Talk:Homophobia/Archive 8

The "God hates fags" image
Why is there a picture of a Westboro Baptist Church protest on this page? It is a fringe group of about 150 people and I think that whoever put it there is doing so just to try and mislead people who don't bother going to the article that this is how all Christians feel about and deal with homosexuals because they don't agree with it. --E tac 08:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that your issue then is with the caption, not the picture itself, please do no remove it. Perhaps you could propose a phrasing that would suitably emphasise the minority nature of the church. WjBscribe 09:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Posibly but I am tired of people associating this group with Christianity, I mean I could organize a group of 50 people and name ourselves the "wikipedians" and boldly clame that we are homophobic and take pictures of us holding up signs that say "wikipedia hates fags" and we could go around protesting soldiers funureals and have a website what not. Having a picture of us holding up a sign would be no more noteworthy then that photo of the westboro baptist church and I am sure real wikipedians wouldn't like the fact that we are getting publicity for it using thier name and then having people who don't know any better accuse you of the hatred displayed by a infinitley small minority using a name that you associate with.--E tac 10:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do sort of see your point. But they are an example of a group that can fairly uncontroversially be described as homophobic (which is pretty rare) and distribute photos of themselves waving those disgusting placards. I'm all for making it clear that they are a fringe group. But I think you're overreading the problem. Readers will not look at that picture and conclude that all Christians are homophobic, it is just an example of some religious people who are homophobic (and willing to broadcast this). So by all means work on the caption if you want to describe the group more, but I think such a blatant example of homophobia is important for illustrative purposes. WjBscribe 10:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this image does deserve some attention. Is it really the WBC and its members who are "Homophobic", or is it rather that they proclaim they believe "God" to be "Homophobic"? I am not sure that the free speech declaration of "GOD HATES FAGS" is so clearly defined as "Homophobic". Which part of the definition does WBC fall into?  Is it only the fact that they accuse someone of hatred that causes they themselves to rise to "Homophobia"?  Suppose a group of people, lets say for example, the NAACP where to have a person stand on a street corner with a colorful sign proclaiming "TIM HARDAWAY HATES FAGS".  Would that mean that the NAACP is Homophobic?  If so, why? --Br it com  14:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The caption now seems unnecessarily long, undescriptive and almost apologetic. May I suggest instead of the current wording, this:

"A protest by The Westboro Baptist Church, a minor religious group not affiliated with any known Baptist conventions or associations."


 * --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 04:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to that. --Br it com 10:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I object to the use of "a minor religious group not affiliated with any known Baptist conventions or associations." Why would this statement be added but to criticize that group. Why would that have to be pointed out. It's because the writer is biased against them and chooses to inject his/her own opinion. Once you inject your opinion in the article, it becomes a "commentary" and not what it's supposed to be; a neutral "news article", if you will. NoSnooz

I don't see what's insulting about being described as a small religious group. 150 people is not a massive religious movement. It's merely a statement of fact. It isn't someone's opinion that they aren't affiliated with any Baptist conventions; it's the truth, and I don't think that anyone reading that will be biased against the group. Phileosophian 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Lostinlodos 08:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the image suggests anything about Christianity, does it? Westboro has very clearly expressed their disinterest (more like abohoration) for any ideology outside of their own. That aside, it's just a prime example of the issue in question. 74.242.99.231 01:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New etymology proposal
I would like to rewrite the etymology section slightly to be a bit more clear. After carefully checking the Oxford Shorter English Dictionary (2002), this is what I came up with:


 * The word homophobia was rarely used early in the twentieth century to mean "fear or hatred of the male sex or humankind". In this use, the word derived from the Latin root homo (Latin, "'man") with the Greek ending -phobia ("fear").


 * In its more recent usage, dating from 1969, "homophobia" derives from the -phobia ending applied, not to the Latin root "homo", but to a shortening of homosexual. (Here, homo comes not from the Latin for "man", but from the Greek for "same"; see homosexual.) The word first appeared in print in the American Time magazine, 31st October edition.  It was used by clinical psychologist George Weinberg, who claims to have first thought of it while speaking at a homophile group in 1965, and was popularized by his book Society and the Healthy Homosexual in 1971. When asked about the meaning of the word in a 2002 interview, he said:


 * "Homophobia is just that: a phobia. A morbid and irrational dread which prompts irrational behavior flight or the desire to destroy the stimulus for the phobia and anything reminiscent of it."


 * A possible etymological precursor was homoerotophobia, coined by Wainwright Churchill in Homosexual Behavior Among Males in 1967.

I think this does a better job of clarifying the roots of the two versions of the word. Comments? bikeable (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of anything that replaces speculation with documented, historical accounts. Why have folk etymology, when we can actually know the who and when? --Uncle Ed 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to say that a lot of people here who seem to have biases against gay rights are hiding behind the NPOV standard, running with the idea that any recognition that there has been a shift in concept regarding the word homophobia (from "fear of the same sex" to "general prejudice against LGBT people") is tantamount to "signing onto the gay agenda" (a laughable concept in its own right). I would also like to remind people that, while many people are opposed to homosexuality for sincere religious reasons, this does not automatically render their opinions valid or closed to debate.  The Bible has been used to justify racism (Children of Ham), slavery ("slaves, submit to your master" in the Letters of Paul), and the subjugation of women (basically the entire Garden of Eden story in Genesis).  I'm not saying that this article should be a complete affirmation of all things LGBT (although, no doubt, I will be accused of doing just that); just that we shouldn't equate acknowledging that there are valid arguments in favour of seeing opposition to homosexualtiy as irrational to an NPOV violation, nor should we treat "religious beliefs" as sacrosanct (pun intended).  In fact, it's harmful, as it attempts to squelch any and all debate on the subject (and yes, I would say the same thing about treating the LGBT rights movement as sacrosanct). 192.245.194.253 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Bible does not justify slavery, but recognizes it existed - it told both slaves and their owners that they serve Christ, not one of them the other, and in so doing, commands them to love one another (and therefore rules out mistreatment by the owner, dishonesty by the slave), and makes the owner responsible for the well-being of the slave; the Bible tells women to honour their husbands, and tells husbands to honour their wives and present them holy before God, hardly a licence of abuse. Christ and His apostles reformed people's attitudes in a system of social values which would have legally afforded them the right to abuse those under their authority. And Christians fought hard, particularly in the 19th century, to abolish slavery and finally achieved it. I wonder - if Christian slave-owners had freed their slaves, would others have re-enslaved them and treated them with abuse? GBC 05:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, arguing that a person who is affiliated with the gay-rights movement is not a valid source for a book on homophobia is sort of like arguing that Malcolm X is not a valid source for a book on racism. I'm assuming you would make the same point if Pat Robertson were writing about homophobia? ;) 192.245.194.253 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Seeing no dissention, I made the proposed change to the Etymology section. bikeable (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Overly broad definition
When attempting to clarify the definition of what is and is not Homophobia, let us keep in mind that the related term of Homosexuality is not (as some seem to believe) an intrinsic human trait, but is rather a human activity (or conduct) which is definable as engaging in like-gender copulation. Human traits like color or gender are intrinsic to the person and are always present; human activity (or conduct) is not intrinsic, and is subject to regulation by the laws and statutes enacted by legislative bodies, and rules and regulations and policies enacted by private organizations.

A person or group being in opposition to a specific human activity for moral or intellectual reasons is a democratic tradition. For example gambling is a human activity (or conduct) that is prohibited by statute in many jurisdictions, consuming alcohol is another, and engaging in prostitution is another. The reason that these activities are prohibited in some jurisdictions is because local legislative bodies have deemed them to be destructive to society or to individuals, or both. Individuals or groups who oppose these activities on rational grounds are not popularly dismissed with labels like "Alcophobic", "Gameophobic" or "Prostituophobic". Such persons are merely seen as being in opposition to the activities they consider to be vice and at odds with the standards of society.

Conversely if groups or individuals voice opposition to humans with intrinsic traits such as color or gender, then of course, we understand that such opposition is tantamount to bigotry and illegal discrimination. Therefore, when we look at Homophobia in this light, it becomes clear that individuals or groups who are Anti-homosexual are not Homophobic, but rather are rationally opposed to an activity (or conduct) that they consider to be self-destructive, a vice, and/or at odds with the standards of society.

Even if one does not agree with such a person's reasoning process, one must still understand and accept that each person has a right to their own opinion and their own vote and each jurisdiction has a right to pass legislation that regulates conduct within the scope of the Constitution. If we accept this, then I think we must also accept that “rational opposition to Homosexuality” is not synonymous with “an irrational fear of Homosexuals” and is nearly opposite to its meaning. It is therefore my conclusion that “rational opposition to Homosexuality” cannot be the same as, and should be defined separately and apart from, Homophobia (as the word is currently understood).

If there is disagreement with this logic please supply any logic that supports your alternative reasoning.--Br it com 13:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're characterization of homosexuality as merely a behavior as well as gender as something 'intrinsic' are both about 20 years obsolete. (as is your reference to 'color' as if 'color' were the only thing that determines race (which is also a construction and not intrinsic, btw)) Without that, this entire tirade really doesn't hold any weight. CaveatLectorTalk 16:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * An interesting reply.


 * When I wrote "color" above, I did actually mean "color" as the example, not "race" which I agree, the concept of "race" is psychological, not physical. The idea of "race" tries to narrow ethnicity into neatly compartmentalized categories mainly using skin color as a flag for identifying a person’s race. As we know this is not a reliable system since (for example) many African Americans are lighter in skin color than some people from India or Indonesia. Hence we arrive at the problem of some Nigerians and Indians, and New Guineans being the same color, but not the same "race". Likewise some Europeans are the same color as some Orientals and some Aboriginal Americans, but again they are not seen as being of the same "race".


