophobic. it is silly to suggest otherwise.
what kind of extremism are we gonna have to deal with regarding this article??? folks on one hand want to define all political opponents as homophobes and folks on the other hand want to deny that the killers of homosexuals, for the sole reason that such are homosexuals, are not homophobes. i mean holy crap! can we get a lid on this? r b-j 05:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I hope that you'll be able to figure out (eventually) that denying equal civil rights to any group of people is an act of discrimination against that group: and, as we are agreed that homophobia in the sense in which it is used includes discrimination against LGBT people, discrimination against LGBT people is therefore justly described as homophobic. Only a homophobic extremist who believed it's just and right that LGBT people should not have the same civil rights as hetero/non-trans people would seriously argue otherwise. Yonmei 11:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
We are NOT agreed. That is a political posture from one side of the argument. Mangoe 12:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Mangoe. "We" of course meant several editors, the mediator, and the M-W dictionary definition, but I appreciate your making it clear that you take the position that Webster's, the mediator, and the editors in agreement with Webster's and the mediator are all taking a "political posture" with which you do not agree. Yonmei 13:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely clear on who the mediator is, actually, but the point is more the subtext that the civil rights do exist and are yours to demand. With regards to the whole marriage/civil unions argument (for example) it's more complex than that. I suspect that there are a lot of people who resist ontologically the notion of "same sex marriage"; it's therefore hard for them to understand this in terms of a "right" since they see it as having the government endorse something that isn't true. It is possible to talk about some of the derivative rights that other people obtain through marriage and provide for them in other contexts. So this statement comes across as another attempt to control the terms of discourse in the way that has been the source of my objections all along. Mangoe 16:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, you appear to want to discuss specific political goals in the US, rather than make clear whether you accept or do not accept the point that opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people is homophobic.Yonmei 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
i think you miss the point, Y. so i might discriminate against a homosexual sexual proposition prefering a heterosexual advance instead. does that make me "homophobic"? does political opposition to any political goal of the LGBT movement constitute homophobia? (we must agree with every political goal of the LGBT movement to not be homophobic?) r b-j
You do seem to persistently keep mistyping "every political goal of the LGBT movement" in mistake for "equal civil rights for LGBT people". Whenever I correct you, and point out what I actually said, you don't respond. Do you think you could try to respond to what I actually said? It will make the discussion easier.Yonmei 15:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
i think i'm drawing it back to the disputed words in the article. when the article says: "Critics of the term argue that when it is applied to political opposition to equal civil rights for LGBT people, it is a loaded term intended to associate such political opposition with bigotry." then i guess it would make sense to always frame your point as you do. and then we could argue about that wording but since it says something different, yet you consistently claimed that version as "the homophobic version" and then, by slight of hand, change the issue to "civil rights for LGBT people", i keep trying to bring it back to the offending language you don't seem to countenance. r b-j 16:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are all sorts of objections to be made to that sentence (the one you quote) in the intro section of the article, but we've already gone over most of those objections. What I am asking you to do is to quit trying to relate the basic principle to your own local political goals. Either agree or disagree that opposition to equal civil rights for LGBT people is homophobic discrimination. If you disagree, come up with some reason why it's not discrimination against a group to oppose equal civil rights for that group. Do not, please, come up with any more details about the Dean campaign! Yonmei 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yonmei, forgive me, but i set you up! (i thought i left enough hint so that you wouldn't have to take the bait.) the sentence i "quoted" is not precisely the sentence in the intro you've been bitching about. but it makes the point about how you are changing the issue from one of alledged homophobes opposing some particular political goals of the LGBT movement to another issue of alledged homophobes opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people. the language isn't the same, but you apparently equate the two. the offending line says nothing directly about opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people. r b-j 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Why are you engaging in games rather than discussion, r b-j? If your sole objective was to "set me up", and you have no intention of answering a repeated and serious question with direct bearing on the subject under discussion, it makes it look rather as if you are engaging in personal attack and not in trying to improve the Homophobia page. Please stop it.Yonmei 21:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Focusing on political goals seems to me to be inaccurate. Isn't it really true that LGBTQ advocates want general social acceptance, and not just laws/judicial actions in their favor? Weinberg's original coinage was in a sociological context, not just in politics. Mangoe 16:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Social acceptance is separate issue, in fact, Mangoe: we clearly need a better structure for the article. But if we accept Webster's definition of homophobia, then opposition to equal civil rights for LGBT people is homophobic discrimination. To try to argue this in terms of local political issues is a mistake, because you end up getting bogged down in detail.Yonmei 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
if GBC opposes adding "sexual preference" as a class for which affirmative action or hate crimes are defined (or opposes the whole concept of legislating affirmative action or "hate crimes"), does that, in and of itself, make him "homophobic"? people oppose adding classes to these laws simply because they never know where it will end. what will be the next class added? what hand people write with? their height? personally i am for having specific hate crime and affirmative action legislation and identifying the usual classes (race, color, creed, national origin, gender) and including sexual preference, but i do not consider opponents to such legislation to be racists or sectarians or xenophobes or sexist or homophobes. they're just political opponents. they vote differently than me. do opposing immigration "reform" (it's a debatable issue) make persons a xenophobe? does discriminating against illegal immigrants make someone a xenophobe or a racist? same can be said regarding what the state recognizes and identifies as "marriage" as long as there is tangible parity. doesn't matter what we call it. gays are having free association as far as i can tell. in the U.S., they don't get to file federal tax returns as "married filing jointly" but there are married heterosexuals that would like to file as single to avoid the so-called marriage penalty (i can't believe that's a red link, someone should fix that). i am personally for legislating tangible equality between sexual preferences (and in Vermont, we do that with a legal instrument called a civil union and heterosexuals can get that also, instead of "marraige"). i am for that, but i refuse to label oppoenents to that as homophobes. but i also don't want to stand in your way if you want to call them "homophobes". it's your right. we can even identify such as alledgedly homophobic in the article, but we have to qualify that. political opposition to just whatever your heart desires, does not constitute, in and of itself, homophobia. r b-j 14:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I wish you would be briefer. It might be easier for you to be briefer if, instead of trying to turn the discussion to specific political goals of activists in the US, you discussed the point I am actually trying to make. Yonmei 15:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
well, being an engineer and virtually dislexic, i would expect my limit for quantity to be lower than nearly everyone, but i guess i am wrong about that. r b-j 16:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The POV about homosexuals having equal civil rights should be clarified with the following: they already have the same civil rights in terms of the right to be presumed innocent, the right of free speech, the right to run for public office, etc., based on immutable qualifying factors such as age, citizenship, etc. They also have the right to marry... a person of the opposite gender, same as heterosexuals. What they want is the right to marry a person of the same gender, so do they want that as a special right above what heterosexuals enjoy? I assume not, I assume they expect that the same right would apply to heterosexuals... who do not want that right - they have no use for it. What homosexuals want is to redefine an institution that is based on unchangable and undeniable biological truth - that only a heterosexual union is capable of procreating, and only a heterosexual union is capable of providing children with both male and female role-modeling and the crucial child-raising inputs that men and women are uniquely genetically designed to provide (differences in brain wiring, in biology, etc.). Homosexuals represent 2-3 percent of the population, but 100 percent of children are entitled to the best possible raising to adulthood. And no law says homosexuals can't live together as they wish and bequeath property to each other as they wish. They simply do not require the special privileges of marriage because they either don't have children or they are not properly equipped to properly raise those children. That's not hatred - that's loving the children and caring about the needs of every human being, of whatever sexual behaviour they prefer. GBC 21:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
a while ago (it's in the latest archive 4 another editor, User:Di4gram was trying to make some of the same argument that because gays "also have the right to marry... a person of the opposite gender", they have equal rights as straights. the problem with that, of course, is gays do not want to marry a person of the opposite gender. if they want to have a committed relationship with a person that they desire to (one of the same gender), unless there is provision in law similar to civil unions or even same-sex marriage, they are at a tangible disadvantage. they do not have the same protections from community property law, rights of survivorship, next-of-kin, and similar and that is a tangible disadvantage. "no law says homosexuals can't live together as they wish and bequeath property to each other as they wish", but married people do not have to write such a will to have said property bequeathed. that can make a difference (wasn't for the first 15 years in my marraige that my wife and i bothered to put together a will). even more problematic is requiring gays to put together living wills (that hetero couples don't have to, even unmarried "common law" relationships) so that a spouse can speak for his/her incompacitated spouse at the hospital regarding treatment (or the withdrawl of treatment) without the other immediate family (parents, siblings) interfering. that is a tangible disadvantage, unless there is legislation like civil unions correcting it. r b-j 01:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zappernapper, there are three things you've typed that are poorly defended...

...in other words, i think they're silly:

And rbj, disowning children is not always motivated by fear,

to disown a kid (growing up or grown up) solely for the reason that they have "become" homosexual has to be for reason that's bad. and disowning children (growing up or grown up) solely for the reason that they have "become" homosexual is, in terms of the Merriam-Webster definition, always motivated by homophobia (if not fear, aversion, or at least, disapproval). what i said was correct.

although, i do agree with the two of you that it could be construed as such.

and i'm so construing.

The point remains, though, that unless there is a psychological evaluation done on subject X, naming people as homophobic based purely on their actions is POV.

no, i disagree with that. actions include speech. if some yahoo with a gun screams, "I'm gonna kill you, faggot!" at a person in the street he believes is gay and then blows that person away, i'm on pretty safe ice when i say that person acted out of homophobia.

By so naming them, you are assuming an omniscient knowledge of their motives.

nooo. human beings make judgements of people's motives on the basis of actions all the time. and many human beings make such judgements understanding themselves as having a finite scope of their knowledge.

Example: My, admittedly limited, research in global history has revealed that when laws and social morals become lax regarding prostitution - said society quickly declines into poverty.

i guess it was limited. San Fransisco and Reno and Amsterdam have some poverty as any non-authoritarian (that leave out Singapore, dunno how much poverty is there) city would, and are also pretty wealthy and have been so for pretty long. Dunno how bad off economically Bankok is.

amsterdam has only recently legalized prostitution... and while discreetly permitted, i'm unsure of how legal it is in the US. likewise it is only "permitted" in red-light sections of Singapore, and Singapore's very conservative moral laws more than make up for that... take a look at Laws of Singapore. -Zappernapper 16:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
prostitution been so openly practiced in Amsterdam, with hookers displaying themselves in storefront window displays, for decades. it's part of the reputation of the city (along with open sale and use of marijuana and hashish and other tolerant posture). the social mores reflect that attitude and yet the city hasn't descending into poverty.
openly practiced, but only recently legalized. there is a strong difference when something is only tolerated to when it is encouraged by government. i also mentioned societal decay - look into how many girls are kidnapped from their homelands and sold to "dealers" in amsterdam. legalizing prostitution was a means of destigmatizing it so that more people would feel comfortable coming forward, however that still hasn't really quashed the issue. pls sign ur comments. and let's refrain from this discussion as it detracts from the actual issues. -Zappernapper 19:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Ere go, because my political position allows me to veto laws seeking to legalize prostitution I do so judiciously, only wanting what is best for my nation.

not unless you are Reinquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Connor. after Bush v. Gore i wouldn't put anything past them.

i guess it was more than 3 things. i'm trying not to get sucked into a debate about moral issues about this (other than the moral issue of injecting POV into the article without balancing it). i said earlier i wouldn't do it. but those were awful weak arguments and it was hard to resist. r b-j 06:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


