Talk:Homophobia/Archive 1


 * The phrase "nonprogrammed divisions of Quakerism" in ther article was confusing (to do with silent worship, etc). It was deleted, because it didn't add much to the discussion.

Religious people, in my experience, don't work very hard to throw off the label 'homophobic'. What they expend much time and energy disputing is the claim that irrationality, fear, or hatred is any part of their motivation or actions. Ed Poor

At this point (1/3/02), the article is sufficiently NPOV, but it seems to be trying so hard to avoid taking sides that it doesn't say anything. Perhaps there is too much back-and-forth: some say, others say, these counterargue -- all in the same paragraph.

Perhaps we can maintain the balance of the article AND make the various points more clear and fully described, by maintaining the POV of one side for a paragraph or two. THEN, balance it with another side.

(I'm not sure I can do this, myself. Any takers?)

Ed Poor


 * I think it reads great as it is. On a controversial topic, this may be the best that's achievable. You're welcome to try, though! --Dmerrill

I'm not sure beginning with the distinction between principled and irrational opposition to homosexuality is the best way to begin, even though I think I have been the one most concerned with making that distinction.

Is there anyone who knows something about homophobia, from the point of view of those who use the term homophobia?

I gather in common parlance it means
 * 1) opposition to homosexuality (on, say, moral or religious grounds)
 * 2) discrimination against homosexuals (can't be Boy Scout leader or get married)

Is there, as I think, the intent to label opposition and discrimination as literally irrational, fearful or hate-filled? --Ed Poor


 * Fairly often. I suppose I can't think of a reason for opposing or hating homosexuals that isn't irrational, fearful, or hate-filled, because at least one of those adjectives adequately describes every incident of homophobia that I've witnessed or suffered. However, we don't necessarily or even usually have the full range of implications behind the word every time we use it (hence questions like "Why are people homophobic?" - if the word denoted all of the above, the question would lead to a tautology.)
 * En passant, it's kind of fun to see I'm becoming one of the local Gay Guys. :) - user:Montrealais
 * I only agree with you half way: reasons for hating homosexuals are all irrational, fearful or hateful. As for "opposing homosexuals", I can't comment unless I know what you mean by that. By "opposing homosexuals" do you mean (a) opposition to homosexuality, or (b) discrimination against homosexuals, or what? --Ed Poor
 * Amazingly I find myself agreeing with Ed here. Religious arguments for opposing homsexual activity are neither irrational (by the standards of religion, anyway - *so long* as you believe the world was sneezed out by the Great Green Arkleseizure, if the Great Green Arkleseizure apparently said "homosexuals should burn!" it's not technically irrational to say homosexuals should burn. Which leaves us in the difficult position of condemning all religion as irrational, or accepting my/Ed's point...), necessarily fearful or necessarily hateful. Now let me go read the page. =) --AW
 * Adam, while there are some religious folks who say "homosexuals should burn", in general religious disapproval of homosexuality is not so, um, heated. It usually falls into the same category as religious disapproval of any other sort of extramarital sex. I think this is explored on the homosexuality and morality page.


 * Ed - I hoped it was clear my post was exaggerated for clarity and so as to make it clear it wasn't an attack on any particular group. This is why I used the Great Green Arkleseizure (who comes from H2G2, and so far as I can tell has no followers in the real world :>). Obviously it wasn't, sorry. --AW


 * Adam raises a curiously interesting question: is the rational implication of an irrational belief itself irrational, or rational? -- in other words, is irrationality transitive? ;-) -- Tarquin

I moved up and labelled the section "Manifestations of homophobia", because I thought it was more important than the wrangle about the term homophobia. --Ed Poor 15:33 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)

Hardly anyone but me on this talk page. It's getting boring. Maybe it's time to do something to (grin) mix things up a bit.