 * Gender is a concept similar to polarization. A charge is described as either (+) or (-) or (neutral), an electrical connector is either male or female or dual, an equine is either male or female or neuter. I am not aware of any recent change in the definition of gender with regard to human beings. I am aware of people having surgery to change their gender, but I don't see how that affects the overall concept of gender as a way to categorize things, including humans. It seems to me that gender is a physical characteristic or state that can be changed, just like a wire connector can be changed to a different gender.


 * The word Homosexuality is basically a label for an activity. For example, if one compares two male cadavers, one cannot tell by physical examination if the person was homosexual, heterosexual, or celibate in life with any degree of certainty. One must look back to the person’s history to see if the person engaged in homosexual activity, or professed to, or was reputed to; otherwise we cannot discover what sort of sexual category the person had fit into. Therefore homosexuality cannot be shown to be an intrinsic physical state. However, one can easily determine gender by physical examination with a high degree of certainty, and one can determine color with a high degree of certainty. As far as I am aware, human anatomy has not changed in the last 20 years, so I maintain that my assertion that homosexuality is as you put it, a “behavior”.


 * What I think has changed in the last 20 years is that homosexuality has become overly politicized and this has lead to all sorts of obfuscation and dishonesty in the public discourse and in the media relating to how we handle the subject as a matter of public policy. This began I think with the public relations push by some lobbying groups to promote homosexuality as worthy of having protected political minority status on par with religion and race. In fact it is interesting to note that the two groups that are the most similar in the debate of protected status are also the two who are the most at odds, namely Homosexuality and Religion. Both are not intrinsic, but both profess an ideal life-style choice and both consider themselves to be an oppressed minority. In fact, one may even be able to make the case that Homosexuality is itself a non-theistic religion with a membership, a culture, a creed, a recruiting and indoctrination system, a support network, and even a sexual form of worship and idolization of the genitalia. Strangely enough, one may even be able to make the case that Homosexuality may already be protected under the religion clause of the U.S. Constitution were it's adherents to organize their practice as a religious ritual rather than a life-style. There are many cases in history of homosexual activities being used as rites practiced by ancient cults.


 * Since Homophobia has homosexuality at its root, I think it is important for us to fully understand the deeper meaning and in some cases the hysteria surrounding both words and their applications in modern society, and the path that we took to arrive at the meanings that we now have, and how we ultimately ended up where we are rather than where we might have been in a logical sense.--Br it com 06:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to respond to your post, which still suffers from the same problems as your last one, in full, other than to say you should probably take time to research the difference between a person's sex and their gender (you seem to be confusing the two). Also, you might want to look up the voluminous recent scholarship mediating upon homosexuality as identity rather than as behavior or pathology.  Start with Foucault's History of Sexuality, Volume I and go from there. CaveatLectorTalk 00:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I got that. And once again, I encourage you to read Foucault's History of Sexuality as half the book is dedicated to the creation and use of the word 'homosexual' since it sprang forth in the 19th century. CaveatLectorTalk 20:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Self-identified homophobe
I haven't really been keeping up with the discussion. However, I thought this news story was significant in the context of the lengthy recent debate over whether "homophobic" is always used as a pejorative slur rather than a self-identifier. Basketball player Tim Hardaway says he is one:


 * "Yeah, I'm homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world for that or in the United States for that. So, yeah, I don't like it."

Dan B † Dan D 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Homophobia?
Why has phobia been redefined to mean disapproval, opposition or hatred for...? I think this is a prime example of the use the english language as a weapon to enact change in society and ostracize people who hold their own beliefs. Just as some would want to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder there are others who seek the same for homophobia. It seems like a revenge ploy rather than an effort to be equal. I think Homophobia should be defined strictly as a fear of homosexuals, not a dislike or disapproval. Redefining a word doesn't change the opinions people will hold. Personally, I believe that ALL people should be able to speak freely and hold any belief they choose. --71.192.88.79 12:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Been redefined"? Who defines words in English?  Since we do not have the equivalent of the Academie Francaise, words in English are defined by usage.  Homophobia is used to mean... well, read the article.  We have no hope of "redefining" it to mean something else, even if that were wikipedia's role.   bikeable (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, User:71.192.88.79, you seem to have uncovered academia's penchant for revision of history through the process of revision of the definitions of words used in history. With respect to "usage", It is clear that academics seem to think they have clairvoyant access into the minds of "most people" when they refer to them doing, thinking, or saying something. I suspect what they really mean by "most people" is their own minuscule circle of elite holier-than-thou intelligencia rather than the great unwashed masses of work-a-day humanity who may only be addressed in the street whilst covering one's delicate nose with a lace embroidered handkerchief. --Br it com  17:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you need to reread WP:CIVIL?  bikeable (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ya rly :) Joie de Vivre 22:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Were either of you personally offended by my candid observation; or were you merely concerned that someone else might be offended by my reply to User:71.192.88.79? --Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 14:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was indeed. Did you not mean to call me elite holier-than-thou intelligencia [sic], not to mention insulting my choice of handkerchief?  I would also point out that the goal of lexicography is precisely to attempt to get access into the minds of "most people" when they refer to them ... saying something.   bikeable (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Surly you have not taken my observation to be an offense against your person. If I am incorrect in this assertion, then I must beg your pardon, for most assuredly my comments were descriptive of one who finds the general public to be beneath his intellect or who feels that those who have a less prestigious education must (by definition) be lesser beings of brute mentality. Obviously no one could find reason to associate you with such an unsavory and ill mannered bête noire.  A fair and decent person of magnanimous and humble character has been my assessment during our modest acquaintance and I trust that no other would beg to differ. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  21:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then what intrinsic value does any word have? Maybe your misinterpreting speech that you feel is homophobic. Maybe your exaggerating the actual concensus on homophobia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.88.79 (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

My understanding of the definition of "homophobia" (especially when used "against" someone) is that it is a reaction to the persons own fears of the possibilty that they themselves could harbor some homosexual tendencies. That is what makes it a "fear" rather than mearly disapproval of the behavior of others. The theory being that the nessesity to act out violently toward anyone percieved as 'weak' is a fear of one's own weakness or fear of being percieved as weak by others. The more anger that a person has toward homosexuals, the more fear they have that that undersirable (to them) quality is w/ in them. I have ALWAYS understood homophobia to be more complex than simply "fear or dislike of homosexuals and/or homosexuality."


 * 71.192.88.79, I'm not exactly clear on what you're arguing. I tend to agree with you that "all people should be able to speak freely and hold any belief they choose."  But what does this have to do with people who are afraid of homosexuals?  Are you claiming that fear is a belief?  Definining homophobia as one's disapproval and/or dislike for gay folks is, you say, "a prime example of the use the english language as a weapon to enact change in society and ostracize people who hold their own beliefs."  I don't get it.  You seem to be defending those who fear homosexuals, by arguing that they shouldn't be lumped in the same category with people who hate them.  Okay, I agree that hate and fear are two very different sensations.  In fact hate seems to me more like a choice (people generally can choose not to hate, say, lesbians; but I know for a fact I cannot choose to stop being afraid of dentists).  What I don't understand about your complaint is how you come to see people who fear homosexuals as being "ostracized for their beliefs"?  Fear is an impulse--it is not a "belief." M. Frederick 04:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should clarify here that many honest and reasonable people oppose homosexual conduct because they believe it to be a vice. Many other people hold the view that Homophobia describes such oppositional people.  This way of defining Homophobia makes it rationally at odds with the historic right of people to oppose, limit, and regulate conduct that they consider to be vice. That means that these same people see those who want to endorse, accept, or legalize homosexual activity as undermining the principals of their nation's traditional, cultural, or religious freedoms. In other words, they see the spread of homosexuality in culture and society as a threat to that same culture and society that they wish to preserve. Part of that culture includes freedom to practice one's religion as one sees fit without interference from the government. One of the core principals of religion is the teaching that certain forms of conduct are bad and others are good. Without the protected freedom to teach these principals in an open and public discussion, then there exists no freedom of religion in a society --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  06:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As homosexuality is a normal aspect of human sexual orientation, it is impossible to "oppose, limit, and regulate" it: humans will normally and naturally have a sexual orientation which may be hetero, gay, or bisexual. The belief that a normal human sexual orientation is a "vice" can sometimes be attributed to ignorance of what constitutes normality in human sexual feelings, but can also be attributed to "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" - homophobia. That some religious sects mandate discrimination against "homosexuality or homosexuals" as part of their faith does not make this mandate less homophobic. This has, as I recall, been discussed at length on previous archived versions of the Talk pages, and I suggest you read those before raising topics for discussion that have already been thoroughly gone into. Yonmei 15:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article for "Vice" reads: "Some vices recognized in various Western cultures of the world include: (among other things)...Homosexuality". I might also add that many non-western cultures consider Homosexual activity a capital crime. It seems clear to me that those who believe that homosexual activity is popularly accepted as "normal" or "natural" have a tough case to prove when one looks at how many laws have been written prohibiting it's practice. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 10:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Homosexuality is both normal and natural in human beings and other animals: that is an accepted scientific fact, and not a topic for discussion on Homophobia. This has all been discussed at length on past Talk pages: please read the past discussions on Talk:Homophobia on this issue, and re-open the discussion only if you feel you have something new to contribute. Yonmei 11:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The assertion that "Homosexuality is both normal and natural in human beings and other animals: that is an accepted scientific fact..." is spurious at best. Science does not define what is "normal" it only identifies the existence or non-existence of things. Animals do all sorts of shocking, revolting, and unhealthy things. Observations of animal behavior provides us with no indicator of virtuous behavior in humans; on the contrary, animal behavior has historically been seen as detestable and uncivilized when practiced by human beings.--<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  06:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hardaway
Is that controversy important enough to be in the see also section? If we included comments from everyone who makes homophobic remarks we've have a see also section that had hundreds of names on it. The only argument that supports keeping it is that Hardaway self-identified as "homophobic" but even that is not a strong reason to include him here. JoshuaZ 04:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it isn't but wanted to see what others thought, thus I reverted myself. --Kukini 04:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the definition itself
A phobia had always meant, and has never meant anything other than, "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation."~Merriam-Webster. In every case of a "phobia," irrationality is at its base. To remove that element is to disqualify it as a phobia in and of itself.