you urself named that if the reason for disowning wasn't fear or aversion it was at least disapproval. Disapproval is NOT always linked to fear (aversion almost always is though).
i'm not saying it is. but the dictionary definition includes "disapproval" (possibly qualified with "irrational"). that is sufficient. of a parent, who can normally be expected to love their own kids, whether growing up or adult, disowns a kid solely because the parent discovers that the kid is gay, that is sufficient to label as homophobia. there is something wrong with that parent in my value book. but, again, it's my value book - even so, there is no good reason to put in some disclaimer in the intro that parents who disown kids because their gay deny such a label.
you make crappy arguments, zapper. their easy to dismiss. r b-j 18:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Therefore, a parent who kicks their kid out of the house because they came out is not always homophobic in the sense of "irrational fear."
doesn't matter. it fits the dictionary definition to homophobia. r b-j
your remarks are inflammatory, i would appreciate you refrainig from making them again. "crappy" and "sophist" are not constructive. i agree that "disapproval" is included in the dictionary definition. But "homophobic" has several connotations and taken in its most literal sense can be inaccurately derrogatory. every time, i qualified my statements by saying i was referring to "homophobia" as its irrational fear. Take a look at WP:BIO and related syleguides. WP clearly says that you shouldn't use descriptive terms of living people if they don't self-identify as such, unless you are referring to a cited example.
To your second issue, you're already injecting omniscience by saying the guy who screams, "I'm gonna kill you faggot." Is truly doing it b/c he thinks the other man is gay. Faggot, at least in the US, has come to be used as a general insult. While it may be true that people who use it as such are doing so because of homophobia, unless you provide a research study supporting this, you have no cause. You said people make judgements of other people all the time, based on themselves. I agree, and typically it works well. But personal judgements of people are not allowed in WP, and that's what i'm trying to state.
sophistry. common sense is more persuasive. r b-j 18:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
being dismissive is hardly an arguement, and i repeat, personal opinions of people are not allowed in wikipedia. If you want to discuss how Mr. X gave an interview where he said Mr. Y was homophobic, that's fine. But the editor cannot say as such unless the person has self-identified. If Mr. Y were dead it would be more appropriate, only if some documented biography was cited as saying such. -Zappernapper 19:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
finally, your last arguement... was that an argument? I'm actually confused as to what you were trying to say. I wasn't saying that me, personally, felt any such way or had any such knowledge about prostitution's link to poverty and societal ruin. For the sake of example as i was pretending to be a politician with certain views and showing how forming opinions of people based on their actions or even just their views without understanding their motives is imperfect. I'm sorry if my use of the word "Example" wasn't clear. -Zappernapper 15:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Homophobia no longer refers exclusively to a literal irrational fear. The meaning has expanded, as meanings are wont to do. Compare dial a phone number, which has expanded to cover usage of phones that no longer have dials, or hysterical, which has expanded to cover all people, not just women. The fact is that one very common usage (if not the most common usage) of homophobia is to mean anti-gay beliefs and/or actions, with no connection to fear, except the same type of etymological detritus that litters the rest of our language (and all languages, in fact). Ludling 17:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
understood (read #a newcomer's opinion #5), but in the example rbj was referring to i was speficially talking about homophobia as a fear which is why i made the distinction. -Zappernapper 18:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to move on from this. You may want to use homophobia to mean exclusively "fear of LGBT people" but that matches neither the dictionary definition, the current commonplace usage, or even current psychiatric usage. You can't have your own private meaning for a word and then blame others for not knowing you're using your own private meaning rather than the dictionary definition/current usage.Yonmei 19:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
i wasn't trying to use my own definition. this is how critics are interpreting its connotation. that's why they take issue with it. looking at hits from dictionary.com, this is also a perfectly acceptable definition, matching the Random House and MW entries. Homophobia as an irrational fear, and i never purported to be discussing anything else. -Zappernapper 20:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
You're now repeating discussions we've already had. Suggest you re-read the Talk page and try to think of something new to add.Yonmei 20:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
i realize that, this was a discussion pulled out of my original thread which was merely discussing observations i had made regarding what was already on the talk page. it's rbj who decided i needed to defend things already addressed. -Zappernapper 22:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Critics of the term" conceit

Since there are no critics of the term calling it "loaded" who are not themselves the target of the term, I think it would be merely an elementary point of editorial integrity to phrase the matter accordingly. Haiduc 14:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is, the "critics of the term" object to having their negative views of homosexuality described as "homophobic", and object to participating in discussion why their negative views of homosexuality are homophobic. Instead, the "critics of the term" shout loudly that when people "label them as homophobic" they're trying to shut down discussion. In fact, it is the "critics of the term" who are trying (and succeeding) in shutting down discussion - because (it would appear) they do not want to have their beliefs about homosexuality, LGBT people, and equal civil rights for LGBT people, defined as homophobic on Wikipedia.
So, is there a solution to this? Beyond banning homophobes from editing Homophobia, I really can't think of one. Yonmei 19:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I am a critic of the term, but not a target. We're talking homophobe right? -Zappernapper 16:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and you certainly have outlined homophobic opinions on this page. Whether or not you hold those homophobic opinions is unknown, of course. *smiles*Yonmei 18:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Haduic, you need to stop being irrational. Are you a homophobe or something? *smiles* MPS 18:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
"Zappernapper" is not a notable entity. This seems to be a textbook example of weasel phrasing. Once the page gets unlocked it either has to go or to be properly cited so everyone can see who these "critics" really are. Haiduc 18:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
multiple editors, myself included, have been targets of the term in this very talk page. r b-j 18:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
i'm not notable? *looks dejected* joking aside, i realize i'm not notable, but you said "no critics of the term" this is implied as everyone who criticizes the term for being loaded. to make such a grand judgement, the onus becomes put on you (Haiduc) to prove that there aren't any critics who aren't targets of the term, rather than me to prove that there are. Of course, since it would seem that by merely believing the term to be loaded one will become a target of it, it is logically correct to make that statement - although the conditions of it as i have laid them out should be noted. -Zappernapper
The way the WP works is that the one making a claim has to prove it, and not that others have to first disprove it. Haiduc 18:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
exactly, "all critics of the term who say it is loaded are targets" is a claim, which you must prove. Deciding on which is the default nature of the situation - therefore the "claim" - is a tricky matter of ascertaining IMO. You presented your view as fact, if you're going to completely discount my view you need to provide a rational reason before my view becomes the "claim." in matters of clear consensus (the sky is blue), it is easy to determine what a "claim" would be (the sky is green), but this is not so easy so both sides can potentially be viewed as claims. but don't worry, i already provided proof for your claim, and i think it's a wonderful way to solve this whole dilemma. -Zappernapper 18:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
It is the article that has to be cited, not the chit-chat. So if you want to keep the "weasel" phrase you have to bring proper citations. Haiduc 19:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
There have been plenty of people who have objected to the term without being targets of it themselves. The article itself cites the decision by many academics to adopt more neutral language based upon objections to the term "homophobia", although academics generally are not the ones being called "homophobes". In this discussion Rbj was only labeled a "homophobe" AFTER he argued that the term was unfair, not before. This is in fact how the issue normally plays out - gay activists use the term against anyone who disagrees with anything they do, including any opposition to the unfair labeling which they engage in. CC80 11:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] In which concrete references to the article are made

On the mediation page, I have suggested using only academic sources--a suggestion the mediator has supported. And I do think that only academic sources should be used for the definition of the term (I think the dictionary is a cop-out--WP:ISNOT a dictionary).

Agreed, as you know. Still, worth saying twice. Yonmei 11:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
not trying to "cop-out", just trying to keep the POV-pushers from redefining the meaning of the word. indeed WP:WINAD and WP:ISNOT say:
Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WINAD), and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong: But, an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic.
Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep, or a British gent. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.
if we have to resort to the dictionary definition so that the article can " begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic", so be it. the problem is when any one side wants to define homophobia to be what they think the definition should be, not what it is. that is the motivation i had in restricting the POV, particularly in the intro. r b-j 05:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

However, on looking over the article I think it's reasonable to note prominent uses of the term in the news and popular media.

Agreed, but with limitations - we can't possibly cover all news and popular media. Better to have a section entitled (for example) Popular usage with references to usage in largescale media resources, if we can't find an academic discussion of media use of "homophobia".Yonmei 11:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Still, I do think much of what is presently in the article should be cut, for a couple of different reasons. The main reason is that a lot of this stuff is simply debate about homosexuality -- it is not really about the term homophobia (much as this talk page is largely not really about the article). Another reason is that many of the sources quoted are just not that notable. Academics may be doing important work even though no one outside their department has ever heard of them -- but if no one outside their blogroll has heard of a blogger, that blogger is not important enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia!

Agreed, again. I think specifically for this article we should not use blogs, full stop. Valid sources already eliminate comments/discussion threads: let us avoid all purely self-published media absolutely, even under "popular usage". Yonmei 11:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So, here are some things I'm sure should be cut:

  • The story about the minister's kid getting beat up at school. This story never mentions homophobia at all -- and the idea that the kid got beat up because his dad is an anti-gay crusader is pure speculation on the part of the writers. The bullies didn't call him a "dirty homophobe" or anything of that kind. Also, it's just not that notable. How important to the cultural meaning of the word "homophobia" is somebody's squabble with a local school board?
  • The entire section "Excerpts from discussions of the term" Who are these people? Why would anybody care what they think?
Agreed. Cut. Yonmei 11:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here are things that seem iffy to me:

  • Most of the "Popular Culture" section: At the moment, it's pretty much editorial judgment that the songs listed here are examples of homophobia. However, some of the things listed (Eminem in particular) have in fact been the subject of prominent, culturally important media stories about the concept of "homophobia." We need to cite those stories, not just judge the artists as homophobic on our own behalf. Where notable sources can't be found for individual items, they should be cut.
I think this whole section should be dropped. Mangoe 17:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Homophobia Die" graffiti: Although the target was an obscure city councilman, this use of "homophobia" as a threatening slur is a significant outlier in the use of the word. However, I can't find the story reported anywhere as news--it is included in polemical articles on a small number of anti-gay activist websites (one of which is our present source). These are not the most reliable sources we could wish for! I suggest keeping the story pending a search for an ideologically neutral news source. If we can't find one, I think it has to be cut.
    • Update: Googling on Kamloops + DeCicco (the name of the town and the councilman) yields the information that the councilman apologized in October for statements he made this summer, which led to a human rights complaint and hearing against him. I do not find further reference to the graffiti
      • Actually Yonmei I thought this deletion was kind of up in the air. I'm not married to it, but I was curious to get more info. DanB†DanD 22:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Extensive quotes from Concerned Women for America these have the advantage of actually being about the topic of the article. However, it is by far the most extensive quote from a single source in the article, and the CWA are not notable enough to merit this much attention. The quotes would be better compressed to a paraphrase and subsumed under "Critics of the term."
Agreed. Cut. Yonmei 11:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of the other "discussion" material should likewise be moved to this section. Mangoe 17:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organizational issues:

The organization of the article is both sloppy and tendentious. "Homophobia as leading to a climate of prejudice" is not a section title, it's a polemical statement. Everything in that section and in the section "as applied to political figures" would be a better fit under "Criticism of the term". In general, many of the sections should be subsumed under existing headings.

That's not all, but it's plenty for now.

DanB†DanD 21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to formally agree on a structure here on the Talk page, restructure the page completely.
If we can be in agreement that homophobia means "irrational fear", "prejudice", and "discrimination" against LGBT people, which at the moment seems doubtful, but the mediator and at least some of the editors are in agreement, then that might be in itself a structure.
One main section on "irrational fear" - what psychiatrists now call "homonegativity". That would include what research has been done into the causes of the irrational fear of homosexuality or of LGBT people.
One main section on "prejudice" - homophobia as expressed by presumptions made about lifestyles or sexual acts, homophobic beliefs about LGBT people.
One main section on "discrimination" - homophobic opposition to equal civil rights for LGBT people.
And another main section on, I guess, "justifications for homophobia" - religious (I can do the Abrahamic religions section), pseudo-scientific (the belief that being homosexual is somehow contagious or "curable" - most of these beliefs have of course been thoroughly discredited elsewhere), and what one might call "philosophical" - the belief that all sexual acts must be procreative. (The "philosophical" homophobic rationale in fact tends to bear a marked resemblance to Christian or Islamic arguments, but is often presented as a secular argument, so would be separate.
So, summarised:
  • The intro section
  • Homophobia - irrational fear
  • Homophobia - Prejudice
  • Homophobia - Discrimination
  • Justifications for homophobia
  • Popular usage of the term
How does that look? Yonmei 11:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
AgainstI don't think we should do a significant rewrite unless we split the article into anti-gay sentiments and homophobia (word). MPS 20:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a discussion in the archives on splitting the article into anti-gay sentiments and homophobia (word)? If this suggestion hasn't yet been discussed, could you make a formal proposal for it in a separate section, describing the difference between "anti-gay sentiments" and "homophobia", with sources? Yonmei 21:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yonmei, see above section called "MPS's totally unsolicited opinion."
I have suggested that this article be broken into two subjects; one for the word "homophobia" and one for the concept of anti-gay ideology, possibly aligning with Slogans of anti-gay ideology. Most of the heated discussion in this article is over the use of the word "homophobia" rather than the notion that there are viruently anti-gay people out there. The fact that there is disagreement (here and elsewhere) about the word usage is a subject of much cultural discussion regardless of the truth of anti-gay bigotry, and should be captured in as NPOV a way as possible. Nigger and Bigotry are articles that deal with relevant content -- Nobody wants to be called a bigot or a nigger but the article deal with the history of these words rather than listing "examples of bigots" or "examples of niggers." There is a deep thought here. reread and ponder MPS 19:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you and I are the only ones who have commeneted on this opinion. MPS 21:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for repeating it: this Talk page has got so complicated.
You haven't, however, outlined any difference between "anti-gay sentiments" and "homophobia". Can I repeat my request, then, that if you want to split the page, you begin by outlining (in a separate section) what you see as the difference between the two that make them deserving of two separate pages. Yonmei 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
If you don't see a difference, then we could theoretically page move the entire homophobia article over to anti-gay sentiments, yes? MPS 23:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Now, because homophobia is the more commonly used and recognized word, and moving to a phantom page whose very title is an example of weasel words will only create more problems. You'll note, MPS, that 'bigotry' and 'nigger' (not sure why you included a slur as an example here, there is no comparison between the word 'homophobia' and 'nigger') do not have 'examples of X' on them, but Racism sure is full of them. EDIT: Accidentally unsigned. CaveatLectorTalk 03:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah , see? now we're talking about the word again versus the article topic. Caveat, if we want an article about anti-gay bigotry/anti-gay ideology/anti-gay sentiments/(gay bashing, etc) then the article can be just as well be titled any of those. Surely homophobia is not such a unique word that it has no synonyms? If we want to niggle over the word "homophobia" then we are focusing on the word discussion again. Yonmei's proposed rewrite clearly focuses on Irrational fear, prejudice, and discrimination against gay people. If we want to move the article to that title, then we will get substantially less controversy than we have now where we alternate between discussing the meaning of "the term" and the concept behind the term. PS check the definition of wikipedia:weasel words. I respectfully suggest that you are misusing that term. MPS 18:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] who is playing the games?