I propose to revise the article to explore 3 main categories:
 * 1) irrational hostility toward homosexuals: discrimination, beatings, etc.
 * 2) principled opposition to homosexuality: e.g., religious grounds
 * 3) attempts to score debating points by equating the above 2 categories

--Ed Poor


 * Well, isn't 2) often the foundation of 1)? Can you really argue that religious opposition to homosexuality is "rational"? Who equates 1) and 2)? I think people are rather saying that 1) happens because of 2). --Eloquence


 * Well, isn't what you just said above an example of 3)? ;-) --Uncle Ed


 * Equating them is different from claiming a cause/effect relationship. --Eloquence


 * Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Perhaps then the article could distinguish between (A) the view that opposition to homosexuality can be principled and rational, but that hostility toward homosexuals (such as discrimination and beatings) is bad; and (B) the view that opposition to homosexuality is necessarily irrational and that thus it inevitably gives (or tends to give) rise to hostility such as discrimination and beatings. --Uncle Ed


 * An example of (2) would be the belief that the nuclear family is the bedrock of society, and therefore homosexuality is not a desirable thing. That's a perfectly rational position, though not one I share. I'd definately be in favour of revising the entry along those lines - One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, so it's absolutely essential to clarify what the words mean before going on to discuss the subject. Martin

Well, I think we have some problems with terms here. What is rational and what is irrational? That's a deeply philosophical distinction, as irrational is frequently interpreted negatively, and thus, even religions do not like to be called irrational. I consider a view rational if it is based on plausible assumptions and verifiable facts. The belief that the "nuclear family is the bedrock of society" may be plausible, but the "therefore .." stuff simply cannot logically be concluded from it. Because if that's the case, you would have to oppose people living alone as well. You would have to demand legislation to force people into marriage. A homosexual harms the bedrock no more than a heterosexual who doesn't get married.

But this gets us deep into POV territory. The beliefs I think there are:


 * 1) Homosexuality is perfectly normal, and any opposition to it is necessarily irrational.
 * 2) Homosexuality is not normal, but it harms nobody, so it doesn't need to be opposed.
 * 3) Homosexuality is not normal, and it harms the institution of the family (somehow), so it needs to be opposed..

Besides there are:


 * economic and legal discrimination
 * physical abuse
 * psychical abuse

There may also be subconscious fears and more primitive claims, such as "homosexuals are filthy" etc.

As to the connection between these two:


 * Holders of belief 1 tend to see a causal connection between the irrational fear of homosexuality and abuses/discrimination of homosexuals. For them, the religious belief is either a pretext for or the cause of homophobia.
 * Holders of belief 2 see the opposition in form of discrimination and abuse as irrational, but the view that homosexuality is abnormal as distinct from it.
 * Holders of belief 3 claim to only accept certain forms of (e.g.)legal discrimination, but reject other forms, or physical/psychical abuse.

We also need to mention the hypothesis that homophobia is correlated with latent homosexuality. I think there are some studies on the subject.

Oh, and homoskeptic is not a word. --Eloquence

Following up on Erik's question above: "Who equates them?"

A quick web search turned up the following essay, which equates opposition to homosexuality with fear and hatred (see Homophobia: The Fear Behind The Hatred). IMHO, this essayist assumes (or wisheds to lead the reader to assume) that opposition to homosexuality is same as hatred. He does this by inserting a heading, "The Reasons Homophobes Give For Their Hatred" followed by a paragraph with begins: It's not natural. The paragraph goes on to rebut the view that homosexuality is not natural.

Unless I'm reading the essay wrong, the essayist is literally and intentionally equating "opposition to homosexuality" with "hate". QED.

But please rest assured that I'm not going to "pounce" on this as a justification for making further, radical changes to the article. I'm done for the day, if not the month. Just consider this food for thought.

-- Ever humbly, Uncle Ed 17:37 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ, while the author obviously equates hatred and opposition to homosexuality, he does not say that everyone who is opposed to homosexuality will beat up homosexuals. He does say that religious bigotry results in / is the foundation of such discrimination and abuse, i.e. cause and effect as I mentioned above.