If this Free Encyclopedia is to retain its respectability and reputation, it's important to avoid and guard against "political agenda" in providing what is supposed to be useful, truthful, and factual information.

Please note the entry under the subheading Coinage. The gentleman who coined the term in the early 1970's defined it in 2002 as "just that: a phobia. A morbid and irrational dread which prompts irrational behavior flight or the desire to destroy the stimulus for the phobia and anything reminiscent of it." (see George Weinberg: Love is Conspiratorial, Deviant & Magical - http://www.pflagdetroit.org/george_weinberg.htm)

The proponents for homosexuality and the rights thereof have stripped what they need from the definition in order to broaden the scope of its usage. Doing so has served the express purpose of enabling them to apply the term - with all possible negative stigma - to anyone who disagrees with them or opposes their efforts.

My correction was not political, but accurate. Homophobia, like any phobia, requires that element of irrationality to be part of its definition. To not include it, is to allow the actual definition to become distorted and twisted. If Wikipedia is meant to be merely a Liberal or Secular-Progressive sounding board (as I genuinely hope is not the case), then, by all means, leave it be. However, my corrections are wholly accurate, clear, and undistorted.

Merriam-Webster (an unquestioned authority) defines homophobia as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." Following proper grammar usage, "irrational" applies to all three elements of the definition. Note the pattern of NOUN-PREPOSITION usage. "Irrational" stands alone as the adjective. If it were to be solely applied to the word "fear," they would have worded it as "aversion to, discrimination of, or irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals" - or some similar variation in the interest of clarity.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals."

Encarta defines it as "irrational hatred of homosexuality: an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, or their culture."

I'm quite sure that if you were to consult the Cambridge Dictionary of the English Language, you will find it to include "irrational," as well.

Over the last several months, I have grown to respect this site as a useful and respectable wealth of information. This issue is causing that stance to come into question. At least you have had the wisdom to note the dispute of this definition, at the top of the page.

In the interest of accuracy, politics notwithstanding, I urge you make the correction.

In addition, note my alteration of the following portion:

"It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to insinuate bigotry.[2] The term homophobic means "prejudiced against homosexual people,"[3] and a person who is homophobic is a homophobe."

My alteration is as follows: [MY CHANGES ARE IN PARENTHESES]

(Proponents for the acceptance of homosexuality have redefined the term to mean any) hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, (in order to broaden the scope of its usage, regardless of any rational, objective, or thoughtful objection,) and is generally used to insinuate bigotry.[2] The term homophobic (is only defined as) "prejudiced against homosexual people," (in dictionaries of greatly abbreviated format)[3] and a person who is homophobic is a homophobe.

The changes I have made are in fact truthful. Those who serve as proponents for the acceptance of homosexuality are in fact responsible for this ambiguity in the definition. Please note the source which is sited - www.thefreedictionary.com. This site is more like an online "pocket" dictionary than anything else. It is not an authoritative or established source.

The disclaimer at the bottom of the web site's home page affirms this fact:

"All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional."

Please note the part which clearly states that "This information should not be considered complete..."

From Merriam-Webster's own site: "The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is based on the print version of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition."

Oxford's online dictionary (www.askoxford.com/dictionaries/), which is the "Compact" edition, retains the fundamental elements of the definition, a well.

I'm writing you neither as a proponent for nor an opponent of the acceptance of homosexuality, homosexuals, or their rights. I am merely concerned with the accuracy of the definition as presented. I am taking the time to address this issue, not for the benefit of any personal political agenda, but rather for the maintenance and safeguarding of Wikipedia's reputation and effort towards accuracy, and with the site's best interests at heart.

I only hope my efforts here do not prove to be in vain.

Be informed that the only reason I discovered this error was due to its having been quoted in a MySpace blog which I happened to have been reading.

The definitions which I referenced can be found by following these links:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/homophobia http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dev_dict&field-12668446=homophobia&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/homophobia.html

Cambridge's online dictionary is accessible by subscription only.

Best Regards--HngKngPhooey 08:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We shouldn't concern ourselves with the definition of words as they are in one dictionary or another.  The fact of the matter is that the term 'Homophobia' as used today refers to a prejudice, dislike, or hatred towards homosexual people.  That is what the Wiki should report.  The changes you have proposed use WP:Weasel words in order to case 'proponents of homosexuality' (whatever THAT means) in a clandestine light, as if the word has somehow been forcefully taken over to serve a political end.  Please read the voluminous past discussions surrounding this section of the article, and how the consensus was arrived at. CaveatLectorTalk 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Seconded per CaveatLector. To the original commenter, this may not interest you, but I would like to point out that editors will be more likely to read and respond to your concerns if you present them as succinctly as possible.  Personally, I found your concerns to be described so thoroughly as to tax the limits of my attention and interest.  Joie de Vivre 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually we should concern ourselves with the definition of a word, if an article is at odds with the the most respected sources for that definition. After all, we don't want Wikipedia to proffer an implied definition that may be misleading in any way, especially in a soapbox sort of way. HngKngPhooey's points are well taken. Some of them definitely should be adopted here for clarity in the article's balance. This article's undertones and overly broad inclusion of those who disapprove of homosexuality for rational reasons is a form of neologism as clearly outlined above. In fact some may remember when I wrote an article on the use of the term Anti-homosexualism which correctly addresses the disapproval sense used in this article. Anti-homosexualism was deleted and redirected to the Homophobia article after much argument about the term. That argument can be found here. In fact, I am quite open to the idea of splitting the Homophobia article in order to more accurately address these recurring objections to Homophobia including the rational disapproval sense that it now has which may be unsupported in proper English usage according the above mentioned sources. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the definition itself 2
After having read the information above, as well as, information regarding qualified submissions, I feel compelled to note that my statement that the definition of the word "homophobia" has been stripped of its inclusion of the term "irrational" by those who merely wish to broaden its scope, may be considered unqualified as OPINION/BIAS or Original Research.

Allow me please to now address these issues.

Personal Bias/Opinion and Original Research: My rephrasing of this section of the presented definition does not come from a biased or opinionated position. However, it may be considered "Original Research."
 * 1) My Uncle is a homosexual. I have known this all my life.  I love him dearly and have never judged him on the basis of his homosexuality.


 * 2) I have had friends in the past who are homosexual, even bi-sexual. I have never held any opinions of them - negative or otherwise - on the basis of their sexuality.  I remain neutral on the issue as a whole.


 * 3) I have met numerous "homophobes" and know a number of them personally. A former roommate of mine (several years ago) was a homophobe and readily admitted this.  He has an irrational fear of, aversion to, and dislike of homosexuals and homosexuality. Frankly speaking, it "freaked (him) out." (his words)  My son is a homophobe and readily admits this fact.  He, as well, has an irrational fear, aversion to, and dislike of homosexuals and homosexuality.  He understands this about himself and accepts this.


 * 4) From more than 20 years of having witnessed (first-hand) the use of the term homophobe and homophobia, it is impossible to ignore that only those who are supportive of and proponents for the acceptance of homosexuals and homosexuality, have used the term to describe any and all persons who object to or argue against their cause.

Conscientious objectors recognize the irrationality of actual "homophobia," which is why they object to being labeled with such a term. They are fully aware of the stigma of fear and irrationality that the term implies, and know that it is the very basis for which their opinions and arguments are systematically disregarded out-of-hand. Those who use this term to describe them are aware of this stigma, as well. It's the reason they use it.

In every, and I mean every, instance where this term is been applied to an individual, that person's opinion is, without exception, disregarded and they are dismissed as unqualified or incapable of posing any argument worth considering. Under these circumstances, this term is always said with an unmistakable tone of contempt, condescension, and/or dismissal. "You're just a homophobe" is the most common. The use of the word "just" is notable.

In American English usage, any statement which begins "You're just a..." is meant to insinuate contempt for the person to which to statement is directed, a projected negativity based on the term following that opening, the rejection of that person as an equal or adequate participant in debate, discussion, or activity, or a combination of these elements. It is even used in the reverse by those who wish to exempt themselves from consideration or responsibility for any number of issues. In many cases these statements are followed by some brief statement or question in support of the charge being made.

Examples:


 * "You're just a child. You can't know what's best for you."
 * "You're just a general practitioner. You're not an expert."
 * "You're just a therapist. You're not qualified to make psychiatric evaluations of that nature."
 * "You're just an MD. What do you know about the intricacies of intestinal disorders?"
 * "You're just an accountant. What do you know about managing an entire department?"
 * "You're just an employee. What to you know about running a company?
 * "You're just a kid. What do you know?"
 * "You're just a jerk."
 * "You're just a bigot."
 * "You're just a racist."
 * "You're just a homophobe."