from above:

Again, you appear to want to discuss specific political goals in the US, rather than make clear whether you accept or do not accept the point that opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people is homophobic.Yonmei 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
i think you miss the point, Y. so i might discriminate against a homosexual sexual proposition prefering a heterosexual advance instead. does that make me "homophobic"? does political opposition to any political goal of the LGBT movement constitute homophobia? (we must agree with every political goal of the LGBT movement to not be homophobic?)
You do seem to persistently keep mistyping "every political goal of the LGBT movement" in mistake for "equal civil rights for LGBT people". Whenever I correct you, and point out what I actually said, you don't respond. Do you think you could try to respond to what I actually said? It will make the discussion easier.Yonmei 15:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
i think i'm drawing it back to the disputed words in the article. when the article says: "Critics of the term argue that when it is applied to political opposition to equal civil rights for LGBT people, it is a loaded term intended to associate such political opposition with bigotry." then i guess it would make sense to always frame your point as you do. and then we could argue about that wording but since it says something different, yet you consistently claimed that version as "the homophobic version" and then, by slight of hand, change the issue to "civil rights for LGBT people", i keep trying to bring it back to the offending language you don't seem to countenance. r b-j 16:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are all sorts of objections to be made to that sentence (the one you quote) in the intro section of the article, but we've already gone over most of those objections. What I am asking you to do is to quit trying to relate the basic principle to your own local political goals. Either agree or disagree that opposition to equal civil rights for LGBT people is homophobic discrimination. If you disagree, come up with some reason why it's not discrimination against a group to oppose equal civil rights for that group. Do not, please, come up with any more details about the Dean campaign! Yonmei 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yonmei, forgive me, but i set you up! (i thought i left enough hint so that you wouldn't have to take the bait.) the sentence i "quoted" is not precisely the sentence in the intro you've been bitching about. but it makes the point about how you are changing the issue from one of alledged homophobes opposing some particular political goals of the LGBT movement to another issue of alledged homophobes opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people. the language isn't the same, but you apparently equate the two. the offending line says nothing directly about opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people. r b-j 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Why are you engaging in games rather than discussion, r b-j? If your sole objective was to "set me up", and you have no intention of answering a repeated and serious question with direct bearing on the subject under discussion, it makes it look rather as if you are engaging in personal attack and not in trying to improve the Homophobia page. Please stop it.Yonmei 21:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yonmei, you are the one playing the game. here is how the game goes:

1. the intro to the article has a line that says: "Critics of the term argue that when it is applied to political opposition to particular goals of LGBT social movements, it is a loaded term intended to associate such political opposition with bigotry." which you've been objecting to from the very beginning.

2. i emphasize, in response, that political opposition to some particular goal of an organized group of people does not, in and of itself, make one a bigot against the class of persons that such organization purports to represent. this is a fact that you cannot refute. and this applies to LGBT organizations just as it would to organizations that promote the interests of some minority class of persons (that have historically been disadvantaged in society).

3. but instead of refuting the fact that you cannot refute, you change the topic. you continue to repeat "opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people is homophobic." besides the scope of such a statement is huge, besides that the terms of what is meant exactly by these "civil rights", exactly what civil rights is not explicitly defined, besides the likelihood that, given some explicit definition of what civil rights you're referring to, there will be disagreement among editors if such a statement is both valid and supportable, what you did is you changed the topic. if your statement was easily defended (or widely accepted), which it is likely not, this would be called a strawman fallacy. you posit a statement that you see as stronger hoping that when such point wins the day, then you apply it to refute another statement that says nothing about "opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people". you are the one who keeps changing the subject.

4. now, to make the point, i copy the original line from the article intro (that you object to) and paste in the "equal civil rights for LGBT people" replacing "particular goals of LGBT social movements" and even spell it out for you, but you still do not get it. "particular goals of LGBT social movements" is not semantically equivalent to "equal civil rights for LGBT people". it is not the same thing no matter how you try to equate it. but what this substitution proved is that you really do not read or at least consider seriously the point placed before you. the offending sentence says "particular goals of LGBT social movements" and you keep referring to "equal civil rights for LGBT people".

5. now, actually Yonmei, i don't think you're that dumb, but i wonder if you think we are if you continue to act like we don't see the difference. there are two or three problems with that. first, it disrespects the other editors you're dealing with. and second, it isn't honestly arguing the issue (the strawman argument is not an honest argument - using it is trying to "pull the wool over the eyes" of your opponent). and thirdly, because it isn't an honest argument and your opponents in debate aren't so dumb as to fall for it, it is ineffective.

6. so then, we point this out to you time and time again, in multiple different ways. so then what do you do? this is what you do:

---

R-B-J: Please stop. Please, please stop. Your personal attacks on me (and lengthy personal anecdotes about yourself) are just adding a further level confusion to an already impossibly complicated Talk page. If you want to make the argument that a person can oppose equal civil rights for LGBT people for non-homophobic reasons, then for the Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake, make that argument: cite sources of people opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people and giving reasons that you consider to be not-homophobic. But stop attacking me for saying things you disagree with. Of course I may disagree with you that these reasons are not-homophobic, and I will cite sources (I agree with DanBDan that we should stick to academic sources, by the way) for thinking so. But if you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Homophobia, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Yonmei 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-posting comment from Talk page, in response to the comment by you posted at 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC):

Why are you engaging in games rather than discussion, r b-j? If your sole objective was to "set me up", and you have no intention of answering a repeated and serious question with direct bearing on the subject under discussion, it makes it look rather as if you are engaging in personal attack and not in trying to improve the Homophobia page. Please stop it: it's disruptive and annoying.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Homophobia. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Yonmei 21:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

---

7. "waaah, waaah, waaah!" so you cannot handle debating honestly and forthrightly, so your argument doesn't stand up, it doesn't pass muster, and when you keep repeating the same failed argument, instead of sticking to the subject, instead of (horror of horrors) considering any possible concession ("maybe, just maybe, people can oppose some particular agenda that some gay rights organization is promoting and, just for opposing that, do not necessarily have to be homophobes.") it doesn't matter how reasonable, it doesn't matter how ineffective you are at refuting it, you just cannot deal with that assault to your world view (that non-homophobes agree with each and every political goal of the LGBT movement) and rather than adapting to a world that does not entirely share such world view, you want to change the world to ostensibly expressing the same world view and where you are starting is here at Wikipedia. that is, in my biased opinion, decidedly immature.

8. you need to grow up, Yonmei. be an adult about this. learn to understand when people don't buy a specific POV that happens to be the one you cling to and to not force them nor public resources that are ostensibly NPOV to reflect your particular world view. we don't think that opposing some given political goal of the LGBT movement (or some other movement, for that matter) makes us a homophobe. it doesn't matter that you think so, you do not define the term. r b-j 01:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

r b-j, please quit the personal attacks. Thank you. Yonmei 18:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
this technique of yours doesn't work, Yonmei. you might be the one to get blocked. r b-j 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Technique? I am asking you, please, quit personalizing this argument into a fight you're trying to have with me. I want to discuss how we are to edit/structure Homophobia. I am fundamentally not interested in having a personal fight with you. Please, stop. Yonmei 08:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Existing article: LGBT_rights_opposition

Much of this debate would be more on topic, althoguh still pointless and circular, on that article's talk page. DanB†DanD 03:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] another source:

May shed some light on the subject: [11] Haiduc 12:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Louie Crew, it must be noted, is a LBGTQ activist and the founder of IntegrityUSA, the principal paraministry/lobby for LBGTQ interests in the Episcopal Church. The cited article I read as an advocacy piece and not as anything even remotely resembling a neutral or academic consideration of the word. Mangoe 13:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Since the concept is itself a POV, all discussions of it will be to some extent POV. This author made no bones about where his own sympathies lay, but that doesn't really matter. The piece was published in a scholarly journal, and I think it's a fair representation of, if not academic consensus, then at least a dominant academic viewpoint -- just the sort of thing the article needs at the moment.
DanB†DanD 17:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It's an editorial-- it even says so. Mangoe 18:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
While finding it more than slightly ironic that the proposer of Kelly Boggs as a source is arguing that an editorial from a scholarly magazine College English isn't a source, I have to admit that Mangoe may have a point: this is an editorial for a scholarly journal written by the editors of that scholarly journal - we should at least ask how/who reviewed it.Yonmei 18:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
In this wise I would put both Boggs and Crew on the same level: as advocates who can be cited as representative of one isdeof the argument. The problem would come with citing him as if he were a neutral academic, because he certainly isn't. Mangoe 04:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, duh. Quite right. DanB†DanD 18:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant quote

From Daniel Wickberg's Homophobia: On the Cultural History of an Idea that could find a useful place in the article:

"While one can find plenty of racists, sexist, and homophobes in American society, one can find almost no one who will stand up and make a philosophical defense of racism, sexism, or homophobia.
Those who defend "white pride" or "the traditional family," or who are opposed to "special rights" for homosexuals generally use terms other than those that their political enemies attach to them.
Racism, sexism, and homophobia are widely recognized as negative and disparaging terms, terms that racists, sexists, and homophobes would not use for themselves--although there are exceptions."

DanB†DanD 22:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

it's a very good quote that should find its way into the article. it confirms the appropriate classification of pejorative for the word (something that was denied before). even though the quote (correctly, IMO) asserts that racists, sexists, and homophobes do not take ownership of those labels, it does not say that everyone whom have those labels attached (by others) are, in fact, racists, sexists, and homophobes. we should let the definitions speak for themselves for what racism, sexism, and homophobia are and let peoples' words and actions speak to the question if such definitions apply to them. contrary to what Zapper and GBC have said, there certainly are objective cases where persons have said and did things that reveal homophobia. disowning a kid solely because this kid is or has become gay is homophobic. also, certainly, killing a person solely because they are gay is homophobic. but opposing some political agenda of gay-rights groups is far from sufficient to legitimately attach the label. r b-j 22:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people, of course, is plainly homophobic, as already discussed. Yonmei 01:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
who said anything about "equal civil rights for LGBT people"?
your user page says:
Homophobia, but it was frozen by wiki admins with the homophobic version intact, so I guess we lost that one. I think this is part of the US-majority rules again - in the US at present, homophobia is considered so normal that to define it correctly isn't permissable in an American encyclopedia.
the state the article was frozen at says:
Critics of the term argue that when it is applied to political opposition to particular goals of LGBT social movements, it is a loaded term intended to associate such political opposition with bigotry.
it doesn't say and has never said (that i am aware of):
Critics of the term argue that when it is applied to opposition to equal civil rights for LGBT people, it is a loaded term intended to associate such political opposition with bigotry.
every time that statement (or something similar) was put into the article (which is an attempt at a compromise language, Mangoe wanted it to include general disapproval of homosexuality in addition to political opposition to particular goals of LGBT social movements), you declared it to be homophobic and deleted it. (the latest diff.) so your actions and words are that you assert that not just "opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people" but that "political opposition to particular goals of LGBT social movements" is homophobic. are you going to own that (and stop propping up the strawman) or are you going to accept that one need not support each and every political effort of the LGBT social movements so to not be homophobic? your changing the language of the disputed statement to language that may be thought of as more easily defended is tendentious. it is literally the strawman fallacy. are you going to start debate the actual language of the article that you dispute or are you going to continue to play this game? or we could play that other game you started: accuse your opponents of personal attack so you don't have to respond to their question(s) or point(s). you might want to take a look at the WP:TE essay. it's about how to argue fairly and effectively. r b-j 02:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, please stop trying to personalise this into a fight you're having with me: I don't want to do that. Harking back to earlier statements made is not going to progress the argument.
"Critics of the term" is a weasel-worded statement, that has consistently appeared to be made use of by people who profess homophobic beliefs who do not wish their prejudice against LGBT people, or their opposition to equal civil rights for LGBT people, to be labelled "homophobic". Since I think we appear to have come to an agreement that academic sources only will be used, editors who wish that phrase to be kept in will have to find an academic source that makes that argument.
We have discussed this repeatedly already: can I suggest you take on board DanBDan's comment about making this talk page more constructive?
Yonmei 08:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Yonmei, you are the one personalizing it. i didn't go to your usertalk page and accuse you of personal attack. i am trying to get you to face the issue of the language you are objecting to and debate it without side-stepping and changing the topic to some other language (you have done this multiple times) and then, when pressed, accusing that person (namely me) as either homophobic or of personal attack. it's you who is personalizing it. it you stop defining your opposition as homophobic, if you stop evading responding to the points of your opposition by crying "personal attack", you might be a "productive editor" rather than a tendentious editor. r b-j 17:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Please, stop trying to personalise the debate and drag out this Talk page to an even greater length than it already is. Stick to topic. Thank you. Yonmei 01:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
that technique doesn't work Yonmei, but i'm glad to see you engaging in the discussion with Ludling (and others). i thank you for doing so. r b-j 03:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone explain specifically which "particular goals of LGBT social movements" are opposed by non-homophobes? That seems to be one of the main POV sticking points here (which means some scholarly work backing up this claim would be highly useful). The referenced article (an editorial, not scholarly work, by the way), only menitions gay marriage. Is this the only particular goal? Are there others? If not, why does the intro make it sound like there are more than one?