 * So I think that few, if any, people believe there is no distinction to be made between people who, for instance, physically abuse homosexuals and those who are opposed to homosexuality. --Eloquence

This article seems hopelessly filled with POV to me. Now granted it sounds like the supposed NPOV stuff that I would expect to hear in the U.S., but it totally neglects the fact that it is possible to rationally oppose homosexuality. To most Americans this concept is absurd, but just because Americans are close-minded does not mean that this should not be a NPOV'ed article. -- RM


 * Are you really saying that if someone fights against those who are opposed to homosexuality, somehow this is being closed-minded? -- Zoe


 * No, not at all. But to just call someone irrational for believing something without listening to their evidence is equally irrational and ignorant.  I'm saying that it is *only* those people who call people homophobes without listening to them is being ignorant and irrational.  That is by definition an ad-hominem attack.  The Homophobia article says that people believe that anyone who is opposed to homosexuality is irrational.  That is a belief, plain and simple.


 * In fact, if you hold to Moral relativism then you have to admit that there is at least a chance that things like the Nazi movement could be correct (even if highly unlikely). As such even if it is highly unlikely that you can rationally disprove of homosexuality, the fact is that you have to at least allow it or you are irrational yourself.  Quite frankly people who are irrational are not worth my time to discuss things with.  -- Ram-Man


 * Of course he is - tolerate the intolerant and all that ;-). Too bad, I thought Ram-Man was smarter than that. Do you have any specific NPOV complaints about the article, Ram-Man? --Eloquence


 * My mistake is being rational. My belief for or against homosexuality has nothing to do with this.  The fact is that tolerance is irrational unless you tolerate the intolerant as you say.  In the end no one is tolerant.  If you don't tolerate the intolerants (like virtually everyone), then you are making a moral judgement and that is self-refuting.  My specific complaint is just that I have not yet added the material that I desire:  a counter-point well-reasoned defense for why it is rational to be a "homophobe".  -- RM


 * How can homophobia be rational, any more than any other phobia? -- Zoe


 * The word "homophobia" is frequently (mis?)applied to those who do not have an irrational fear of gays, but merely oppose homosexuality on rational grounds. This (mis?)application should obviously be covered in an article on homophobia. In practice, very few people actually have a phobia of homosexuality. You can't walk up to a conservative politician and say "hi, I'm gay" and get them to run away screaming, no matter how many times said politician has been (mis?)accused of being homophobic. -Martin (who happens to be bisexual)


 * It really is just basic logic (which unfortunately many people do not care about or understand). You are really just begging the question. You are defining homophobia to be a problem and then claiming that one is irrational for being a "homophobe" because it is a problem.  That is circular reasoning.  I can define "zoephobia" as a serious ailment of liking Zoe.  Since you like yourself (presumably), you clearly are being irrational (because this is a serious ailment).  -- Ram-Man


 * Actually, zoephilia would be the ailment of seriously liking Zoe...


 * Sounds to me that, instead of being "rational", you're trying to "rationalize" your own illness. -- Zoe


 * Can we avoid accusing each other of being "ill" here, please? :)


 * Hardly! My argument is logically sound.  However, as the example above shows (and you have not refuted), it is irrational to claim that I am sick. It is quite typical in these emotional discussions for people to abandon reason and totally ignore valid arguments in favor of ad-hominem attacks.  Since when has it been a crime to rationalize?  BTW, that is self-refuting and inconsistent as well, because I am being accused of being irrational (which is rationalizing).  In fact, how can you tell me I am sick if you don't even know what I believe?  I could be a homosexual myself for all you know!  Also it should be noted that the original argument is simply the logical fallacy of the appeal to popularity. -- RM


 * The etymology section was improved. Also, it was established that homphobia does not mean "fear of sameness", except as a joke. Finally, a psychiatrist confirmed that there is no such thing as clinical homophobia.