Note the increased negativity or contempt communicated based on the brevity of a supporting statement and how the more negative, severe, or contemptuous the charge, there is generally an absence of any supporting statement or question.

A few examples in the reverse:


 * "I'm just an analyst. I'm not qualified to make that kind of decision."
 * "I'm just an employee. I was only doing as I was told."
 * "I'm just an editor. I don't judge content."
 * "I'm just a teacher. I can't MAKE them learn.  I can only present the information."
 * "I'm just a doctor. I'm not God."
 * "I'm just a parent. I can't live their lives for them."


 * 5) Whilst all this is "true," and whilst that which I explained in 3) and 4) are facts, they will not be found in any specific publication which can be cited. This is not the sort of information that one finds in material published by reliable or authoritative sources.

As a result, it is my humble suggestion that the ambiguous, unclear and misleading portion of the posted definition should be eliminated in its entirety. The following is a more concise, clear, and strictly qualifying definition:

Homophobia is the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.[1] This condition can manifest itself in the form of hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures. The word homophobic is the adjective form of this word. And, a person who is homophobic is a homophobe. Both terms are generally used to insinuate bigotry.[2]

The word homophobic, when used to label someone as prejudiced against homosexual people, can be a pejorative term, and the identification of a group or person as homophobic is nearly always contested.

Modified References 1. Merriam-Webster (embedded link: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/homophobia) 2. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary 2006 and 11th Collegiate Dictionary, 2005, American Heritage Dictionary. NOTE: Reference 3 should be eliminated, and the list numbering updated to reflect the change.

Again, allow me to stress the importance of granting the coiner of the term due respect by refraining from adulterating the definition of the very word he coined.

As for the person above who thinks that "Homophobia isn't really a phobia," I say the following: Coin a different term for it which does not contain the root word "-phobia." Quit trying to redefine terms to suit your personal opinion or agenda.

As for the response from Britcom, who made the point that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, my response is this: You are right. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, when someone submits a page regarding a "term," it is (from all indication) customary to begin the page with the "definition" of the term followed by further information regarding that term. In almost every instance where a page addressing a "term" has been included in this encyclopedia, it begins with a definition of that term.

My issues with this page are and have been solely with the citing of the definition itself. I have in no way asserted a dispute regarding the information cited thereafter.

Say what you will about the term homophobia throughout the remainder of the topic page. However, when citing a definition, it should be as accurate and as clear as possible, as well as, devoid of political perspective or opinion. To allow it to stand as it is, would be to neglect some of the most basic principles which govern this site (yes, I read them).

Best Regards to All --HngKngPhooey 19:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: Actually it was CaveatLector who stated: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary".--<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the definition cited in the article should be a direct quote from an authoritative source and not one embellished with new senses. I also agree the 3rd sense should be dropped from the article.  I would recommend that the third sense be placed back in a separate Anti-homosexualism article. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Britcom. I stand corrected.  It was indeed CaveatLector who said that.  Somehow I missed it.  Again, thanks.--HngKngPhooey 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * HngKngPhooey, your comments are dominating the talk page. I think they are far too long.  Joie de Vivre 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitions cited from dictionaries
From the definition in the article, two of the dictionary definitions cited include the key point that homophobia is irrational and unreasonable. Leaving this information out is tantamount to dishonesty. Please keep these key parts of the definitions in the article text or do not cite the dictionary definitions. Jinxmchue 18:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like a valid point to me. Post the dictionary citation(s) here for comparison to what is cited in the article.--<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 20:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Two of the definitions at the first citation don't indicate irrationality. Wouldn't it be just as fallacious to only express the view that it is irrational? Shouldn't both views be reflected?--ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 05:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The first reference:
 * http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia
 * unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality
 * The second reference:
 * http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/homophobia
 * irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
 * Need I point out that "unreasoning" and "irrational" are synonyms?
 * Anyway, the point is that if the article is defining the term using dictionaries as references, then the full definitions from those sources should be used. You can certainly include both views, but the two sources above don't include both views. They should be used "as-is" without picking and choosing which parts you happen to prefer based on your POV. Jinxmchue 16:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * reset to left margin

The first reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia Has four definitions. Go look again. Two support the irrational idea, which I am not arguing, but two, simply do not. If unreasoning and irrational are synonymous then why did you put both into the same sentence after the other in one of your edits?

"Homophobia is the unreasoning or irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."

None of the FOUR definitions on the citation page say 'unreasoning or irrational.' They are either synonymous or their not. Choose.

The second reference a definition from Mirriam-Webster is already included in the first citation and is unnecessarily repetitious, even on the main page. It doesn't reinforce the argument/view to repeat the same information as different citations.

Please assume good faith. I am not picking and choosing to support a POV, so don't speak to my mind. I personally do believe homophobia is irrational but wikipedia is not here to reflect my POV. Don't make assumptions about other people, who may in fact only be trying to serve the greater good, just because they don't agree with your edits.--ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 17:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also believe that discrimination and prejudice against gay people is irrational; however, like ParAmmon, I'm not letting that reflect my actions in the article. Please read the talk archives like I said and see the debate that went on for months on this subject before any sort of consensus was reached. CaveatLectorTalk 18:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ParAmmon, it's hard to assume good faith in some of these articles because there is a pretty active LGBT advocacy here at Wikipedia that is entitled to define the Wikipedia NPOV as the LGBT "N"POV. it's quite politically correct here, even when the reality outside is less politically correct. r b-j 02:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if you have difficulty assuming good faith, it's a good indication that your POV is interfering with your objectivity, and it may be time to seek other articles to edit, or perhaps even a full-fledged WP:Wikibreak? I know that's what I have to do when I reach such a state--and it has happened to me. :D Justin Eiler 02:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * no it's not my POV. it's the POV of the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and so on.  i assume good faith but assumptions happen at the beginning.  it's foolish to continue to assume good faith when nothing of naked POV pushing from LGBT advocates gets so much preferred treatment.  good faith (what is assumed to start with) is not the same as sense of entitlement (what is concluded after much battle-scarring). r b-j 02:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(Reset to margin)

Rbj, you have gone from discussing the issues to discussing the editors--and in some fairly negative terms. Is that truly the course you wish to pursue? Justin Eiler 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * r b-j it's not the POV of every source, even at the first citation and that was my point. The issue of irrationality is divided, at best. As CaveatLectorTalk said above, this issue has been discussed previoulsy and a consensus reached. Please look at the archives. I would also caution you not to assume bad faith on anyone's part, no matter your frustration. You will find that all LGBT people rarely hold the same opinion on anything.--ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 02:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * if you haven't noticed, i'm in those archives. i know what's in them. r b-j 04:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I noticed. Read through them, thanks. Looked like fun! NOT. :-) I did notice that this is the same argument, using the same citation from the same resource and ignoring the other definitions and resources. Quoting only others that agree with M-W, ignoring any that don't. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 06:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Let us keep in mind here what I think is an excellent observation that HngKngPhooey made above: "Quote: Merriam-Webster (an unquestioned authority) defines homophobia as an 'irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.' Following proper grammar usage, 'irrational' applies to all three elements of the definition. Note the pattern of NOUN-PREPOSITION usage.  'Irrational' stands alone as the adjective."