Further, I think it's wrong to say that homophobia "is" pejorative. It can be (as can many words not mentioned as pejorative...), but it need not be. That sentence needs to be rewritten so it doesn't sound like a claim about the word in general, but rather, a claim about its use in very particular (and in my experience, very limited) contexts. Ludling 16:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

i've mentioned 2 or 3 (depending on how you want to count them) examples of issues multiple times in which persons who plausibly do not consider themselves bigoted against gays yet still oppose politically. they are 1. same-sex legal marriage (particularly in a context where civil unions exist), 2. addition of class "sexual orientation" to hate crimes legislation, 3. addition of class "sexual orientation" to affirmative action legislation. there are others i didn't mention that come to mind, such as making an exception to laws regarding informing potentially infected contacts of a communicable disease where gay-rights organizations asserted a position to deal with AIDS in a different manner than how, say, tuberculosis is dealt with. there can be other issues where a reasonable person, not hating gays, can take a position that is contrary to positions that various gay-rights groups have taken. what is POV is when the article declares that homophobia "can mean" opposition to some unnamed political goals and not qualify it. so then the reader concludes, from reading Wikipedia, that any opposition to any poltical effort from gay-rights groups is, by definition, homophobic. that is so blatently POV that it's hard to understand how Yonmei can repeatedly assert, with a straight face, that it is just the truth.
now, it is not necessary that all editors here agree that any of the above examples are plausible examples of non-homophobes opposing the political agenda of gay-rights organizations. the burden of proof (which is impossible to meet, because the scope is infinitely broad) is to show that it is impossible for any opposition to any political goal of LGBT organization to be non-homophobic. that all such possible opposition is homophobic since it is not in the definition. r b-j 17:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why political goals need to be mentioned at all in the introduction. The basic meaning of homophobia isn't political, though of course, like just about anything , it can be used politically (take macaca, for example). As is very obvious from the talk page, the interaction between this term and politics is sufficiently complex that any simplification in the introduction is going to be POV and/or just wrong. So leave it out of the intro, and devote the space it needs in a subsection.
As for your specific examples, I don't think they quite work. 1. Civil unions create a "separate but equal" siituation, which from history, we know is not true equal rights, and most opposition to gay marriage takes the form of oppposition to anything resembling marriage rights altogether, which is certainly homophobia, at least in the vanilla "anti-gay bias" sense of the term. 2. I don't know anyone who oppposes adding sexual orientation to hate crime legislation that either isn't also a homophobe or isn't opposed to hate crime legislation in general. 3. Ditto for affirmative action: it's not homophobic to be opposed to a hiring quota for gays if you are oppposed to hiring quotas in general. Ludling 17:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
well, it would be reasonably neutral to remove any reference to political/social opposition to the LGBT movement as homophobia and the objections to such usage by those having such opposition. that would be balanced but would also be deleting one very common use of the word. "homophobe" is used to identify political opponents to LGBT movements, but since that use is not strictly in the definition of the word, to mention such use without some qualification skews the POV from neutral to the POV of those who use the word to describe such opponents. to not mention such use at all leaves out a common use of the word which doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. WP:WINAD so mentioning only the dictionary definition really doesn't extend the article much beyond the dictionary.
as for those "specific examples", it's fine for you to think they don't quite work. that's fine, it's your perogative. it's your position, but to canonize that position (or the more general position that no such opposition to LGBT political goals can be non-homophobic) in the article is POV. something like this can go into the article, but if it goes in without qualification, it's POV. (i've only been trying to make sure the qualification goes into also.)
while it would be undue weight to say that some people don't think the murderers of Matthew Shepard are homophobic (because almost no one holds to that), there are lots of people who don't think there should be any hate crime legislation (they say that having laws against murder or assault is good enough) or affirmative action legislation (they say that a free market and freedom of association allows them to refrain from doing business with or associating with whomever they please) who take such positions for reasons are not necessarily homophobic. they could care less about homosexuality, they're just libertarians. these are actually not positions i take, but unlike the murderers of Matthew Shepard or the parents who go to the extreme to disown a gay kid, i am not going identify such positions as homophobic, and if someone insists on identifying such as homophobic in the article, it either has to be semantically equivalent to the dictionary definition (not some pro-gay-rights definition) or it has to be qualified. i am not really on the same side as Mangoe (but i'll use Mangoe's citations if they apply) but i will resist allowing this article become a tract for the gay-rights movement. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the LGBT movement. r b-j 18:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You've restated my point, in a different, longer ;) way. People opposed to hate crime legislation and/or affirmative action in general are not homophobic, and would not be called homophobic, as the term is typically used. The intro paragraph should only be concerned with typical usage, not hypotheticals or atypical uses. If these are not "hypothetical" and are not atypical, then citations demonstrating so need to be provided. Ludling 19:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
i know i did. i wanted to nail the coffin shut. but the fact is, and i think that Mangoe cited examples with references (besides my own experience and even the example of this very talk page), some people (usually gays or gay-rights activists) call other people, some of whom only oppose some particular legislative effort of these gay-rights activists, "homophobes" because of their opposition. this is not atypical. indeed, within the sphere of wikipolitics, Yonmei has repeatedly called people who opposed her edits homophobes. i kept telling her that she was making the case for her opponents, but she did it again and again. that very fact, that some gays (not all) or gay-activists call their opponents "homophobes", even though that is not strictly semantically the definition of homophobia, that fact should go into the article. it is a common use of the word. but if it goes in without qualification, that infers such use is normative and that amounts to a POV edit for such gay-activists who use the word in such a way. a simple way to qualify such usage is to, immediately after citing such usage, is to say that such use is controversial - that some people (perhaps the "critics of the term") don't accept it. the article shouldn't say who's right (that's debatable and would be a POV edit), so just because the targets of such use do not accept it, the article should not infer that they are right in not accepting it, only that they don't accept it. there, and only there, have i been making my stand, and that still isn't good enough for the hard-core POV pushers who apparently want this to be a pro-gay article in a public resource. r b-j 20:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Then the intro can be something like "Homophobia is the irrational fear of homosexuality or of LGBT people, prejudice about or bigotry against LGBT people, and discrimination against LGBT people." We can add a line (as on the Racism page) noting that controversy exists over identifying someone as a homophobe because the word is regarded as a pejorative.
this is essentially the state of the present so-called "homophobic version" except for the use of neologisms. it's only 4 sentences: the dictionary definition, how the word is commonly used that does not precisely fit the dictionary definition, how the word is disparaging (pejorative) and asserts a conotation of bigotry, and a note about the controversy (a balancing denial of the application of such by those it is directed to when such use is not a widely-accepted application of the strict dictionary definition). not so unreasonable, was it Y? r b-j 04:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The unreasonable/homophobic aspect of the current page intro is the insistance that it should include justification from people who do not want their prejudices/discrimination against LGBT people to be described as homophobic. We've gone over this multiple times, and I'm not interested in discussing it again. A simple acknowledgement that there is controversy, just as there is on the Racism page without going into detail there. And a section further down discussing the objections to the use of the word.Yonmei 09:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:LEAD#Suggestions: "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article." - I assert here that the clinical (dictionary) definition is not how the word is most often used. And I further assert that, by definition, if it is not the conventional, orthodox dictionary definition, that use even if more often is colloquial. Indeed, User:Yonmei has on multiple occasions used the word "homophobic" to describe or evaluate an opposing argument which, to my mind, proves the point that this non-dictionary use of the word is the most common use. That means that such use must have at least a mention in the intro. But, for the sake of accuracy, the intro must not merely mention this colloquial use without some qualification that the use is colloquial. Further, I assert that it is obvious that the use of "homophobia" and particularly "homophobic" is disparaging or pejorative. When someone calls another "homophobic", it is silly to think that it is a compliment or a term of endearment. It is an insult. Now if this disparaging use of "homophobic" or "homophobia" that is not the dictionary definition verbatim is included without qualification in the intro, that has the effect of defining (to the reader) that this disparaging and colloquial use is the normative definition. That is a POV problem and an accuracy problem.
WP:LEAD#Writing_about_concepts: "Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism." - One way to qualify that colloquial and pejorative use of the word is to simply say that some people (notably the targets of pejorative use) don't agree with that use. They reject the label. We don't have to (or want to) say that these critics are correct in their rejection of that use of the word, only that they do. This must also be put in the intro if the colloqial and disparaging usage is put in the intro otherwise the intro clearly leans to the POV of those who use such language to characterize their opposition.
how is that "unreasonable" (other than simply you have declared it so) or "homophobic" (other than, like any other opposition you run into regarding this, you have declared it to be so)? r b-j 02:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Then we move immediately to contents, as I've already outlined them under "Organizational issues"[12].
In this way we avoid any argument in the intro about precisely what constitutes irrational fear, prejudice/bigotry, and discrimination. That's as it should be - any discussion in the intro will bring it to an unusual length and create controversy.
We are in agreement (I think) that we are using only academic sources everywhere in the article except in the "Popular usage" section. Yonmei 01:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
adding the word "irrational" is fine since it's in the dictionary definition. this is something Mangoe kept suggesting be done. r b-j
I got the impression that Mangoe wanted to attach the word "irrational" to all three meanings of homophobia: not merely the psychiatric meaning of "irrational fear", but also the meaning bigotry/prejudice and discrimination. I'm perfectly happy to have a section about "homophobia as irrational fear", but we also should have a section about homophobia as prejudice/bigotry and a section about homophobic discrimination, both of which are analogous with equivalent sections in Racism.Yonmei 09:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
we should let Mangoe say what reason(s) he/she wanted to include "irrational" or "unreasoning" in the lead sentence. from what i read, it's because it's in various dictionary definitions and Mangoe felt leaving it out strengthens the use of the label toward any dissenters or dissapprovers of homosexuality. r b-j 02:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
the term "LGBT" or "LGBT people" is a neoligism where as the dictionary (M-W) says "homosexuality" and "homosexuals". other than for POV reasons, why change the language from the dictionary definition in the first sentence? r b-j
Because wikipedia is not a dictionary. We can say "lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered people" if you feel that "LGBT" (which has been in common use for ten years at least, and is preferred usage in Wikipedia itself when referring to people) is too much of a "neologism". Yonmei 09:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yonmei, you're missing the point about WP:WINAD. here is what it says:
Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WINAD), and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong: But, an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic. If you're interested in working on a wiki dictionary, check out the Wiktionary project!
... there are plenty of senses of terms that aren't of interest in an encyclopedia. They would be in a dictionary but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. So it makes no sense to describe those other, mere dictionary senses of terms in Wikipedia articles (unless, somehow it is important to describe those senses in order to clarify the main topic of the article).
so the article should not merely be a definition of the word "homophobia", but should expand about what it is, how and where it happens, what it isn't, controversy, etc. if the topic wasn't so contentious, the "good definition or a clear description of the topic" could possibly be something not verbatim from a disinterested dictionary like OED or M-W, but this topic obviously is highly contentious and for you or Mangoe or any participants with a partisan interest to set the initial definition will immediately get the other side to cry "foul!" why not let Mangoe write the lead definition and say "homophobia is a disparaging and often false charge leveled at persons who do not accept homosexuality and/or the social or political goals of the homosexual movement."? the only way we are going to keep this article NPOV is to begin with the dictionary definition. to begin with a definition written or interpreted by any partisan side will ruin any NPOV. r b-j 02:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
i don't think that the word "homosexual" has yet reached the status of the word "negro" which use is deprecated in favor of (currently) "African American" (dunno what is currently favored in other English speaking countries). r b-j
LGBT (or GLBT, but only in North America) is the preferred polite phrase to use when speaking about all lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered people: it's shorter and more convenient than spelling all the words out, and "homosexual" is widely perceived as "clinical". The main point is that "LGBT people" is standard usage on Wikipedia itself, and there's no reason to avoid it.Yonmei 09:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
no reason, except it immediately sets a POV tone. use the dictionary definition for the lead sentence. r b-j 02:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
gay males, lesbians, and bisexuals all are homosexuals (not exclusively for bi's, of course). to extend "homophobia" to the irrational fear of or prejudice or bigotry against transgendered, transsexuals, transvestites, trans-whatever, etc. is not in the dictionary definition and doesn't belong in the intro. not without qualification, anyway. and not in lieu of the dictionary definition in the first sentence. r b-j 03:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Prejudice and discrimination against transgendered people, or people perceived as transgendered, is sometimes referred to as Transphobia, but this is a relatively new term and it doesn't appear to have a dictionary definition. However, homophobic discrimination and prejudice often directly affects transgendered people. Yonmei 09:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
it's still not the definition. you don't get to use Wikipedia to evolve a definition from what it is established to be, to what you want it to be. Homophobia should begin with the dictionary definition (as the first sentence) from a widely used and easily confirmed (hopefully online) dictionary. For there to be any interpreted definition in the first sentence, that would reflect someone's POV and there would be immediate fights about whose POV it would be. If the initial definition comes right out of the dictionary, no single side can complain that there is a POV slant to it. That is also probably why there should be the word "unreasoning" or "irrational" should be in the first sentence. (That weakens the normative use of the word to apply to rational and reasoning people who disapprove of homosexuals or oppose political/social goals of gay activism. Mangoe wanted it in there, he/she is actually right about it, but in an obviously failed effort to compromise with the other side, I had not pushed to put it in.) But no side should get to decide on the initial (clinical) definition. r b-j 02:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the Falun Gong homophobic

Some editors are having a heated debate on whether the Falun gong is homophobic. The following quotes are from the leader of this group Master Li Hongzhi.