What is "Opposition as hate" mean? Under the heading of "Opposition to Homosexuality", is this supposed to mean that everything under the heading refers to opposition that is intentionally hateful? -- RM

Clutch claims that "Up until very recent days, discrimination against homosexuals was openly visible, but has now so far reversed itself that heterosexuals are often discriminated against"


 * Huh? If this were true in the slightest, that means that today there is nearly no more homophobia - and in fact now it is the heterosexuals who are being discriminated against? That is a ludicrous position. I vote that the recent changes be reverted. RK

- I removed these statements of fact: This claim is irrational because it by definition requires the acceptance of a conclusion that was not achieved through reason. Because of this, critics of homosexuality will counter that it is those supporters of homosexuality that claim that the critics are wrong that are being irrational.

However, this argument of support is logically inconsistent because it rests on the premise that it is wrong to judge others. This is a self-defeating belief because in saying that it is wrong to judge others, one is making a self-judgment about what one should believe. Therefore, those that maintain this position are being irrational.

It should be noted that we are trying to make this subject be an NPOV encyclopedia article, not an essay, and not a place to argue logic. Now if this is, in fact, a widely held view by one or another significant group that has an opinion on the subject, then the above should be written in the spirit of our NPOV policy and have the statements attributed to there adherents. IMO the statements are idiosyncratic arguments and require a good deal of citation. --mav

"I removed these statements of fact" - Have we resorted to removing facts from our articles and keeping opinions in? -- RM


 * I should have said; "opinions stated as fact." --mav


 * Ram-Man, you definately could have phrased your reasoning in a clearer manner. --Clutch


 * Oh I would have, but it still would have been removed for the reasons stated below. -- Ram-Man


 * Why is no reasoning required for the opposing viewpoint? -- RM


 * Because it would make the opposing side look bad, and they would kick up an unholy ruckus. --Clutch


 * If that is really the case, than much of the article should be removed. -- RM


 * Not really; they very much want to appear "reasonable" in the public eye. Attempts to remove the material here would cause an equal ruckus.  They do what they can where they can. Anyhow, how does the current edit looks?  Does it represent what you were trying to get across? --Clutch


 * I'll review it more later, but some of what I saw looks good. I still don't know how a logical proof is an opinion instead of fact wheras simply stating that someone is irrational without any reason is considered to be fact instead of opinion.  How is *that* NPOV?  That one gets me. -- RM


 * The self-defeating nature of tolerance and relativism and related concepts is a fairly involved debate that doesn't need to be addressed in an article about homophobia. It's an interesting debate, and one that should be covered in an encyclopedia - but not here, I think. Incidentally, I've added a cite for the view that (almost) all homophobia is irrational, which contains such reasons. The joys of google... -Martin


 * "It is usually not the case, for homophobic persons, that the basis of their attitudes towards homosexuality is rational reasoning, or intellectual argumentation. Such endeavors have, as a rule, been added afterwards, to try to give the homophobia a nicer and more respectable framing. However, these attempts to argue intellectually against homosexuality are utter failures."


 * Don't get me wrong, I realize that such discussions are well-suited in other locations, but it is the problem that if I *don't* provide any sort of explanation, it will often be deleted from the article because people don't like it. For instance, I think you just deleted some text that Clutch added that was NPOV but made people uncomfortable.  Secondly, though the quote above is what many people feel, it is hardly a well-reasoned quote.  It is really just a statement of opinion.  Now I don't think it should be deleted, just as I think the opposing quote below it shouldn't.  Finally, if no one thinks that a proof or explanation is needed to explain these problems in this context, then they will be added without explanation.  But if they are deleted, either we delete the opposing views or we add more explanation. -- RM


 * I deleted some text (dunno who from) about people being accused of homophobia typically claiming not only that they aren't homophobic or irrational, but also that the very accusations of homophobic are themselves irrational. In my experience, that latter claim is much more rarely made. I also don't think it's particularly informative or useful: anytime anyone makes a statement of the form "X is Y", somebody is going to come back and say "believing that X is Y is irrational", and then a third party will claim that "the belief that believing that X is Y is irrational, is itself irrational", and so on ad absurdam. That's not saying anything about homophobia - that's saying something about the way people argue - and it's at a tangent to the important issues.