In other words, s/he is saying above that the MW definition should be understood to mean that Homophobia is: an irrational fear of, or an irrational aversion to, or irrational discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. I think some may have missed that point. I agree that MW is saying that ALL THREE are qualified by the word "irrational". Also in other words, MW seems to imply that a rational or reasoned fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals is NOT defined as Homophobia, leading us to the conclusion that there must be another term for such reasonable senses. If that is what the definition means, then the article should not be written in a way that conflicts with that meaning, to do so would be misleading. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 06:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, those are excellent points. My POV is that homophobia is irrational. I'm just not onboard with MW being the last word in the definition here. There are two other resources cited at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia the first reference on the page, that don't mention irrationality. Those are American Heritage Dictionary and WorldNet. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 06:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Britcom, the MW definition does not imply that any reasonable or rational fear, aversion, or discrimination against homosexuals exists any more than the definition for agoraphobia implies that there is a 'rational' version of that as well. You are accepting a priori that there is somehow a 'rational' reason to discriminate against gay people, and that this is somehow different than homophobia as it is used in colloquial and academic parlance.  Sorry, but this is simply your own POV manifesting itself.  Now, as I have said, I do consider discrimination against gay people to be irrational and unreasoning.  The Oxford English Dictionary (which is, BTW, the source-able dictionary of the English language if there is one) simply defines homosexuality as the 'Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality'. And, moreover, HngKngPhoey is incorrect when he says that 'irrational' MUST apply to all three nouns in this definition.  In fact, its far more likely that the word 'irrational' here applies to 'fear'. CaveatLectorTalk 20:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I disagree (on many levels) with what CaveatLector has said. S/he has thrown down the proverbial gauntlet again. (Academics often wrongly believe that they are the custodians of public opinion simply by virtue of their having received a sheepskin from some extortionate institution of thinkology and so they become cross and short when a member of the public at large is not sufficiently cowed by their utterance of Latin phrases, and proceeds to reject one of their sacred institutional doctrines.) So to be fair, let us now for the moment accept CaveatLector's opinion that OED is "the" dictionary of the English language, but wait... there seems to be a discrepancy in the above quote from the OED. CaveatLector stated above that the OED;
 * "defines homosexuality as the 'Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality'" .
 * But the link above  quotes the OED as defining Homophobia as:
 * "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals." (emphasis added)
 * How can this be?--<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 04:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * While I do not have the OED itself, to cross check, the discrepancy MAY be that the link you have is to the related but far less authoritative* Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, not the "true" OED. Or perhaps it is that the Compact you linked to was last updated four years ago, whereas the true OED has been updated more recently (or maybe even less). Just a guess though that I can't confirm, but they aren't the same dictionary. (*as a strict descriptivist, 'authoritative' only goes so far in my book. Of course, its rather moot, as how can bigotry ever NOT be "irrational"? Not a big jump to "I sure disapprove of blacks, but it's a 'rational' hatred, so don't call me a racist." ) --John Kenneth Fisher 04:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the current definition of the word "Racist". I would however see a problem if the PC police suddenly decided that Ku Klux Klansman were in fact not racists, but were instead suffering from a newly recognized mental illness diagnosed as "Negrophobia". (The "emperors" of Political correctness have no clothes, and the English language is not their pretzel.) --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  07:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Being "black" is a physical trait. Homosexuality is an activity. A person cannot engage in "blackness". I suppose you would also consider opposition to Christian children praying in public school in the US to be a form of "bigotry" as well?. And what about opposition to prostitution and gambling, is that also "bigotry" aimed at prostitutes and gamblers? --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 16:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Britcom's personal attacks (see WP:CIVIL) against academia and academics (whose years and in some cases decades of training are here chalked up to 'sheepskin' and 'thinkology'), which border on sophomoric (at best) once again do not add anything to this discussion other than to unveil his own POV and how it is coloring his edits to this article.  Truthiness at its worst, I would say.  (You'll also note that my previous comment clearly throws into question the quotation of any dictionary as a 'source' for an encyclopedic article.) CaveatLectorTalk 05:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Academia is an institution with an agenda, it is not a person. Attempting to define that agenda in general terms is not a "personal attack". --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  15:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Tricky. The definition cited by Britcom above, an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals, is from the Compact Oxford English Dictionary.  The online OED, which is somewhat more authoritative, gives simply, Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality.  I question whether "unreasoning" should be in the first sentence.  I think a better approach may be to acknowledge that different sources give different definitions, and that whether "homophobia" includes those who (consider themselves to) have "reasoned" objections is highly dependent on usage.  bikeable (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if whether people (paraphrasing) "consider themselves to have reasoned objections" really means anything of value. I'm sure Bull Connor considered his views reasoned and reasonable, and we're dealing with the same situation here. In people's own heads they can justify the "logic" and "morality" of any number of prejudices against those who are (gulp) different. Look at how left-handed people were treated in years past to show just how silly it all gets in the name of "what God wants", and, really, it's not so different here. So I'd say, since people will swear it is "reasonable" til they die out, just drop the 'unreasoning' part. The racism article doesn't need us to emphasize "unreasonable" hatred of other races - that's not our job, and besides, it's obviously unreasonable from the context, just as it is here. --John Kenneth Fisher 23:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

anti-homosexualism
i came across this article through a redirect from "anti-homosexualism" clearly HomoPhobia and Anti-Homosexualism are not the same thing i am morally against homosexuality, but am so on reasonable and rational grounds. moral/logical disapproval does not classify as a phobia, which is an irrational fear.

a neutral article on anti-homosexualism would be a good addition to wikipedia, as all most all articles in the LBGT category present a one-sided and distorted view leaving no room for those who disapprove homosexuality and have something to add —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.53.88.129 (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC).


 * This, again, is similar to the argument made above this post about definitions, it's just semantics. The problem is there is no rational justification for being anti-homosexual (which makes being so homophobic) as to call the fear rational there would have to be some threat to yourself posed by homosexuals.  As there isn't, any argument of rationality goes out the window.  Using "morals" as a reasoned argument is inherently POV as morals vary greatly from culture to culture and even from individual to individual and don't imply logic at all.Capeo 20:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: "The problem is there is no rational justification for being anti-homosexual..." Use of the word "justification" above refers to the subject matter, and not the term. This is not a forum to debate the subject matter. We are editing an encyclopedia. Clearly history has shown that there have been people who have engaged in calculated political oppression of homosexuals for political reasons that have nothing to do with fear. The Nazis murdered many homosexuals simply for their eugenic Aryan political agenda of purifying the German "race". This kind of oppression is no different than anti-Semitism, and was done for the same reasons, to eliminate or intimidate political opposition to the Third Reich. Today we find this sort of oppression appalling, but it was a fact, and it was calculated and tactically effective.  This sort of phenomenon goes above and beyond the definition of Homophobia, but is correctly defined as Anti-homosexualism. The term "Homophobia" would not be coined for another twenty years. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And even more to the point of wikipedia, the phrase "anti-homosexualism" is simply not in common usage. We're not here to create or promote new terms.  bikeable (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's not be misleading here, Anti-homosexualism is not a new term and is documented to have been in written use long before the term Homophobia was coined. The neologism Homophobia has seen greater use in recent years mainly for political reasons, but that does not negate the existence of an older and more comprehensive term. I am starting to think that some people are suffering from "Anti-homosexualismophobia": An irrational fear or dread of the word Anti-homosexualism and those who continue to use it.--<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 14:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This term is not used in any everyday parlance. In fact, when googled this talk page comes up first and the rest is mostly forums.  As for hits on google: antihomosexuality 608, homophobia 4.2 million.  Antihomosexuality as a term has been usurped by homophobia.Capeo 20:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Google "Anti-homosexual" and you will get over 200,000 page listings. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 03:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And if you google "anti homosexual" you get 1,690,000. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 03:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Amazing to see Antisemitism intimated as being rational, but I digress. As others have agreed "anti-homosexualism" is simply not in common usage. Myself, I have no problem with listing "anti-homosexualism" in the article under the similar terms banner, as long as it's sourced. I have doubts that there are a lot of reliable sources to the notion that it's rational. The number one hit for it on a goggle search is <span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 's user page for it. The one reference that actually mentions the word "antihomosexualism" on said page, groups it with xenophobia, anti-Semitism, racism, rightist totalitarianism, and antiestablishmentism. I'm reasonably sure most of those aren't rational. It's also not on the Merriam-Webster dictionary site, which has been much cited on this talk page as a source. Not a good sign for the idea that it's an accepted term and not POV. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Rational" is a synonym of "Logical". The Nazis were perverted, inhuman, and criminal, however, they were at the same time cold, calculating, and logical.  If Hitler had finished developing nuclear power and the Atom bomb first, Nazi Germany may well have won the Second World War. They were not crazy or irrational, they were inherently evil. That is why they had to be stopped. The type of Anti-homosexualism and Anti-Semitism that the Nazis subscribed to was quite rational, most of us, of course, do not agree with their rationale, but it was effective in a very inhuman and "law of the jungle" sort of way.  We should not forget that, lest it raise its ugly head again someday while we are not looking.--<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  03:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I would disagree and say that the Germans found a way to rationalize their hatred of Jews. And the rulers of the Nazi party had a systemic way of dealing with, manipulating and capitalizing on the societal antipathy toward the Jews. There was a history of hatred and prejudice against the Jews throughout Europe long before the Nazi's came along, they just found a way to use it to their advantage, to rationalize it. But that doesn't make the base feelings (antisemitism) rational. The people that vandalized Jewish businesses and harassed Jews in the street were hardly behaving logically.--ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 04:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are those who are prone to believe that all (or substantially all) human decisions are made purely on the basis of emotion rather than intellect. I don't buy that argument.  The Germans are a very cerebral people. I doubt that they suddenly all succumbed to some form of mass hysteria. Such explanations are often used as a way to excuse actions (or inactions) after the fact. It is more likely that they knew exactly what they were doing, planned it, and carried it out rationally and dispassionately. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  13:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent)
 * I doubt they all succumbed to mass hysteria, but that doesn't mean that the people weren't manipulated. It's not all or nothing. All you have to do is research the news reels and see the fervor that attended Nazi rallies to see that the people were quite willing and ready to belong to a cause and act out in the name of that cause, enthusiastically. Germans may have a cultural propensity for organization but that does make them dispassionate. Neither does it make them incapable of acting irrationally. Germans are quite human. The Nazi's as a group showed quite the capability of being petty, brutal and mean. The fact that the leaders of the party carried on with a public veneer of reserve does not mean the German people had/have no emotion.--ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 15:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The German public at large must have been greatly influenced by the Nazi's propaganda, but the Nazi partisans who designed that propaganda are the ones who fall outside the definition of "homophobia". They were "Anti-Semitic and Anti-homosexual. Therefore they engaged in political "Anti-Semitism" and "Anti-homosexualism". --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  02:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions of rationality and irrationality aside, the term "homophobia" is widely used and deserves an entry on Wikipedia. The usage of the term should be, and is, based on the term's uses in reliable sources. The article also, rightly, contains discussion of notable criticism of the term. Whether "anti-homosexualism" deserves a Wikipedia page, and whether it is distinct from homophobia (as described by reliable sources) are irrelevant: the widespread term is "homophobia". If you wish to change English usage, try somewhere other than Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See my comment about Wikipedia's Neologism policy at "Homonasuea" below. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 06:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the point that "anti-homosexualism" is a term used much less widely than "homophobia". If you intend to use "anti-homosexualism" as a synonym for the concept described as "homophobia" in this article, the burden of proof is on you to show that it is more widely used in everyday discourse and/or academic literature than "homophobia".  Wikipedia's guidelines tell us to use common names for things, and even if "anti-homosexualism" is an older name, it is not a common one.