According to Li homosexuality is the leading indicator of the depravity and regression of our society. Gays are more visible than ever and laws have been created to protect their evil life style. In Li’s poem “the World’s Ten Evils,” he states: “homosexuality, licentious desires—dark heart, turning demonic.” [13] Li’s strongest words against gays come from a lecture in Switzerland. Homosexuality was one of the factors that led to the collapse of the Greek civilization, he said. Furthermore, “Homosexuals not only violate the standards that gods set for mankind, but also damage human society’s moral code. In particular, the impression it gives children will turn future societies into something demonic.” [14] Li describes a special kind of suffering for homosexuals. They will be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful annihilation: “That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way.” [15]

It would be great if you could come to this page and vote your opinion here. Thanks--Samuel Luo 04:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

besides being a little goofy, it's no more homophobic than the Westboro Baptist Church. r b-j 04:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't compile lists of who wikipedia editors think is homophobic... we instead cite sources about other people's POVs. If you can find a source that says "Falun Gong is homophobic" then we can include some sort of opinion attributed to a source. WP:NOR], ya ya ya. MPS 20:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Homophobia" as applied to political figures

I take issue with this portion of the article. I have, at this point, only skimmed the talk paragraphs above this one, and am thus unaware if this particular paragraph has been tackled yet, so will make my points here as if it is "New" material.

The term "homophobe" has also been used to describe opponents of laws considered favorable to gay rights causes. Opponents of same-sex marriage legalization, child adoption by same-sex couples, and anti-gay hate crime laws are often accused of homophobia for not supporting this legislation.

Forgive me, but I will use a small analogy here. If we accept that homophobia is paramount to racism, and a paragraph such as this was used for the article on racism, something of the following may be produced.

The term "Racist" has also been used to describe opponents of laws considered favorable to race rights causes. Opponents of (Various civil rights, use your imagination) are often accused of racism for not supporting this legislation.

This makes me slightly uncomfortable. It is as if the paragraph is suggesting that those opposed to this legislation are infallibly not homophobic and that the term is being used for political gain as a primary and major use of the term.

Whether this is true or not, I do not feel this section has a place in the article. Any pejorative term could be applied to a political figure. There is no "Racism as applied to political figures", or "Bigot as applied..." etc. This is because the section here seems to play down the fact that in some cases the motive will be homophobia.


In any case, this paragraph makes me extremely uncomfortable. I feel it would be better if it was removed outright, wikipedia not being used to document every use of the term against a politician. Gekedo 20:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

welcome Gekedo. i am not sure i like the sentence as it stands, but there certainly should be some mention (with citations) of how the word is sometimes used to identify opponents to gay-rights legislation. not every "race rights cause" is, in the minds of many persons, worthy of support. conservative is not the same as racist. a particular issue i certainly oppose is described here as Reparations for slavery, and (i s'pose it's debatable, like everything else) i don't consider myself racist. in fact, until there is statistical parity between the economic metrics (income, employment, standard of living, etc.) between persons of different races in the U.S., i am fully in favor of affirmative action laws including preferences in government contracts to minority-owned businesses and preferences in student financial aid to minority students going to college. and i'm in favor of hiring preferences in very large companies and admission preferences in colleges/universities to maintain racial diversity. but i am not in favor of the U.S. government cutting and issuing a check for many thousands of dollars to every descendent of slaves in this country. it was the great-great-great-grandparents who were directly violated, not some 50 Cent or Charles Barkley or Alan Keyes whom certainly are not disadvantaged in any obvious way. does that make me racist? some might say so.
in the same manner, there is disputed use of the words "homophobic" and "homophobe" where some people (enough to make this significant) claim that the word is applied to opponents of any socio-political action or legislative initiative taken on by the gay-rights movement. is every law or proposed law "considered favorable to gay rights causes" right and just? that's a judgement issue and there are different sides to it. there is clear racism and clear homophobia practiced by people and then there are debatable cases. both should be represented in the article. r b-j 02:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm in danger of not knowing the entire scope of where this is applied. Certainly in the UK, where I live, it is not a term being used in the political world. Indeed, I have never heard the word used to a politician in the UK without due cause, certainly not to one who is opposed to civil partnerships and the like. So perhaps the problem here is a US-Centric view? (Which is practically unavoidable)
Accepting that prolific use of the term against political figures is worth a mention, how about the section being cut down? The section starts off reasonably (Stating the fact that the term is used against opponents of such legislation), but then goes on to state a variety of cases in which the term has been used, without having any clear information on if the term was justified or not. I know it is not an encyclopedia's place to make this judgement call, but it can be confusing to the reader. I think it would be better to state the fact, but leave out the examples. So, my proposal is that the section is cut down, the title changed, and perhaps put into the "Critics of the term" section.

Here's a verion of that section, cut down a bit. Comments and amendments welcome.

Critics of the term.
Some critics of the term homophobia assert that their disapproval of homosexuality or opposition to certain goals of LGBT social movements ought not to be termed homophobia, as they believe they have a moral, philosophical, or religious basis for their disapproval of homosexual sexual orientation.[20]
They argue that defining their disapproval or opposition as homophobia is a loaded term intended to associate such political opposition with bigotry.
The term "homophobe" has also been used to describe opponents of laws considered favorable to gay rights causes. Opponents of same-sex marriage legalization, child adoption by same-sex couples, and anti-gay hate crime laws are often accused of homophobia for not supporting this legislation. Usage of the term, and the climate it creates, has been alleged to have incited incidents such as the beating of the six-year old son of David Parker after the latter, a Christian, opposed the promotion of same-sex couples in the local elementary school curriculum. [28]

This would be Instead of the "Political figures" section. This also makes it broader than in the world of politics. Gekedo 10:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gekedo, welcome to the discussion! I like your rewrite of the section, but I agree with In which concrete references to the article are made that the example of the kid getting beat up at school shouldn't be included, for the reasons given in the sub-section So, here are some things I'm sure should be cut. Yonmei 12:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
How about this then -
Critics of the term.
Some critics of the term homophobia assert that their disapproval of homosexuality or opposition to certain goals of LGBT social movements ought not to be termed homophobia, as they believe they have a moral, philosophical, or religious basis for their disapproval of homosexual sexual orientation.[20]
They argue that defining their disapproval or opposition as homophobia is a loaded term intended to associate such political opposition with bigotry, such as the term has being used to describe opponents of laws considered favorable to gay rights causes. Opponents of same-sex marriage legalization, child adoption by same-sex couples, and anti-gay hate crime laws are often accused of homophobia for not supporting this legislation.
I wouldn't mind a citation for the last bit, but I think that's not a bad one =) Any objections? Gekedo 18:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I want a better citation for the first paragraph: as it stands, I assume you have the homophobic rant from Kelly Boggs, which is neither appropriate nor an academic source.
Also, we do need an expansion/explanation (which I trust an academic source would provide) why prejudice against LGBT people, or opposition to equal civil rights for LGBT people, is not considered "homophobic" by these people if there is a " moral, philosophical, or religious basis" for their homophobia.
Yonmei 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In too deep

The rest of my life intervened and the previous section is too deep for me to find where to comment easily. So let me offer up three comments.

I'm not sure what the point is of trying to hair-split the association of "irrational" with aspects of the first sentence meanings. We're already dealing with a word where the meaning, if not indefinite, is certainly a bit imprecise. I think it is going to be impossible to find a citation which eliminates tha connotation in some circumstance. The dictionary definitions clearly testify to that sense, and I don't understand why there is a need to argue against it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mangoe (talk • contribs).

Well, one can certainly argue that all forms of discrimination and prejudice are in some sense irrational, whether racism, sexism, or homophobia.
But in this specific instance, we need to make the distinction because the word for discrimination and prejudice against LGBT people is the same as a word that means "an irrational fear" of LGBT people. We need, therefore, to clearly distinguish between discrimination/prejudice and "irrational fear" in the psychiatric sense: we don't want to imply that all homophobes or indeed anyone who ever opposed equal civil rights for LGBT people is crazy. *smiles* Yonmei 12:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I also don't the issue of same-sex unions/marriages is something we are going to solve here. If we are to achieve NPOV we have to let others, outside of Wikipedia, fight this out. Even from a legal perspective the situation is quite unresolved, never mind the issue of how well the courts are representing anyone.

I don't see how we can altogether avoid all specific examples of homophobic discrimination in the article, but I agree that we should as far as possible avoid specific examples, and completely avoid examples tied to particular political campaigns in specific locales. The right to marry is, however, an excellent example of an internationally-recognised civil rights issue which isn't tied to any specific locale and can certainly be mentioned without reference to any specific campaign or politician. Yonmei 12:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
i think i agree with both of you on the salient points. we ain't gonna solve the issues of same-sex unions/marriages but we can, at least, put them up as an example of homophobia in the article, but we have to attribute the sources. the gay-rights advocates say that witholding the right to legally marry for gays is an example of homophobia and there are those, particularly in religous traditions, who do not agree. that would be NPOV. but it would be POV if only one point or the other were presented. an i think it would also be POV to withold that example from the article just because all sides cannot agree about the meaning or implications. attribute it and it's NPOV. r b-j 16:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, we're back to that. In general, opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people - such as the right to marry - is homophobic, because it is an example of direct discrimination against LGBT people. That's NPOV - neutral, based solidly on the dictionary definition of homophobia, analogous to similiar examples of racist or sexist discrimination denying equal civil rights to black people or to women.
To justify introducing the religious POV asserting that it is not homophobic for religious organizations or individuals to oppose same-sex couples having the right to civil marriage, you will need to find an academic source making that argument. Good luck to you.
To argue that it is not homophobic to prevent same-sex couples from getting legally married, again, you will have to find an academic source making that argument. (Logically, since it's only since 2000 that any same-sex couple has had the right to marry, it will have to be an academic source more recent than that.)
Yonmei 18:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the marriage article, while it is hardly free from bias, does admit that there is ontological dispute over whether same-sex unions of some sort are some form of marriage. Older academic sources will simply define "same sex marriage" out of the picture. Mangoe 12:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Right now I want to approach this from the Herek article, if I can ever find the cite again. Mangoe 04:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Initial parargraph clean-up

Again, although I'm sure this has been discussed, I'm making a new section for ease of myself and, hopefully, those joining the discussion.

The following passage at the start of the article -

The term homophobic, meaning "prejudiced against homosexual people"[3], is pejorative in the same manner that bigoted or prejudiced is pejorative. Critics of the term argue that when it is applied to political opposition to particular goals of LGBT social movements, it is a loaded term intended to associate such political opposition with bigotry.[4]

I propose a removal of this, being that there is already a "Critics of the term" section (Which I hope to expand, see ""Homophobia" as applied to political figures" section above), and re-iterating that there are critics here makes it appear this is a major part of the article. Also, I see no need for the definition to be stated twice (Once in the opening sentence, for all intents and purposes.)

Thoughts? Gekedo 18:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedians follow the style where the intro paragraph is an overview of the topic. Most of the reason that the discussion page is 362K long is over the controversial nature of this particular word. To eliminate this fact in the upfront 'graph would be considered by myself and many others to be sort of minimize the inhererntly controversial nature of this word. MPS 19:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course, if we had a separate article... ; ) MPS 19:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course the lead is incorrect in that it presumes a perjorative instead of letting the reader make their own conclusion. CovenantD 20:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
but the reader must be informed. It's not wikipedia's opinion... If my memory serves me correctly, we have outside sources which corroborate that most people labeled "homophobes" bristle at this term and consider it pejorative. I used to argue (a whole year ago) that we should say "homophobia is a controversial term" but even that was nixed. MPS 20:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
lot's of people have thoughts about this, Gekedo. they pull in different directions. even though some editors might not agree, that was a compromise wording, an attempt of mine to find some common ground between two polarized positions. perhaps you should take a look at the previous conversation between all of us, particularly since the article was frozen. and also take a look at the mediation page to see some of the staked out positions. this has been discussed and discussed and i'm too busy/lazy to restate where it is that i'm coming from. r b-j 21:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hm. Think I'll pull out of changing that start then. No worries =) Any thoughts on the change I mentioned in "As Applied to political figures", though? Gekedo 16:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree strongly with your first preference. There's been an overload of information in the Homophobia article from people who object to having their false negative opinions and prejudices about LGBT people, and opposition to equal civil rights for LGBT people, described as homophobic. We clearly need to have some information about these people in the article, but for the intro, all that's necessary is an echo of a similar sentence in the Racism article: that identifying a person or an opinion as "homophobic" is controversial - see Critics of the term. Yonmei 17:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerned Women of America: the MOST important voice in this matter?

MPS has reverted my reduction of the CWA quote. I don't want to get into an edit war, but as I said a week ago without opposition, this is the longest quote from a single source anywhere on the page. With recent deletions (some mine) it is the only block quote on the page about what homophobia is.

This seems to me to be totally unwarranted. The CWA are culturally significant, but not academic. They are one of many political groups who wish to "claim" the term homophobia. The long quote we presently devote to them gives them undue weight.