 * I guess I would like to be convinced that either (A) most people who believe that opposition to homosexuality can be rational also believe that {the equation of rational and irrational opposition to homosexuality is itself irrational} or (B) that the belief that {the equation of rational and irrational opposition to homosexuality is itself irrational} is an important and relevant belief in the context of homophobia. -Martin


 * I have to disagree here. If both people were accusing each other equally, it would just be as you say.  But it is important that when someone is accussed of something that their defense is heard.  This is a defense, not an attack.  In fact these are totally different animals.  It can be easily proven that the person making the original claim is irrational (at least as stated), whereas the original claim cannot be easily proven.  This is an important difference and one I attempted to add earlier before it was predictably deleted. -- RM


 * I can see what you're saying, and while I don't agree with it, I'll not delete that text myself. Hopefully we can get some consensus on the subject. -Martin

If people would actually have read what I wrote above, a lot of the problems with the current revision of the article could have been avoided. For example, the article states:

General opposition to homosexuality that is not based on irrational hatred ..

The problem here is that many gay rights advocates see all opposition to homosexuality as irrational, either because they see religious reasons as irrational or because they see the religious reasons as a pretext for underlying fear/hatred, or both. Therefore the distinction between homophobia and "rational" opposition to homosexuality becomes moot for them. Either we agree on what rational / irrational means or we do not use these words without attributing them. --Eloquence


 * I'd make a similar comment: Either we agree on what "homophobia" means or we do not use that word without attributing it. The idea of that para was to explicitly state what "homophobia" means in the context of this article - for just that reason. But I can see your point, so I'll see if I can rephrase... -Martin


 * I think our introduction is unnecessarily wordy. It should suffice for us to explain in different sections what some people believe to be homophobia and what they do not believe it to be. (If there is the view that homophobia doesn't exist, that should also be accounted for.) --Eloquence

The little disclaimer is made after the text that we are discussing. I don't think it applies in this case. In any case, it seems very strange that we need to define rational and irrational, considering that they are well understood terms. Are we to now attribute every word used in every article? By very definition taking something as "neccesarily true" (a brute given) is not being rational. It is not in the spirit of NPOV to avoid to mention of this. Irrational can also be taken to mean "crazy". And while homosexual activists may equivocate on the word to imply to people that they are crazy, I am making no such claim as that is a moral one. Instead I am using irrational to mean the traditional "not acquired through reason". The reason my explanation was deleted is because people don't like to think of themselves as not being rational in their belief. But that is no reason to not include fact. Lots of people are uncomfortable with the truth, but an NPOV policy will take into account the truth. -- Ram-Man

FWIW, I like the new disclaimer. It is nice and clear. -- RM


 * Ram-Man, is an argument from scripture rational or irrational? --Eloquence


 * That is a trick question. To answer either way would commit me to the genetic fallacy.  As such a scriptural reference must be judged on its own merits. -- Ram-Man


 * You are being overly pedantic (I was obviously not referring to historical claims), but let me rephrase the question: Can an argument that assumes the existence of God be rational? --Eloquence


 * Speaking as a mathematician, the answer is yes. "Rationality" relates more to the form of a discourse than to its content. One can have a perfectly rational discussion about the existence of gremlins, and one can also have a perfectly rational discussion based on the assumption that gremlins exist. You might challenge the assumption itself as "irrational", but you really mean that the assumption is false (with the ad-hominem implication that the person is a fool for assuming it in the first place). If the assumption is false, then conclusions drawn from it may be true or false, but it is perfectly possible for the reasoning involved to be valid and rational.