 * Alternatively, if "homophobia" and "anti-homosexualism" are distinct concepts, that doesn't directly affect this page, unless you can find reliable sources discussing the distinction between the two terms. If you wish to reopen the discussion on whether anti-homosexualism should be a different article than homophobia, the place to do that is WP:DRV.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I have two objections to the current existance of Homophobia here on Wikipedia. 1. that it is a Neologism and therefore not allowed on Wikipedia (regardless of it's current popular usage), and 2. that Anti-homosexualism is an older, more general, and more comprehensive term. Homophobia should redirect to it. Homophobia is controversial (some people consider it an epithet) and it fails to cover all of the subjects that a general term like Anti-homosexualism can. Add to that, that most every one can understand and agree on what Anti-homosexualism means, this talk page is proof that almost everyone doesn't agree on what Homophobia means. Yes, the term has recently become a popular "buzz" word among some segments of western society, but that in itself is not evidence that those same people agree on what it means.  That is why Wikipedia prohibits neologisms, because their definitions are nebulous and fleeting. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  07:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Er... "homophobia" was a neologism in the 1960s and early '70s. It is no longer a neologism, especially by the definition given in Neologisms ("words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities", emphasis added.)  Just because "anti-homosexualism" may be older does not make "homophobia" a neologism, or unclear in its meaning.  If "homophobia" were to be regarded as a neologism, and excluded from Wikipedia on those grounds, practically all computer terms would have to be excluded by the same logic. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In one sense (i.e. computer terms) your argument makes logical sense, but Wikipedia's policy does not reflect or at least does not make use of that logic, perhaps it should. On the other hand there is at least one, perhaps two, senses of the word Homophobia that are neologistic. The idea that "opposition" is a result of "fear", and the idea that "oppression" is caused by "fear". These two do not fit with "Homophobia" IMHO. They have other causes. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  07:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But, with all due respect, it's not your opinion — or mine — that matters. It's the opinion of reliable sources. And the article has provided reliable sources indicating that the term is used in these senses. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, you have pointed out an inherent weakness in Wikipedia policy. Who's opinion counts with regard to which sources are "reliable" and which are not? I don't agree that all of the quoted sources are "reliable". --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 03:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A consensus of interested editors makes that determination. If there are sources which you think are not reliable, point them out specifically and we can discuss them.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Homonasuea
It should not be called "Homophobia". Most "Straight" people don't fear homosexuals. It can be more appropriately viewed as "Homonausea". --Buffer599 23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not continue with this creation of neologisms for those uncomfortable with the current term. CaveatLectorTalk 03:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, lets go back to calling it Anti-homosexualism. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 12:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We've been over this. Homophobia is not the neologism. Your 'anti-homosexualism' is. CaveatLectorTalk 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Incivil comment and personal attack by removed, per WP:CIVIL and WP:RPA. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes we have been over this before, and I won that argument as I recall. I did so by showing several documented proofs of the word "Anti-homosexualism" in academic literature years before the word "Homophobia" is claimed to have been coined. So If Anti-homosexualism is a neologism (meaning a newly coined word), then Homophobia certainly is much more so. As we know, Neologisms are not allowed on Wikipedia according to policy. But there ya go. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  06:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it's not new. But since there are about four people on earth that use it, and everyone else is agreed on homophobia, the fact that it is older is somewhat irrelevant. Polio used be commonly called infantile paralysis, but guess where the article is located? And if I want information on modern automobile safety devises -- should I be looking up horseless carriage? So, fine, it's not a neologism. You "won that argument" if you like. It's still one hell of a stretch to suggest that an older, superseded term is the "correct" term. --John Kenneth Fisher 06:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that Anti-homosexualism is "superseded" by Homophobia, I maintain that Homophobia is too broadly defined here, and Anti-homosexualism is a suitably broader term that is available. Not including the term Anti-homosexualism because some people promote the PC value of the term Homophobia, limits our encyclopedic purpose and insults and excludes those who don't approve of the endorsement of PC propaganda (see Wikipedia is not a soapbox and neurality). --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  07:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But the definition given here is based on reliable sources (Merriam-Webster, OED, etc.). It's not soapboxing or "PC propaganda" to describe how the term is used, as long as we acknowledge that some people object to that usage.  As I said above, if you want to make a case for "anti-homosexualism" as a distinct, broader term, the place to do that is WP:DRV.  However, homophobia is a legitimate subject, backed up by numerous reliable sources, and the page ain't going anywhere. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * see what you get when you use the dictionary definitions? much more bullet-proof leads.  i feel vindicated for insisting on such in the edit war here a bit ago.  i wish the POV partisans at Marriage or at Intelligent design saw the same value in that. r b-j 00:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the senses used here are not used in some of those other sources. We endorse neologistic senses by placing them in the article where they may not exist elsewhere. I believe doing so amounts to promoting the current political propaganda of a certain agenda at the expense of the opposing agenda. Therefore neutrality is lost. Simply stating that there is opposition to a term's usage is not sufficient for neutrality if enough weight is not given to balance the non-neutral propaganda that exists in the article. We should be very cautious about what groups we "diagnose" here within this article. If we aren't, ironically, we could be guilty of endorsing or promoting the political oppression of those groups in a form of reverse-discrimination. People with religious convictions have just as many rights to not be oppressed as GLBT people do. In fact some people even argue that GLBT is itself a non-theistic religion and that friction between them and other religions is a doctrinal dispute that society should not be in the business of choosing sides on, or pitting one side against the other on. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  08:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is being left-handed a religion? Is being black a religion? (If these people are this confused on the meaning of common words like 'religion', no wonder they have trouble grasping that common usage of 'homophobia' has long ago evolved beyond what its component parts meant in the original languages.) --John Kenneth Fisher 13:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge there has never been any credible scientific evidence that Homosexuality is a genetic trait, disorder, or dysfunction. Left-handedness, "blackness", and sex are proven to be inherited genetic traits. I don't see the correlation with homosexuality. I do see some evidence for a hypothesis that GLBT is a hedonistic cult practice similar to the sexual practices of other cults in history. In this case the common factors for membership in the "cult" are rituals (sodomy, public displays of homosexuality), recruitment, and in some cases dressing in drag. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  02:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong. dead wrong. On so many levels, i have to wonder... nah, AGF, sorry. But no, no one has proven left-handedness' cause. There are numerous theories, but no one knows. Of course, we've finally accepted that, despite numerous years of discrimination, claims of immorality, and people forced to try to change, we now at least know it's not a choice. Seriously. It's almost the exact same situation. Then again, using your left hand is a 'conduct'. (sigh). Also? Most straight people commit sodomy of one form or another, people kissing is a public display of heterosexuality, recruitment is just..... wow. See my thing below. I'm not straight solely because someone recruited me to like girls. Are you? See my below about people who 'need to choose'. And most crossdressers are straight, and most gays aren't crossdressers. Seriously, these facts are so clearly demonstrable to anyone with reading skills, the Google, and most importantly, a willingness to learn, that you are crossing into troll territory, and making it very very hard for your 'anti-homosexualism' argument to be taken seriously. No one wants that, including me. I may disagree with it strongly, but the concept of the evolution of language has long been fascinating to me, and, though I feel your point is a weak one, it is not a bad debate to have. But speaking for myself, I can't take you seriously when you throw out things like "choosing" to be straight, left-handedness being "proven" to be genetic, "recruitment" (snicker), confusion as to what sodomy means, confusion to the demographics of crossdressing, a definition of "cult" which includes everyone in the world who ever went down on someone and/or kissed them in public, etc. etc. It's disruptive, it's embarrassingly inaccurate, and it baits people like me who should know better. --John Kenneth Fisher 16:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(reset to left)