DanB†DanD 17:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The length of the quote is not germane, and it really isn't that long anyway. Maybe they were verbose, but since the alternative is an academic (maybe) summarizing what they said-- or more likely, quoting it-- I don't think it's that bad. The CWA wouldn't be my first choice source either, but unless someone finds a better one it will have to do. Mangoe 18:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
No, the alternative is a brief paraphrase that gives the group the prominence in the article it merits. DanB†DanD 18:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Though certainly having CWA is better than the weasel-worded "Critics of the term", I would rather we stuck to the principle of academic sources.
Still, if CWA is the only notable source that Mangoe and MPS are able to find, it would have to stay in for the time being, with a request for better/academic citations of the argument that it's not homophobic to be prejudiced/discriminatory against LGBT people if you have a philosophical or religious rationale. Yonmei 19:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is going to count as an academic?

Since the drumbeat right now is "need academic sources", I want to point out a problem: it's going to be very hard to find ones who aren't immediately going to raise POV issues.

There are next to no academic cites. Nearly every one of those listed now, however, is vulnerable to challenge. To take a few:

  • The George Yancey cite misrepresents his point (that different discrimination categories are in fact different). It's not really an academic cite anyway.
  • The AVERT cite goes to a page which misrepresents the history of the spread of AIDS.

In general, the neutrality of a lot of the sociological/psychological academics is going to be disputable; the "queer theory" types are going to be Right Out. But then, do we get to cite theological academics? How academic does it have to get-- Episcopal Divinity School, but not Wheaton? I expect that the latter will get labelled POV, but not the former (though from a historical and ecumenical perspective EDS is wildly unrepresentative). Mangoe 14:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggested that by academic sources we require this to be articles published in peer-reviewed journals only: that is, a more stringent form of the current requirement for sources on wikipedia. There's a PDF article here with guidelines to students about identifying academic journals.
Naturally, this can include articles by academic theologians, if the articles were published in peer-reviewed journals. And it can include articles by academics publishing in queer theory, providing they're publishing in peer-reviewed journals. The academic cites may well disagree with each other, but it will set a higher standard than exists at present.
I'm happy to leave in the cite to Kelly Boggs if I can rewrite the sentence to point out that this is an example of how some homophobic bigots falsely claim that they're "not homophobic" while spouting ugly nonsense about LGBT people. Otherwise, it goes.Yonmei 17:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I cut Kelly Boggs because she's not notable, not because I find her "ugly." Yonmei, do you really think trash talk about a writer who isn't even in the article anymore is a constructive use of this page?DanB_DanD
I thought the Kelly Boggs citation was still in the article, but looking again, you're right, it's gone. My comment would have been better without the "ugly" adjective, for which I apologise. Yonmei 20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Mangoe, there is no reason to exclude either queer theory writers or theologians, if they are notable and if they are actually writing about homophobia rather than asserting a view of homosexuality. WP:NPOV means that the editors endorse no point of view, not that no strong opinions are to be cited in an article on a controversial topic.
If the consensus of reliable sources presents one particular strong POV, the neutral editorial position is to give that POV the greatest prominence in the article.
DanB†DanD 18:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the standard of "journal citations only" is far beyond the verifiability standards of wikipedia. Taken to its extreme, I could argue that we should only allow scholarship that has won Nobel Prize. I believe we wikipedians should argue the merits of each source individually rather than assert an unecessarily abstract standard that is arbitrarily high. MPS 18:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the standard of "journal citations only" is beyond the usual standards of Wikipedia. Editing this article has proven to be contentious beyond the usual standards of Wikipedia: restricting citations to peer-reviewed articles only does not seem arbitrarily high (as "only allow scholarship that has won a Nobel Prize" certainly would be) but as a reasonable benchmark for all POVs to agree to.Yonmei 20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Only considered pejorative by its critics?

Is there really anyone who doesn't think the word is pejorative? The debate is just over whether or not the pejorative meaning is morally and/or scientifically justified, right? DanB†DanD 03:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

well according to Yonmei, "objections to homophobia as 'pejorative' are invariably from homophobes". i was one of the persons maintaining to have "homophobe" identified as a pejorative and i think Yonmei has inferred there and several other places that i am a homophobe. r b-j 03:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yonmei and CovenantD, do you really want to argue that "homophobic" is not pejorative in the same sense that "racist" is pejorative? DanB†DanD 03:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I do. Of course there are those who don't view the term as pejorative. Those who see it as any other type of phobia, for instance. Is arachnophobia a pejorative word? Hardly. It's when homophobia is incorrectly applied that it becomes pejorative, but that's in the use of the word and not it's meaning. (It's usually misused, BTW. I don't consider Rbj to be a homophobe, for example, and think Yonmei is reacting irrationally by making the accusation ;) CovenantD 03:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
"homophobe" is used in the same way as racist or sexist or bigot is used. it is not used in the same way as arachnophobia is used. i can't imagine anyone feeling good about being labelled a "homophobe" except maybe for the folks at Westboro Baptist Church who would wear the label as a badge of honor. it simply is disparaging or, at least, discounting. it is not a compliment or a term of endearment. i cannot see why anyone would think it's not pejorative and am still at a loss for why there was so much resistance to this in the article. r b-j 04:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Having taken a quick look at pejorative I can only conclude that "homophobe" is absolutely not pejorative. It is not a term of disparagement, it is merely a descriptor. We may not like its connotations, no more than we might like the connotations associated with "murderer" or "rapist", but just as those terms it is merely a neutral descriptive term. If employed incorrectly, of an individual who has no animosity or oppositional attitude towards same-sex relations, then it can certainly take on a pejorative aspect, but not otherwise. Haiduc 04:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
So, it's your contention that neither the word "homophobe" nor the word "murderer" implies disapproval of the person to whom it refers.
DanB†DanD 05:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Dan, you may have misread me. The word "volcano" may well "imply disapproval" especially if used by those living at its feet, but it is not pejorative. The presumption of a word being pejorative implies the existence of another, neutral term for the same concept. If "homophobe" is pejorative, then please tell me what neutral term does it displace. Haiduc 12:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It replaces a variety of phrases - "cultural conservative," "opponent of gay activism" etc.
Going by the word in Wikipedia, pejorative always implies contempt and disapproval.
Most homophobes in the US - Santorum is a good example, and so is Orson Scott Card - don't like to have their bigotry against LGBT people defined as bigotry: they want to believe that their bigotry is just normal thinking, that it's not discrimination to oppose same-sex marriage or to argue that the police have a right to break into bedrooms and arrest same-sex couples. This is nothing new: it's extremely uncommon for a bigot to identify themselves as a bigot, because if they know their beliefs are bigoted, they're on the road to becoming not a bigot.
That's where the contention arises - that homophobes do not want their bigotry to be defined as bigotry, precisely because a bigot is a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false, and homophobes in the US and in many other places are unwilling to acknowledge that their prejudices against LGBT people, from which derives their opposition to equal civil rights for LGBT people, have been challenged and proven to be false.
So, yes, I agree that homophobe is pejorative, and there is controversy about applying homophobic to a person or to a belief. The appropriate place to deal with this is under Critics of the term, which I disagree should be under Etymology and usage. Critics of the term do not disagree with what homophobia means - they merely do not want the word applied to them.Yonmei 09:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political figures - are Santorum and Keyes really the most notable?

It seems weird that our political section focuses on one former state representative and a presidential also-ran. Are these two rather absurd individuals really the most important politicians accused of homophobia? In the eighties, Reagan and Bush Sr. were the target of extremely vocal national campaigns describing their failure to acknowledge or actively combat the AIDS epidemic in the US as homophobic - this campaign helped change the drug approval process in the US, with far-reaching effects.

It would also be nice if this section weren't exclusively US-focused. The UN officially disapproves of homophobia, and has criticized a number of national leaders for anti-gay policies, including Robert Mugabe.

Sorry Yonmei, adding signature. DanB†DanD 17:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you sign this, whoever wrote it?
I agree - I think this section as it stands should be merged with Critics of the term, which should be moved from Etymology and usage to a separate section.
A section about political homophobia should be more international - indeed, the whole page could do with being more international. Yonmei 09:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that in its present rudimentary state "political figures" fits under "critics of the term" but if better developed it wouldn't, so I think it ought to be left here in hopes of being improved. DanB†DanD 17:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to the LGBT civil rights movement in the United States

Both examples provided were of American politicians opposed to equal civil rights for LGBT people: as suggested above, I added Reagan, and edited the title.

The previous version of the section was too one-sided, strongly implying that no opposition to LGBT civil rights could be called homophobic. While it has been argued that people oppose equal civil rights for LGBT people for some other reason than homophobia, there is currently no example of this in that section or on the page: it would be better to provide an example of such opposition than to leave it as a theoretical case. (Note: this is an open-ended request to *find* such an example and include it on the page itself, not to start arguing that in principle such examples exist.)

The Reagan sub-section needs more sources, or link to the article on the AIDS epidemic on the main Reagan page. Yonmei 14:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro paragraphs, 21 Nov 2006, for editing/discussion on Talk page

Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or against people who are or who are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered.[5] It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of LGBT people, or of sexual acts assumed to take place between same-sex partners (see sodomy), or of cultural or social behaviour assumed to be typical of LGBT people.

Homophobia is generally used to assert bigotry[6] towards LGBT people, or prejudice against people or behaviour assumed to be typical of LGBT people.

When the term homophobic is used to describe a person or a group, this is considered pejorative, in the same way as bigot is pejorative, and the identification of a group or person as homophobic is nearly always controversial. See Critics of the term.

I really don't know what the "see also" link to the Critics of the Term section is doing in the lead paragraph. It seems extremely clumsy - of course they will see that section if they continue to read the article! The article should be organized to read smoothly.
I think the argument that the word is not pejorative may stem from confusion about what pejorative itself means. It doesn't mean "insulting" or "prejudiced" - it just means "connoting disapproval." It isn't pejorative to call a word pejorative!
Whoa, wait a minute...where did this "acts assumed to be typical" stuff come from? If you want to put it in you need a source. It seems to me that it's either unnecessary (if you're prejudiced against LGBT, of course you'll also disapprove of things associated with them) or an OR/POV extension of the definition - the idea that disapproval of (for example) anal sex must be based on homophobia because of the popular association of gay men with anal sex.
And again, I think having "see also" links in the main paragraph is clumsy - the lead paragraph should be a focused summary of the article, not a list of associated concepts. So I'd like to get rid of "see sodomy" which I think is POV anyway. DanB†DanD 16:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
it's Yonmei trying to take over the article and inject her POV again. we should keep it simple and truthful. "homophobic" is pejorative. (that doesn't meant that it isn't also an insult, and i can't think of any circumstance where one approves of the person or thing that one sincerely insults.) "homophobic" is akin to bigoted against gays, but, from the Webster definition, one does not have to go so far as bigotry against gays to be homophobic. mere discrimination regarding gays is sufficient for the label to be applied in an NPOV article without qualifying such use with "alledgedly homophobic". but that is not the case with regard to disapproval of or opposition to some particular pro-gay legislation. when "homophobic" is applied in that case, it better be qualified one way or another or such use clearly shows POV. r b-j 00:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stop trying to make this into a personal argument. I've asked you this several times already. Thank you. Yonmei 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
i accidently hit Enter before i finished the Edit summary line (which i cannot edit, now). Yonmei's definition was not congruent to the reference cited. if you're going to cite something, make it agree to what is cited, otherwise POV slips in. r b-j 00:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you agree with the definition as it stands? Or disagree? Yonmei 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Due to the circumstances of this dispute
   
Talk:Homophobia
 It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of LGBT people, or of sexual acts assumed to take place between same-sex partners (see sodomy), or of cultural or social behaviour assumed to be typical of LGBT people.
   