 * To answer the same question from a different angle, one could disagree with C.S. Lewis or G.K. Chesterton, but one could not exactly call them paranoid schizophrenics or in any other sense "irrational" persons. --Len


 * That's perfectly OK, but if the assumption itself is irrational, does that not make the argument as a whole irrational? E.g. "Gremlins exist, therefore we need to build gremlin detection into all technical devices". --Eloquence


 * You are (accidentally?) equivocating on the word "rational", as I indicated above. Belief in God is not "insane", and it can't be considered illogical, because one's premises are neither logical nor illogical; they can only be true or false. It is common to pretend that one's premises are illogical, essentially as an excuse to call them insane. --Len


 * What if I assume the existence of an entity that is only partially defined, and whose statements of definitions contradict each other? E.g. "invisible pink unicorn"? Also, do you see a difference between true/false in mathematics and in the real world? Should not the postulation of entities in the real world always be accompanied by arguments for their existence? --Eloquence


 * No (see my response below). -- RM


 * According to your logic, it is only irrational if I refuse to debate its merits, right? --Eloquence


 * For the most part, yes. Fortunately we have a better logitician than I helping out with this discussion.  I defer. -- Ram-Man


 * As rational as any argument that assumes post hoc ergo procter hoc that God does not exist. --Clutch


 * The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy has no relevance to the question. Indeed, the fallacy cannot be applicable unless one assumes the existence of God, since the apparent antecedent of hoc in this case is God. --Len


 * I disagree. Assuming the non-existance of God is no more irrational than assuming his existance. --Clutch


 * Um, that's what I said. But I also said that your reference to post hoc ergo propter hoc is completely irrelevant. --Len.

My apologies if I was overly pedantic. If I make an argument and say that it is true because God necessarily exists or does not exist and defend myself by saying that God's existence cannot be debated, then I am not rationally defending my claim. However, to make an assumption for the sake of argument does not by itself make an argument irrational or rational because I contend that my assumption is debateable. Assumptions are made to make an argument sound. -- Ram-Man


 * So should we state in the article that anyone who argues that, because God condemns homosexuality according to the Bible, homosexuality is morally unaceptable, and who does not consider the existence of God debatable (i.e. most fundamentalists) is irrational? Also, do you agree/disagree that people disagree over whether a rational argument for the existence of God can be made? --Eloquence


 * If someone claims a brute fact they are not being rational. Now they may be justified in their belief, but that is a totally different discussion.  We are justified in believing that 2 + 2 = 4, even though we take it as a brute fact.  Please note that "irrational" is often used to mean "crazy", which is not applicable in this situation.  Yes I agree that fundamentalists (as stated above) are being irrational (but not crazy).  And yes I do agree that people debate whether a rational argument can be made for the existence of God. -- RM


 * So you have just confirmed my view that we need to distinguish different views on whether arguments against homosexuality are rational or irrational, and that we should not use the terms without attribution in all but the most obvious cases. --Eloquence


 * They are not being irrational, either. They are simply stating a fact. The convenient equivocation between "illogical" and "insane" makes the charge of "irrationality" quite irresistable, doesn't it?


 * Put differently, I'll give you "non-rational", though it's pointless, but I won't give you "irrational", which does not mean the same thing. --Len


 * Ok, I can handle that definition. I have no desire to argue semantics with you, and I am not going to change my previous statements to fit.  But I will use non-rational instead from now on for clarity.  Since a definition of rationality and irrationality was asked for, what you said should definitely be included. -- RM

I am asking questions about rationality or irrationality not to argue a particular point -- but merely to demonstrate that we should use these terms carefully, because evidently people disagree quite strongly about what they mean. (My POV: assuming the existence of a particular entity without being willing to provide evidence for such an assumption is irrational. Assuming the existence of an entity that is not defined or self-contradictory is irrational.) So we should not state that certain views are or are not rational/irrational, but only that some people believe them to be. We can probably agree that beating up or killing homosexuals is irrational, though, but only because no gay-beaters or killers are likely to come forward. --Eloquence


 * I for one am quite willing to give reasons for my belief in God. But that is not the topic of this article, and it was neither requested nor would be appreciated here. In this context, belief in God is a premise, and its truth or falsehood must be discussed elsewhere. Discussion involving that premise, or even based on it, can be perfectly rational. --Len


 * That any arguments in favor of the existence of God can be rational is, however, a POV not shared by everyone. --Eloquence


 * Eloquence: you seem to be confusing rational with correct. Neither God's existence nor your own can be "proven" based purely on reasoning from postulates; if it could, one of the postulates would turn out to be the assumption that you (or God) exists. You are at liberty to think believers are crazy, but you should be aware that this viewpoint is inherently POV. IN THIS ARTICLE, belief in God is a given. Whether such belief is "crazy" is the subject for a separate discussion. --Len.