For the sake of clearing up confusion lets examine what I said (keeping in mind that, for brevity here I often don't expound on all of the facts and research that I have access to unless pressed for it. # 1. There is plenty of evidence that Left-handedness runs in families, at least much of the time, granted, the studies cannot prove this in every case. Left-handedness is more of a tool of conduct rather than a conduct itself. It resides entirely within the person's body, between mind and hand. #2. Sodomy has many definitions both legal and non-legal, when I use the term here I refer exclusively to male/male anal copulation. #3. By "public display", I was referring to so called "Gay Pride" events such as parades, not kissing, same sex people kiss each other in many cultures. #4. Recruitment is used in the above in the same way that Evangelical Christians "recruit" new members to their churches and it includes the recruitment of "straight" people to work for LGBT special rights and the LGBT political agenda. #5 "dressing in drag" is often seen in lesbians (i.e. male-drag) and is also seen in many "Gay Pride" events. #6 this whole "cult" conversation took place merely because I said that "some people" have shown evidence that supports one "hypothesis" that LGBT may be a cult ritual. There are also those who think Homosexuality is an addictive vice similar to gambling or drug use. There are also those who think homosexuality is a psychological disorder or psychiatric disorder possibly caused by child abuse or drug use. There are many hypotheses about it. You can accept or reject any or all of them at your pleasure. #7. None of this information should lead you assume what my position is on the subject matter of this article though, I have been known to play devils advocate or split hairs to foster a more useful debate on a word or definition. I am here to correct what I see as popular misnomers about the definitions of words and slang usages. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 17:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is all very interesting but quite roundabout and, as far as I can tell, almost entirely irrelevant to the article at hand. Let us speak concretely.  Is there a proposed change to the article that anyone would like to see?  If so, please suggest some new text (preferably under a new header -- "homonausea" is getting nauseating) and we can discuss it.  Britcom, you seem to quibble with some uses of the word in the article, but if so please be specific.  And remember, we cannot make up our own definitions here based on elaborate theories of homosexual identity versus homosexual practice; we are restricted to reporting on how the word is used and what it means, not what we think it should mean.  thanks.  bikeable (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We could delete this line in the first paragraph. "It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people" and replace it with the OED sourced line shown above. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 18:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Last I noted (and I may have missed some) we were unsure just WHAT the actual OED said. We'd found the quick-and-dirty "Compact OED"-for-dummies version quoted on the web, but the actual honest to God OED is an entirely different animal. Does anyone have access to the true OED and can tell us what it actually says? (again, I feel dic. defs. are never more than secondary sources at best, but it would be useful to the discussion, even if only to show what that particular group of dictionary authors felt it meant at the time they last updated it) --John Kenneth Fisher 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The online OED, which is up to date, says, Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality. This entry was updated in the Additions Series (1993) and appears not to have changed since then.  Britcom, thanks for the concrete suggestion regarding the second sentence.  Since OED includes "hatred" and Merriam-Webster "discrimination", and since the American Heritage Dictionary (my usual choice) reads, Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men, I do not think we should be limiting ourselves to the "phobia" interpretation.  Hatred, contempt, and discrimination are clearly part of the mix.  If you'd like to suggest changes to the language of the first two sentences to align them (even more) carefully with the dictionary definitions, please do.  bikeable (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside the (rather dubious) claim that LGBT is a religion, Britcom, can you say exactly what senses of "homophobia" used in the article you feel are neologistic? If (as it seems) you wish to restrict the usage of "homophobia" to its etymological roots, you are at odds with the cited reliable sources (such as Merriam-Webster).  It is true that the term is used in different senses, and the article should reflect this; I think that it does, but it's possible that I'm missing something.  It is appropriate to note that some senses of the term are viewed by some sources as prejudicial.  It is also appropriate to report the uses of those senses by other reliable sources.
 * Britcom, you may be interested in reading the discussion of homophobia at ReligiousTolerance.org (see also here). It addresses the concerns of religious opponents of LGBT rights in what I think are fairly neutral terms.  It may be appropriate for the article to note that the term is sometimes used by LGBT activists to refer to any opposition to the expansion of LGBT rights, and that this usage is strongly opposed by social and religious conservatives, but I don't see anything inappropriate in the way the article as a whole uses the term. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

(reset to left)

I have read the above and I concur with the detailed coverage of the opposition to the different usages, but at the end, the site ignores all of the opposition and defines Homophobia as "discrimination" rather than "fear" or "dread". I don't think Homophobia is rightly defined as any form of discrimination (regardless of "sources" to the contrary, I have read the sources and I find most of them contradictory and vague in choosing a definition). Discrimination is an overt act, not a disorder or anxiety of the mind. "Sexism" or "Heterosexism" are perhaps better suited for this sense. I also do not think "opposition" (religious, traditional, cultural, intellectual, etc.) to the homosexual political agenda (special rights, special protections, gay-marriage, etc.) is rightly defined as Homophobia. (notice I said opposition to an agenda, not homosexual people.) I also do no think that opposition to the practice of sodomy should be defined as a form of Homophobia. To do so is expressing a non-neutral political agenda. The Homophobia article should restrict itself to the senses of psychological fear or dread of homosexuals, and the fear of being or becoming a homosexual. The other senses are neologistic and belong elsewhere. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 02:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your biases are showing. Unless, of course, the sufference movement was a "female agenda for special rights." Anyway, I'm sorry, brit, but the anglophonic world has come up with a definition for homophobia, and, despite it not being the one you'd LIKE it to mean, you can't just declare otherwise. Now, if language changes your way, and language does change so it may happen, your point will have validity and we can readdress it. Until then, however, the word means whatever everyone who uses it decides it means, and that, my friend, is simply not what you seem to wish it to be. That's sort of how language WORKS. And don't think I don't understand where you come from on this. I strongly feel that what "society" calls "chocolate-chip cookies" should properly be called "dough platters with chippereedoos," but until I win that argument with the rest of the world, and win it I shall, I'll grudgingly allow the current phrasing to stand here on the wikipedia. --John Kenneth Fisher 02:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel that any bias I have is on the side of logic. I feel that a definition to a word as well as the article supporting it should be logically defensible. I also don't think either you or I speak for the "anglophonic world". There is a significant portion of English speaking people who do not use the word Homophobia in the sense it is defined here. I believe it is in fact a small minority of high profile academics with an agenda who are actively promoting the acceptance of the neologistic senses being defended here as "popularly accepted".  The only popularly accepted definition of Homophobia that can be shown is "fear" and "dread". --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  03:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Go outside, and ask a random ten people "What is the term for hatred or disapproval of homosexuality? Not asking if you agree, sir or ma'am, just wondering what the societally-accepted term is. I have a followup" Then, when they've answered, ask them if they are high profile academics with an agenda who are actively promoting the acceptance of the neologistic senses being defended on he wikipedia. I'll wait. --John Kenneth Fisher 15:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Being that live in the (American) south, I am surrounded by people who disagree with the idea that Homophobia is a hatred, or that disapproval is a fear. Most people who live in urban north-east or urban areas of the Pacific states seem to have a habit of assuming that most Americans agree with them (probably because those areas thinking patterns dominate the national media and Hollywood) and are often shocked and dismayed to learn just how differently the other half of the population thinks about issues like sex and religion. The people who live in the largely rural south and west comprise about half of the American population of English speakers in the US and a significant portion of English speakers world-wide. We should not engage in "Urbanocentrism" and dismiss large portions of the population when we make reference to "most people".  Most people who live near me are probably not similar in culture or thinking to most people who live near you. That is important to remember when debating a subject and invoking the "most people" argument. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood and agreed. I'm still willing to bet that that question "what the societally-accepted term is," would yield "homophobia" far more than "anti-homosexualism". Far, far more. --John Kenneth Fisher 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * With regard to "the sufference movement", Women are women because of physiology, not as a result of their conduct. Homosexuality is a conduct and has no basis in physiology that any credible scientific source has been able to show. Because women are not able to choose their sex before they are born, modern western society has rejected making their sex a disability with respect to rights. Not so with forms of conduct that society does reject such as polygamy or robbery. Homosexuality is something that people do just as polygamy is something that people do. Society continues to maintain that it has a right in most cases to regulate what people do and enforce their standards of conduct. I think the confusion on this issue here and in public discourse is as a result of educators, media, and law makers purposely trying to blur the line between the definitions of "is", and "does" with regard to self identity. For example, If I say Bill is a rapist, is that what he "is"; or is that what he "does"? The correct answer is: it is what he does. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 11:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is neither the time nor the place for this, but that's just weird. Left-hand use is a "conduct" too. In fact, one once considered immoral and ungodly which people tried to force people to change, and which is apparently predefined even though we have no idea how or what makes that determination. Sound familiar? For another perspective on your.. interesting... thesis, I was a slow dater, sure, and didn't sleep with a girl til I was 19. Wasn't I straight before 19? Was I some kind of schrodinger's cat of sexuality? By your logic? Yes. Maybe you chose your sexuality -- but most people don't sit down with charts and graphs to decide whether they will find breasts sexy or not. I'm well off topic here, and will rightly get yelled at for it, i suspect, but I've often noticed that it is really just homophobes who seem to think people 'choose' who they are attracted to. It's well documented, studied, and tested that many (obviously not all, maybe not even a majority, but a disproportionately large chunk) of homophobes are in fact aroused by their own sex. It occurs to me that these people, with their homosexual feelings, probably did, to some extent, "choose" to be attracted to women - or at least to try to convince themselves of that. They probably have no idea whatsoever how odd that is. How the vast majority of people didn't make that decision the way they did. It's not 'conduct' that makes a gay man gay, it's their natural desire to love a man, emotionally and physically. It's not 'conduct' that makes a straight man straight, it's that they are attracted to women, and want to be with women. I want to be very clear here, I'm not saying anything specifically about Britcom. As I said, it's absolutely not always the case, and I make no pretentions of reading his mind, but that 'choice/conduct' argument rings very false to the vast majority of people of either orientation who never had such a decision to make, and it's always seemed that the people who don't realize how silly that sounds, well, they have to ask themselves why it is that THEY had to make a conscious decision to love the opposite gender when the other 99.9% of 'straight' folk didn't need to . --John Kenneth Fisher 15:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not care about homosexual values. I want them to stay away from anything that is dear to me. Homosexual parades, school assaults and their attack on a marriage alienates many people against them. There is nothing natural in butt sex. It is sick and perverted. I do not care about anything they call "love" simply because they disregard what I put in the notion of love - love to a woman, giving birth to a new living being.


 * I will repeat myself - I feel extreme anger and hatred towards homosexual. I do not feel any fear - I will not run away from homosexual, I will find ways to let them know I hate them. This definition is incorrect.Aubyte 11:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I only just noticed this comment, Aubyte. Your opinion is noted, but will have no effect on this article.  As I noted below, the article's definition includes "hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures", which would seem to describe the sentiment you're expressing.  The article does not claim that all hatred of and hostility towards homosexuals is based on fear; it does, however, point towards mainstream psychiatric theories which suggest that.  If you wish to argue with those theories, talk to the APA.


 * That said, although Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, I can't refrain from commenting on the errors in your statement. First of all, when you focus exclusively on gay men (clearly the focus of your own anxieties) you're ignoring the existence of lesbians.  Second, there is both more and less to homosexuality than "butt sex".  (Many gay men don't practice anal sex, preferring oral sex or other forms of gratification.)  Third, many heterosexual couples practice anal sex.  There's no such thing as a "gay sex act", because there is no act that homosexual couples do that heterosexual couples don't.