Talk:Homophobia

Needs a citation -- Selmo (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for one thing out of this discussion - wording that includes the aknowledgement that it is not inherently pejorative, but is viewed that way by some. I have yet to see any other phrasing that allows for that reality. CovenantD 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's an informative presentation of neutral terms used in a pejorative way such as gay, liberal, PC, and radical[16]. I agree that the article needs to reflect the intrinsic neutral nature of the term. Haiduc 04:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The cited document classes "homophobia" as a "social justice term", with "discrimination" and "oppression". Those are not neutral terms; they are terms of moral judgement, exactly as I would interpret "prejudice". So you've pulled out a source that argues agianst your point. Mangoe 11:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You know what, I've been viewing this as a "the sky is blue" issue, but obviously given the contoversy it isn't - so we're going to need a source to call it pejorative in the lead.
And I don't think the folks down at "critics of the term" are good candidates, as "deceptive rhetoric" (clearly a partisan POV) and "pejorative" are hardly the same thing.
So at the moment, I think we should just drop the mention from the lead.
DanB†DanD 18:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That is completely illogical. You've essentially said that since someone is objecting to being called this, we should omit admission that it is a pejorative term. ??? Mangoe 18:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
No. Our "critics of the term" say that the word falsely describes homophobes as irrational, not simply that it expresses disapproval of them. This is too specific a point of view to be part of a general description of the word - the purpose of the lead paragraph.
DanB†DanD 19:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mental retardation

I would suggest that we consider the above-mentioned article as an example of a balanced treatment of a term that some would automatically consider pejorative, and that has certainly been used that way, but is not intrinsically so. Haiduc 02:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a mentally retarded son. The phrase is used in a medical diagnostic sense to objectively characterize abnormally impaired development. As with "gay" it has been absorbed into the lexicon of schoolyard taunting, but as "homophobia" has not (to my knowledge anyway) seen such usage, there is no parallel.
Assuming you believe in homophobia as a category, ask yourself this: would you in some way think less of a person whom you saw as homophobic? Mangoe 11:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The parallel is there since you yourself claim it is used to denigrate. As for thinking less of people, that is not how I relate to others. The fact that someone may have a problem, or difficulty, is not a reason for me to use them as an ego prop, placing them on a lower rung than myself. I have been friends with fascists, racists, anti-semites, and Moslem jihadists, to say nothing of homophobes. We all have problems, and we do not solve those problems by rejecting people. But to defend these various philosophies by labeling the mere invocation of their name as "pejorative" does nothing but gag the discussion. Haiduc 00:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's stick to discussing the subject itself, please, and try not to personalise the discussion. Thanks. Yonmei 20:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Fine then. Produce a citation from someone who equates homophobia with prejudice and also claims that it isn't pejorative. Mangoe 20:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Er, I agree that homophobia is a pejorative, just as racism is. That doesn't mean that people should avoid using the word to describe homophobic behaviour, or avoid using the word to describe racist behaviour: it means that we should note, in the article, that it is considered pejorative. It is part of the issue that many people who express homophobic opinions about LGBT people, or who campaign to have homophobic prejudice protected by law, do not want their opinions or their political activism to be described as homophobic, because they (rightly) perceive that to be pejorative. Yonmei 11:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Identifying comments

Please sign your comments - I'm left unclear who wrote what. Thank you. Yonmei 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Part of that is being created by you propensity for point-by-point insertions into earlier contributiions, which separates them from the signatures already present. Mangoe 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It's very difficult to follow the threads when comments are inserted in the midst of another's post. CovenantD 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
i probably have the original guilt for doing that. but when some person makes several disparate points, all of which are deserving of comment, i can't think of a more appropriate place to respond. and i try to indent in such a way that it is clear that all insertions come from the same person. r b-j 03:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Argh. I try to clarify when responding point by point by cut-and-pasting signatures to the paragraphs I am responding to: like r b-j, I thought it was clearer that way. But, if there's a general feeling against this practice, I will try to avoid it for the future. Yonmei 11:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
It breaks up the chronology of the comments, which I find particularly disorienting, and it's frowned upon in some guideline or other. Thank you both for understanding. CovenantD 11:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I started to add some comments to the section below and realized that it may have happened there. I hope I've correctly attributed the first paragraph of each thread to Mangoe, based on indentation and tone, but if I'm wrong please remove or correct them. CovenantD 12:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
And one for Dan in the Popular Culture thread. CovenantD 12:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections to be removed outright

There are a bunch of sections which I think should be removed:

  • Opposition to the LGBT civil rights movement in the United States - This is just a list of opponents. It's obvious (and I suspect stated) that political opponents to LBGQT causes are going to be routinely tagged as homophobes, so there's no need for this section. Mangoe 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. If you feel that Reagan, Santorum, or Keyes did not exhibit homophobic behavior when Reagan ignored the AIDS crisis because most of the victims in the US were gay men, or Santorum argued that gay men ought to be prosecuted for sexual acts in the privacy of their own bedrooms, or Keyes severed contact with and support for his own daughter, then you can make that argument. Or (certainly for Santorum and Keyes) it could be argued that they are not notable enough to serve as examples, and that this section ought to be made more international and include only notable figures known for their homophobia - but I still think Reagan's disregard of the AIDS crisis would qualify.
If only notable figures were to be included, with examples of specific homophobic actions, then Clinton's setting up "Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" and signing the anti-Constitutional DOMA would also qualify, as would George W. Bush's use of anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendments as an electoral tactic to stir up support among the Christian right. These are specific examples of homophobic political behaviour by notable individuals: cut Santorum and Keyes for being non-notable, make it international, and include other significant figures such as Margaret Thatcher, who supported the homophobic Section 28 law in the UK, and Robert Mugabe, who argued that lesbians and gays deserved to die, and other such homophobic figures . Yonmei 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that these examples are tendentious. I mean, I personally have no use for Mugabe, and while my perspective on Reagan is more conflicted, perhaps some of the blame for the AIDS crisis can be laid on his shoulders. But what you are doing is personally passing judgement on these figures. If the pope, speaking ex cathedra, condemns homosexual relations, is that homophobia, or just a contrasting moral view from a responsible spokesman? That's precisely how we are getting into trouble here. Right now we just have a list of politicians with whom you don't agree, and whom you have labelled pejoratively and dismissively. Mangoe 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yonmei, again you betray any alledged pretense of being objective or NPOV here. to call Clinton either a homophobe or simply an opponent of LGBT civil rights is dumb. nothing less that dumb. it has no concept of political compromise, of "doing what you can with what you have" and while he was Commander-in-chief, Clinton did not have the political capital to do what it is you want in the American military. the other betrayal of any pretense of objectivity is that you are literally acting like Nixon (or W for that matter: "if you ain't fer us, you agin' us") with an enemies list of simply anyone that doesn't do what you want them to do. besides clearly partisan (which is not NPOV), that is simply immature. why not simply say "anyone whom Yonmei declares to be homophobic is homophobic."? oh, i guess you've already said as much. r b-j 03:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Please don't personalise the discussion in this way, r b-j.
I agree that it would be inappropriate to call Clinton a homophobe. But, it is completely accurate to point out that he was an opponent of equal civil rights for LGBT people at two significant points in his career: his renunciation of his initial support for LGBT people serving openly in the US military, and initiating the homophobic policy of "Don't Ask Don't Tell Don't Pursue": and his signing DOMA, which is a homophobic repeal of Article IV of the US Constitution.
The distinction to be made is between someone's personal beliefs, and political actions. I would oppose calling Ronald Reagan a homophobe, but I support describing his failure to address the AIDS crisis as homophobic.
Yonmei 11:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
But Yonmei, Rbj has a point. What you oppose or support is irrelevant. What's relevant is a reliable source that refers to these people and issues as homophobic. Only then should they be included, and only in that context. Simply labeling something homophobic, as you have done above, is not enough and could even be considered Original Research. CovenantD 12:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
That's actually a fair point, CovenantD. Obviously, to be included in the main article we need cites from notable people discussing the homophobic actions/statements of notable people: and if we also have cites from notable people claiming that the homophobic actions/statements of notable people, we also need reactions to the claims that "homophobia isn't homophobia if - ". (All as you suggest below.)
What I object to, however, is trying to get personal discussions started on the Talk page about other issues than the article. This Talk page is long enough as it is without that, without considering the adding opportunity for dissension and bad feeling that is thus created. We should be discussing the article Homophobia: unavoidably, we may need to discuss homophobia itself: we should not be discussing Homosexuality, and we should not be discussing other editors of this article. Selmo suggested we take this to mediation, but I'm hoping that it won't come to that: let's just try to stick to the point. Yonmei 13:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
that's not true Yonmei. you do not object to getting personal about this when it is you who are the one getting personal. would you like me to point out your specific quotes? you have been the original personal attacker all along, beginning with repeatedly calling your opponenets "homophobes" and continuing to falsely identify points from me about your clear bias, as evidenced by your words, as a personal attack so that you do not have to respond to those points. Selmo eventually pointed this out to you and you still have not responded to points i have made about the obvious bias and POV pushing you do by simply (and falsely) labeling it "personal attack". if you're true to form, that's what you'll do with this "personal attack", rather than respond to it. you say you want "to stick to the point", but the problem is that the point you want to stick to is so full of POV and bias that it is unacceptable as content to Wikipedia. r b-j 16:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Rbj, if you believe everything you've just said about me is true, I repeat Selmo's suggestion that you take this issue to WP:MEDCOM rather than keep repeating it and repeating it on this Talk page. Thank you. Yonmei 16:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Homophobia in popular culture - This section doesn't discuss use of the word in popular culture; it lists incidents of egregious behavior which was then attacked as homophobic. Again, it's padding. Mangoe 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm less certain about this: it seems to me less easy to make a case that the documented incidents of homophobic behaviour are really notable. "Popular culture" is such a shifting phenomenon. Are there any instances which have their own articles on wikipedia? Yonmei 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
These sections are not much good as they stand, but both are notable topics. In particular, the discussion over Eminem has been a big part of the word homophobia becoming widely known and used, so is significant to the cultural history of the term. DanB†DanD 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't disagree about this, but then perhaps it should be under "usage/etymology".? Yonmei 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I can see moving this to a historical section; the problem is that it is a list of incidents without any particular context, as it stands. I'm not a pop-cultural-following guy, and my reaction to these incidents based on their current context is that they don't tell me anything more than that celebrities say ill-considered things and get criticized for doing so. I knew that as a general principle, so as they are presented the incidents aren't really notable in the present context (though of course they would be mentioned in articles about these celebrities). Mangoe 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
And I think the use of accusations of homophobia in politics is extremely notable. However, I'm not thrilled with the retitling of the political section - "Opposition to the LGBT civil rights movement" is the subject of a completely different article.
DanB†DanD 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you just stated a better title for the section, Accusations of homophobia. It could then be subdivided into Politics and Popular Culture, or whatever breakdown seems logical. That would allow for a neutral reporting of incidents that have been labeled homophobic without any judgement being made by Wikipedia. CovenantD 12:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a brilliant solution: kudos to you. Yonmei 16:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph of Homophobia as leading to a climate of prejudice is pretty bad. And the Classification section, seemingly incomplete, is really devoted to a long section pushing-- and I emphasize "pushing" because it's hardly heutral-- the theory that the moral distress of those who identify themselves as homosexual is to be resolved by overturning their preexisting moral system. Obviously, that is not neutral, but an endorsement of the moral neutrality of homosexuality. Mangoe 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Classification" section has a single source, which is in Italian. I hate to lose it because it's one of our few academic references, but English sources are preferred in the English Wikipedia, and it does seem to specific a point of view to be the classification system Wikipedia endorses. DanB†DanD 19:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should remove the classification section. At the moment however it is probably the least neutral section in the article. It needs to be more txanomic and less prescriptive. Mangoe 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
While English language sources are preferred, others are not prohibited if there are no English language equivalents available (if I recall correctly). CovenantD 12:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] avoiding POV in popular culture and politics

There is a simple way to largely avoid POV trouble in these sections - we report notable accusations and discussions of homophobia by third parties. We do not, ourselves, describe beliefs or actions as homophobic or endorse the judgments of others. We simply say what has been said by notable people about notable people. DanB†DanD 04:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Including, where appropriate, the response to the accusation? It would go a long way to showing how context is used to frame the debate over its use. CovenantD 04:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
That works for me. Yonmei 11:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just fine

I think that the page is just fine the way it is. I don't notice anything that would hurt or offend. The article is just fine the way it is.

[edit] "Is" Pejorative?

I find it odd to have an unqualified "is", since it's clear from this talk page that not everyone thinks homophobia "is" pejorative in every usage.

Further, many many many wiki articles do not mention "pejorative" in their intro paragraphs (or for some, not even at all!), despite the words having common pejorative uses: liberal, nazism, sexism, hippie, amnesty, mental retardation, etc.