 * Whether or not people shared that POV does not change whether or not it is true. I can reason that God exists or does not exist (see Arguments for the existence of God). -- RM


 * You can, but all arguments for the existence of God are based on unsupported premises and therefore irrational. Again, whether you agree with this statement or not is not the point. As long as we disagree, we are talking about opinions (in the context of Wikipedia), not facts, and opinions need to be attributed. --Eloquence


 * Eloquence, there's something you seem to miss about premises. All premises are assumed without proof, though with some evidence--if there were no premises assumed without proof, then there would be nothing to prove the first theorem with. So you can say that belief in God is non-rational, based on evidence but not proof...but the exact same thing can be said of your own existence. That's why Descartes made such a stir when he said Cogito ergo sum. But it should be pointed out that Descartes's statement does not constitute proof: it gives the evidence that makes him believe he exists. The real statement of his reasoning, to borrow from Bierce, should have been Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum: I think I think, therefore I think I am. In short, you are not at liberty to assume people are nuts because they believe in God. If you believe they are wrong, you can say so--in the appropriate forum. --Len


 * What can be considered "irrational"? For instance, we have an article in which activists claim that "homophobes" are irrational, and we have the so-called "homophobes" saying that the claim is irrational.  What we want is to evaluate whether these statements are factual without bias. -- RM


 * If you mean "illogical", then any argument whose illogic you can prove is irrational. If you mean "insane", then the term is somewhat subjective. You are pretty safe applying it to people who thing their teeth are radios channeling messages from Alpha Centauri, but even there you will get an argument from a few...ahem...irrational people. --Len


 * Actually, no, that's probably not what we want, because we likely cannot agree on what the facts are. I, for one, believe that homophobia is by definition irrational. I have so far not heard any argument against homosexuality that I consider rational. I also think that homophobia is often (but not always) the real basis of opposition to homosexuality. In that, I agree with what we call "gay rights activists". But I know you are likely to disagree with these beliefs. So what we need to do is to attribute statements, not to make any claims of fact that are likely to be controversial. That is what NPOV is all about. --Eloquence


 * I did look over the NPOV policy a minute ago, and it is clear that asserting facts is ok. In fact the policy itself is based on rationality.  Let's say that I am opposed to homosexuality and therefore a homophobe.  How can you claim that I am irrational without knowing what I believe?  I mean "homophobes" are often accused of being ignorant, but this is blatant ignorance.  You can believe all you want that it is not rational, but that is merely opinion.  Something is rational if it is logically consistent and based on reason.  Do you disagree with that? -- RM


 * Also, watch the circular reasoning. If you define homophibia to be irrationality and apply that label to someone then you cannot use your definition to accuse someone of being irrational just because that is how you defined it. -- RM


 * Facts in the Wikipedia sense are statements about which all people agree. Everything else are opinions which need to be attributed. As for the rational vs. irrational question, the claim that opposition to homosexuality is irrational implicitly only refers to the known arguments against homosexuality, the same goes for the claim that belief in God is irrational. Given the long history of such beliefs (often enforced violently), the generalization is appropriate, but if you have any startling new arguments you want to contribute, feel free to do so. I agree with your definition. I also agree with your argument about circular reasoning. --Eloquence


 * What you say just now is as close to balanced as we have come during this discussion. However, this is not what the article says.  It says that some people believe that all disapproval is bad (and people do truely believe that).  But that is *not* the same as saying that they disapprove of only those arguments that they know about.  This cannot be implicit because using the word all is mutual exclusive from a limited only. Secondly, you can't point to any "fact" that *everyone* agrees to.  -- RM


 * First, "bad" is different from rational/irrational and an entirely new discussion. Second, even if the statement was "All arguments opposing homosexuality are irrational ..", one would have to look at the context to determine whether this implicitly referred to only known arguments or not. I think you're trying to build a case that certain statements are irrational by first making an assumption that people actually make these statements, and then making another assumption about the context in which they are made. You should supply actual citations to a detailed discussion of the points you refer to if you want to support this argument.