Given how pejorative usage is treated in most other articles, I don't think an equative wording like "is pejorative" belongs in the intro paragraphs for a word that is not used exclusively in a pejorative sense. Either treat it like most other articles and create a "Pejorative Use" sub-category, or modify the intro to more accurately state that homophobic "can often have a pejorative meaning", or some other qualification to make it clear that it is not always and only a pejorative term. Anything else smells suspiciously of POV. Ludling 17:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've changed my tune and think it ought to be taken out of the paragraph too. DanB†DanD 17:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
So let's just say "can be". Haiduc 17:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a moderate POV is any less biased than an extreme one. Were we to say "can be" we would be contradicting all the folks who assert "always is" or "never is." And at the moment, our only possible sources for the judgment are a minority partisan viewpoint. At the least, we should take it out until we have a better source. DanB†DanD 19:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
No objection. Haiduc 19:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
(we've been over this time and time again.) being a long-hair hippie, i might not think of "hippie" as pejorative either, even though sometimes i'm embarassed by what i hear coming out of the mouths of other long-hair aging hippies (South Park and Tommy Chong make good hay out of this). but, other than Fred Phelps or Westboro Baptist Church (who might wear the label as a badge of honor), i cannot think of any use of "homophobe" that is not pejorative. can you name or cite a few instances of the use of the word that are clinical and not disparaging or pejorative? r b-j 19:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was my starting perspective too -- it seemed like common sense. However, clearly the designation is controversial, and as such we need a reputable source for it at least. Also, it seems to me that the judgment that homophobia is pejorative like the word prejudiced is pejorative is OR. DanB†DanD 19:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
it is not OR, it is English. the reason it "seemed like common sense" to you simply is that it is common sense, which has sufficient qualification in itself to be used. rather, the burden is upon you to show that there is a common use of the word "homophobia" or derivatives "homophobic" or "homophobe" that is clinical and not pejorative. it's sorta like saying that the term "asshole" is not pejorative because it has a clinical use and i would ask you to produce evidence of that clinical use of the word. r b-j 22:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/asshole
As you see, the Random House dictionary cited at dictionary.com describes asshole as "vulgar," "slang," or an "insulting form of address." In the same dictionary, insults such as nigger are described as "offensive slang," while even the softer negro is noted as being "often offensive." Retard is listed as "disparaging." This is the same dictionary to which we source our definition, and clearly part of its purpose is to identify pejorative vocabulary - but it does not so identify "homophobia" or "homophobe."
Appeals to common sense are meaningless when clearly your common sense is not that of your fellow editors, and you cannot find an external source to verify it.
DanB†DanD 22:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Even Wikipedia itself doesn't mention "pejorative" for asshole. So why does homophobia get special treatment? Not every word used to describe a negative concept is pejorative. I highly disapprove of murder, but murder is the word used to describe the act, regardless of whether I aprrove or not. Ditto homophobia. Ludling 22:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
it calls it "abusive" in the very first sentence: "an abusive term for a person". the common sense and forthrightness of such inclusion in asshole is all that this is. why should asshole say in the very lead sentence, the definition, that it is "an abusive term for a person" yet, not even in the fourth sentence you can acknowledge the simple common-sense fact that "homophobe", though not abusive like "asshole" is, in its normal use, a pejorative. the deletion of that fact is itself POV. r b-j 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's another discussion of the topic, presenting "sexual prejudice" as a more neutral term: [17] Haiduc 20:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, hadn't seen this on the talk page when I cut it from the lead. But I think it's better suited to "similar terms," as Herek (the coiner) says it applies to all prejudice based on orientation, including any instances of anti-straight prejudice. DanB†DanD 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Haiduc, even Yonmei drew some lessons from the last POV war and refrained from the POV deletion of "pejorative" that earlier set off the edit dispute that got the page frozen. Can't you also learn that? r b-j 22:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
That's rather an odd tone to take.
Can we find an objective source for this "objective fact"? If not, I think it has to go. It's not necessary -- in fact, it's OR -- to disprove an assertion by finding counterexamples, as you suggested above should be done. A wikipedia editor cites the judgements of others, he doesn't collect evidence and make his own judgment.
DanB†DanD 22:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Rbj, I have run out of arguments. If you insist on imposing this interpretation of the term even though other editors, such as myself, feel it is absolutist and discounts other valid interpretations, there is nothing more I can say. I close with the reminder that we are addressing matters that are very fluid, dynamic, and most accurately represented in shades of gray, not black and white. Haiduc 22:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
there are additional editors besides you or Yonmei. if you insist on deleting it, another edit war will likely break out when the other editors such as MPS or Mangoe come back. your deletion of the simple and accurate acknowledgement that "homophobic" is a term of disapproval (which is all "pejorative" means) is POV. it was last October just as it is now. for the same reasons that all too many words were typed. i didn't get in the way of that particular edit of Yonmei, and i thought by not trying to delete the whole thing, there was finally some acknoledgement that the issue was settled. please review the talk page for the last 2 months and also around July when this was an issue back then. i'm not going to retype everthing here. please lengthen your memory and draw some lessons from the past so we don't have to repeat it. r b-j 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It's distressing to me to see that you respond to requests for a source with simple insistence on your point of view and threats of an edit war. I've added a fact tag - take your time, but you must source controversial statements. DanB†DanD 23:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at category:prejudices, in which this article is included. I would be nearly impossible to convince me that anything else in that list is not pejorative. Indeed, the category would appear to be nothing more than a list of "unacceptable" social biases. Mangoe 23:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what anyone can convince you of.
It certainly doesn't matter what a Wikipedia category page says!
It matters what can be cited to reliable, third-party sources.
By the way, it's kind of amazing how quickly we've begun ignoring the results of the ongoing mediation. Selmo has not had much to say, but one of the few things he has said was to endorse my suggestion of sticking to academic sources whenever possible.
Well, far from using academic sources, we now have editors sticking their own version of "common sense" into the article with no source whatsoever. It's a bit much.
DanB†DanD 23:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
what reliable, third party sources would you say is necessary for asshole to link to for stating the obvious that it is an abusive term? r b-j 23:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
the dictionary DanB†DanD 00:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
the word "abusive" is not in that reference. my question remains unanswered. r b-j 00:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
because of the direct application of the English language on this, the burden is on you to show significant use of the word, homophobe, in a clinical non-pejorative manner. r b-j 23:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
No, that would mean we were arguing about the truth.
We're not.
We're collecting verifiable, third-party information DanB†DanD 00:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
no. we're arguing about POV and whether or not this article gets to be tailored to the liking of either the anti-gay or of gay-advocates. deletion of this obvious characterization of the word (just as "asshole" is obviously characterized as "abusive" even though your dictionary definition didn't mention the word) is as POV edit. that is why there is resistance to it. r b-j 00:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sake. Okay, I get it. We'll just wait for the mediator. DanB†DanD 00:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to break the logjam

I've thrown in the towel on "pejorative", but I've also managed to work more 'academic' material into the "critics" section. Anyone happy???? Mangoe 13:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

any explanation for why (the towel)? r b-j 18:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that saying that homophobe is pejorative and identification of people or groups as homophobic is controversial is just fine - there's a similiar 'graph in the Racism page. Giving that information is neutral.
The biased second 'graph that I just deleted was not neutral: like the old "critics of the term" 'graph, it gave only one side of the argument.
Yonmei 20:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
As has been stated before, what you believe is not necessarily relevant to what should be in the article. And has also been stated before, any assertion that it is definitively a pejorative term is too absolute to be acceptable. Your inclusion of an old, depreciated version has been reverted accordingly. Let's move forward, not back. CovenantD 20:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mangoe - thanks for the work on "Critics" - unfortunately, it now duplicates a lot of the material under "Similar terms" - particularly the paragraph on Herek added yesterday. In which section do you prefer to keep this info? It's silly to have it twice.

Also, on your second par for the intro, just cut by Yonmei - I agree it needs sources, and I also don't think it's a good summary of academic critics such as Herek, who faults the word for focusing on individual psychology to the exclusion of broader social structures - which has nothing to do with irrationality, as both psychology or social institutions may be both rational or irrational.

DanB†DanD 20:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The initial section is a summary. It is therefore not only appropriate but usual that it may repeat (in lesser detail, of course) material from the meat of the article. It lacks references, of course, because they are unnecessary; the detailed presentation is sufficiently referenced.
I decided to forget "pejorative" for a variety of reasons. However, the new second graf points to a common cause between the various critics: the connotation issue which various people have been trying to suppress from the article for months. Well, now we have two academic sources within the field raising objections, as well as those nasty homophobes at the CWA, so at this point I'm taking acknowledgement of that connotation as a necessary component of the article.
I don't really want to carry the whole "critics" section into the beginning, and anyway people would object (and I would agree) that such placement would be too prominent. However, WP:LAYOUT says

Normally, the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow. If further introductory material is needed before the first section, this can be covered in subsequent paragraphs. Introductions to biographical articles commonly double as summaries, listing the best-known achievements of the subject. Keep in mind that for many users this is all they will read, so the most important information should be included.

(my emphasis) The connotation and it controversial nature are important enough that they should appear in the summary. A little repetition isn't a bad thing. And there aren't "sides of an argument" here, at least until someone produces an academic who is willing to say that the word lacks that connotation. That's going to be hard, especially with Weinberg saying right from the start that he intended that sense. Mangoe 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Mangoe, if other editors insist on including (not as the first sentence, since that should be left for the most neutral and objective "dictionary definition") in the intro non-dictionary uses of "homophobia" such as disapproval or opposition, then i think it's reasonable to insist that there is criticism of the term and of that usage in the intro. but if that implication is not put in the intro, must we insist that the criticism of that usage also be put there? i really think that this "pejorative" thing says something far less controversial (and far more obvious, which is why there is no NPOV opposition to putting in there, even Yonmei has now understood this for which i praise her for). something about this word being controversial should be there. i am not so sure what it should be, but i am certain that one controversial side alone should not put their spin on it without something from the "critics of the term" or whatever you would call the other side. r b-j 00:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
CovenantD, i can live with "can be" (i've never reverted nor objected to that), but somebody's gonna call it a "weasel word" or something, and i still have never heard a realistic example of the use in a "clinical" non-indignant manner. like Fred Phelps visiting his physician and while using a tongue depressor and looking in his mouth, the doctor says "I'm afraid, Mr. Phelps, that you've come down with a serious case of homophobia." r b-j 03:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL. If only it were that easy.
While some may think of it as weasel words, I don't believe they are in this context. Rather, they are an accurate reflection of the usage of the term as opposed to it's definition. The article itself has a quote from George Weinberg, originator of the modern term, in which he describes it in clinical, non-judgemental terms, and the 'graph about the search for alternative words reflects an implicit understanding that it's carrying two related but dissimilar concepts. CovenantD 03:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mangoe, the sections where your additions duplicate existing content is not the initial summary and a more detailed later section, but two sections of the body at roughly the same level of detail: "similar terms" and "critics of the term." DanB†DanD 06:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm..... I see what you mean, and you're right, the two sections overlap too much now. I'm thinking maybe to split the "similar words" section up and fold most of it into "critics", while putting the rest further up. Mangoe 11:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why aren't we using LGBT?

Because the intro graphs are still under discussion, I didn't make the other change I think needs making: alter "homosexual people" to "LGBT people". LGBT people is the standard term on Wikipedia and elsewhere - I can see no reason to use the non-standard "homosexual people". Yonmei 20:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The biphobia article is pretty bad, but one of its few sourced points argues persuasively that homophobia and biphobia are not necessarily the same thing, cited to this study in the Archives of sexual behavior. Prejudice against transgendered people may be something else again.
Prejudice against bisexuals or transexuals for their same-sex relationships would be homophobia, but I think that's implicit in the definition as it stands.
DanB†DanD 20:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
wow! my head's spinning. i didn't expect to see Mangoe yank that out and even more so to see Yonmei put it back in. (you guys didn't get each other's passwords, did you? :-) the reason i opposed the generalization of "homosexual" to "LGBT" in the intro only is because it's not in the dictionary and reflects an evolution of terminology that one side prefers (making it mildly POV). the reason why "LGBT" appears to be the "standard term" here at Wikipedia is because of so many articles about the topics written by LGBT people themselves and on topics where the root concept did not have a previous existence before the coinage of the acronym "LGBT". if the article was titled "LGBTphobia", then it would be equally inappropriate to replace LGBT- with homo-. r b-j 20:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The use of LBGTQ-whatever here is definitely problematic. The word was coined in the context of homosexuality, and (for example) Herek barely mentions bisexuality in passing, and transsexuals not at all. Mangoe 22:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The price of academic research (rueful smile)

I have been doing some looking-up on Google Scholar for the past few days - hence my absence from discussion here, as it was becoming clear that we needed to begin to do what we had agreed to do and cite arguments with academic discussion only - and have consistently been running into one major problem:

I keep finding academic articles I can't use because they're pay-per-view or subscription-only.

I assume this is a problem for everyone, not just me - so if anyone's got answers about how we get around this, I would appreciate it.

It's possible, always, to contact the author/s of an article and ask to be sent a copy. In my experience, academics are usually willing to oblige a polite researcher if they have the article available in PDF form: and I have done this before when I wanted to use scholarly references in a published article but didn't want to pay for a subscription to a journal's web page. Effectively, however, this means using non-linkable references in the article - citing by author name, page number, etc. People who want to follow up on the references will *also* have to write to the author and/or pay for a subscription to the journal. How acceptable is this? Yonmei 14:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Go to a library. Most of this research should be in paper journals which should (hopefully) be in most any good library you can find. I would use my Penn access to get these articles offline, but I really just don't have the time at the moment. CaveatLectorTalk 16:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any problem with using subscription-only journal articles for references. That includes virtually all scientific articles in all fields (although there are more and more exceptions these days). Restricting ourselves to what's available free online would require us to omit much scholarly research and most books, which doesn't make sense. As CL suggests, people who want to follow up on a reference can visit their local university library. bikeable (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That is also reflected in policy/guidelines which basically state that references do not have to be on the web, nor even easy to find, just that they must be available for others to find. CovenantD 19:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As a mediator

I ask what people think about going to Medcom. WikieZach| talk 03:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

i don't know what it means to "go to Medcom". i s'pose i'm game for it. my head is still spinning after seeing Mangoe and Yonmei swap positions regarding what should be an uncontroversial characterization of the word homophobic and i find myself reverting the intro to a version supported by Yonmei. (i'm very happy and hopeful about this.) i dunno what to think anymore. r b-j 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what it is either. Does it require that, until "Medcom" reaches a conclusion, anything that anyone challenges must be removed from the article? That's what seemed to be implied on the RfC page, and I don't think this article is really in such desperate straits. DanB†DanD 06:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It means the Mediaton committee. WikieZach| talk 11:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest of you, but never mind MedCon, I want to throw a party. For the first time since I saw this page, we have intro paragraphs that I can agree with and that it looks like most of the regular editors of the page can too. Hooray! *celebrates*
It won't last, mind you. Yonmei 20:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homo-phobia

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)

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)

[edit] Non-dispute related add

I would like to request the Template:Discrimination2 be added to this page. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/m/Talk%7EHomophobia_b495.html"