 * Yes, you can't point to any fact that everyone agrees to, but in practice we tend to ignore the extreme fringe unless it is actually present on Wikipedia, and even then, the extent of the presentation of a view correlates with its popularity.


 * You could help reduce the number of edit conflicts by only saving your argument when it is finished and using the preview function first. :-) --Eloquence


 * Sorry about the edit conflicts. My brain is too active to figure it all out and then stop thinking.  I'm not assuming anything of the sort.  The article clearly states that they believe that all disapproval is irrational. What is that disapproval?  Of course people make these statements of disapproval!  I don't know why you are questioning that.  If you don't mind I am going to change the "all disapproval" to "all known disapproval", though I don't think it is accurate because I think some people really truely believe in "any (known or unknown) disapproval".  I don't recall making any assumptions about context, I just acknowledged that people have statements of disapproval.  What are these so-called assumptions that you think I am making? -- Ram-Man


 * Well, I have lost track of who edited what, but I assume you agree with the current presentation of the argument. This argument quotes someone saying: "It is usually not the case, for homophobic persons, that the basis of their attitudes towards homosexuality is rational reasoning, or intellectual argumentation. Such endeavors have, as a rule, been added afterwards, to try to give the homophobia a nicer and more respectable framing. However, these attempts to argue intellectually against homosexuality are utter failures." All emphasis mine. It appears to me that this person makes quite clear distinctions between known and unknown arguments and even acknowledges that there exists rational reasoning against homosexuality. I can therefore only refer to claims that people regard all disapproval of homosexuality, known or not, as irrational, as assumptions. --Eloquence


 * Let me put it this way, do you believe that there are persons who use the term homophobia to describe anyone who opposes homosexuality for any reason? I fully understand that the quote provided admits to the possibility of a rational defense.  But it is the *rest* of the article that fails to do this.  I have known people who have been labeled a homophobe without them even considering what the reason might be. This is what the article describes in its current form and it represents the views of people that exist.  Even though the quote itself is not guilty of that, it does happen and it is just as ignorant as what the homophobes are being accussed of.  -- Ram-Man


 * I think there are simply many people who don't understand the meaning of the term "homophobia", especially in the non-academic world. The person cited above admits the possibility of "rational homophobia", which is of course an oxymoron. --Eloquence


 * The degree to which incorrect accusations of homophobia are made was discussed, and the effects of these incorrect accusations. The article was changed appropriately.

I have tried to cut down all the rhetoric about why we use or not use certain terms in the article -- in a good encyclopedia article, this is understood implicitly --, and I have removed/rephrased clearly POV statements like "disapproval by the vast majority of heterosexuals" or "homosexuals admit that ..". If anyone wants to claim that the majority of heterosexuals are disapproving of homosexuals, please provide surveys with sources for different countries, and we can include this data. Some of the statements made no sense previously, such as the claim of alienation because of the abuse of the term homophobia, then backed up with an unrelated rant about immorality in society. I have not checked the second half of the article, but Clutch seems to have concentrated on the first part, so that's probably OK. --Eloquence 10:55 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)


 * It was established that gay-bashing refers to both physical and verbal abuse, and can be fatal. This justified the movement of some content to gay-bashing.


 * Niclas Bergren replied to an email request for clarification and said that the second position in our article (anti-homosexuality usually but not always irrational) was closest to his current position.

''Psychoanalytic theory has long held that homophobia was the result of repressed homosexual desires. Recent research has shown that homophobic heterosexual men showed signs of sexual arousal from being shown images of homosexual sex, when a control group of non-homophobic heterosexual men did not.''

Perhaps "Recent Research" should be footnoted. -mhjb


 * I agree -- although this is referenced in the sexual arousal article, it should be cited here as well. --Eloquence 21:38 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)