 * Also, there is no logical reason why the existence of homosexual love should pose any threat to heterosexual love. I'm straight, and happily married, and my marriage is not threatened in any way by gay and lesbian couples who wish to express their love publicly and/or marry.  Why should it be?  How does the gender of someone else's partner affect my marriage?  The answer, of course, is that it doesn't.  Similarly, a homosexual parade has just as much effect on me as a Puerto Rican parade.  I'm not Puerto Rican, but if the Puerto Ricans want to hold a parade and celebrate their culture, there's no reason they shouldn't, and (given historic oppression of Puerto Ricans in the US) plenty of good reasons why they should.


 * Aubyte, you clearly have a lot of anger to work out. I suggest that you find a psychiatric counselor and explore why you have such strong feelings about homosexuality.  You may not like the answers you find, but there is always value in seeking truth. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a scientific proof that "fear" is what homophobic people feel? Can you show unbiased statistical data to back it up? I consider myself homophobic. I do not expect you to listen to me. Frankly I do not care if you change this definition. It will for sure never change my stance a bit - which is hatred to perverts. I know quite a lot of people and when I see a homophobic person all they can articulate is hatred, not "fear". So this definition is essentially flawed.Aubyte 05:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, thanks for making your comment much more civil than your previous one, Aubyte. (The term "perverts" is a loaded one, and offensive to many people, but we'll let that go for now.)


 * Second, assuming that you are describing yourself correctly, your description does fit the current definition, which includes "hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures". The article does not claim that all homophobic people are afraid of homosexuality or homosexual people.  It does cite theorists who suggest that one element underlying expressed hatred of homosexuals or homosexuality is the fear of being identified as one.  It also mentions psychoanalytic theories which suggest that the emotions people articulate are not always identical to those they feel on a subconscious level.


 * Finally, to answer your question, or at least the question that I think you were asking — no, there is no scientific proof that fear underlies all hatred of homosexuals, but there is some evidence for the theory that anxiety about one's own potential homosexuality may be associated with it. I don't think that the causes of any hatred have been scientifically proven.  Psychology is still a very nebulous field, and apart from the growing knowledge base of psychopharmacology, its claims are largely based on empirical evidence: that is, which theories and practices have been able to help people suffering from psychiatric illnesses, and which have not.  Many of the specific claims of Freud's psychological theories, for example, are now discredited; but his fundamental insight that there are actions in the human mind beneath the thoughts we are conscious of is widely accepted as the basis for modern psychology.  I am not a psychologist, but my layman's understanding is that the current psychiatric consensus supports the notion that fear or anxiety underlie much anti-LGBT hatred.  There's an excerpt from a relevant psychiatric study here, if you're interested in learning about current psychiatric thought. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advise, Josiah. Though it is hard for me, I will try to sound friendly.
 * Your explanation seems to be more valid to me than the article. But there is one moment. Latent homosexuality as described by the pbs website looks contrived to me. I do not feel any urges or unwanted homosexual thoughts. Whenever it happens that I see these twisted humans having butt sex I can only puke. That is so unnatural and sick to me that I classify them as perverts. And, belive me, that is me easy going on them. Because I am also an educated intelligent being who does not want any exposure to irrational and deranged behavior. And since they constantly escalate this issue by parading and forcing schools to "educate" children at early age with their exhibits of so called "marriage", I see this an insult to my mental integrity. Hence my rage and anger. I do not feel any fear.
 * To be afraid means to be in panic and seek ways to preserve one's life as a whole or in parts. Homophobic people have extreme feeling they need to assault homosexuals. Quite the opposite of fear.
 * Oxford dictionary defines homophobia as aversion. I see myself fit into that definition.
 * If you are offended by what I say, be assured that I am as much offended by homosexuals and also by this classification.Aubyte 11:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Aubyte, it's good that you're talking these things out, but Wikipedia isn't the best place for discussion of your personal response to homosexuality. I could point out that your statements don't completely make sense — for example, you indicate that you find the notion of homosexuality "an insult to [your] mental integrity", in other words, a threat to your well-being, but then you say that you feel no fear.  The symptoms you describe (nausea, anger, apprehension and aversion) are classic symptoms of anxiety, which is very closely related to fear.


 * However, that analysis is taking us farther away from the purpose of this page: discussion of the Wikipedia article on homophobia. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum.  I wish you well in working out your issues, but this isn't the place for it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I do not do this correctly, as I am new to the editing of these pages. However, while I understand what the critics of the definition are concerned with, I think they miss the point that "homophobia" is a term that has meaning based on common usage and etymology. As a result of these mixed influences, the most accurate definition does not necessarily mean that it is a fair one. That being said, regardless of how fair or just the definition is, I think it is largely accurate.

According to Wikipedia's own listing for "phobias", "homophobia" is listed as a "non-clinical use of the term", therefore to belabour the clinical definition of phobia in this context is not relevant. We may not like the use of a clinical term in a non-clinical context, but that is the reality of this word, therefore the definition is not as inaccurate as is suggested. Further it is consistent with Wiktionary's definition of "homophobia" (though it uses the term "antipathy", the meaning can be read similarly). Perhaps the Wiktionary definition (with the accompanying definition for "antipathy") would be better, but not necessary in my opinion. Jamiearpinricci 16 April 2007

Worldwide view
I notice that aside from a few passing references in the "popular culture" section, this article is largely written from a US/UK perspective. While there's no need to duplicate the content of Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, I'm sure that the subject of homophobia has been discussed in non-English-speaking countries, and that scholars have considered homophobia in different cultures worldwide. It would be good if the article reflected this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, in the interest of diversity, let's have more references in the article regarding the causes of homophobia in Moslem countries, and Latin America. Any one want to take a crack at it? --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 05:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

removed "Homophobia in the black community"
There is homophobia in every community. White, black, brown, blue, green. I don't see how the black community is more homophobic. So I removed the section. --Revolución  hablar    ver  17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church image
I re-added the Westboro Baptist Church image, which had been removed by Techron and replaced with a photo of a student protest. I left the latter photo (and cleaned it up a bit). The WBC photo is an excellent example of homophobia, and deserves to be in the article and highly placed. The ISR photo, by contrast, shows a mostly non-notable student group protesting, which is a couple steps removed from an actual illustration of homophobia. Please discuss here if you have a reason to remove the WBC photo. thanks. bikeable (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i didn't realize that it had replaced the WBC image when i moved it. otherwise i would have returned the WBC image.  i completely support returning it as it really epitomizes the meaning of the subject title. r b-j 00:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone could explain how the WBC photo is an example of homophobia. More specifically, the WBC teaches that "God hates fags", so who is the homophobe being made an example of here. God or the Church? The sign doesn't say "WBC hates fags". --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 21:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I think you are splitting hairs in a way that is both unhelpful and silly. I don't think you will find anyone, including members of the WBC, who would deny that they are homophobic.  bikeable (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Britcom's argument is sophistry. i s'pose he thinks it's clever. r b-j 00:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I take it that you did not understand the question. Let me rephrase it for you. Exactly what is it about the image shown that shows us an example of homophobia, and shouldn't whatever it is be stated as such in the caption? This is the Homophobia article and one should not assume that the reader knows anything about the WBC or what they teach. Since this is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, should we not explain WHY the image exemplifies the subject of Homophobia? One should be able to explain the selection of this image over all the other possibilities. (Don't ass-u-me) --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 04:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Britcom, this article doesn't exist in a vacuum. Clicking on the link to Westboro Baptist Church in the image caption will bring the reader to an article with detail and references on WBC's homophobia.  Do you really want to duplicate all of that information in the caption?  Would you hold every image caption on Wikipedia to such a standard?  Plenty of information is available about WBC's actions and statements.  I added a reference to the image caption quoting the ADL on WBC as "homophobic".  That is plenty to support use of this image to illustrate 'homophobia'.  bikeable (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is about the image, not the church. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 04:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The image is of a church member holding a sign with a homophobic slur.  The church is avidly and famously homophobic, as the caption states.  More information about that connection can be gleaned by following the links.  I cannot understand what possible question there can be about that.  bikeable (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have looked at this source that supposedly proves that the WBC is "virulently homophobic" and the word is used only once as a label in the opening statement but nothing in the accompanying article describes any actions by WBC as being homophobic. ADL is here assuming that the homophobic label is correct, but provides no facts to back up its claim in this article. Therefore this article provides no examples to show that WBC or it actions are homophobic.--<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The source need not prove that the WBC is "virulently homophobic". The source proves that the ADL identifies the WBC as "virulently homophobic", which is what the caption says.  bikeable (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lets be specific here, the source (ADL) does not attempt to prove, illustrate, or even characterize the WBC as being any kind of homophobic much less "virulently". The word homophobic appears only once, and at that, not within the article, only in the lead in. Its a teaser. The article is not about homophobia at all. When we use an article as a source for claiming that a certain statement is true, naturally there must be some sort of germane statement within the article that supports the reference. If not then there is the likely hood that the logic for including it is circular. (see Begging the question) In other words, the ADL is repeating that someone has determined that WBC is homophobic, but does not indicate where they heard that, nor do they say that it was they who made that determination, nor do they offer any reasons to support their statement. It is a case of classic libel. The irony here is that the libelous statement comes from of all people, the Anti-Defamation League.  The referenced ADL article is not an authoritative source of information about the subject of Homophobia.--<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset to left; it's getting cramped over here.) Britcom, the ADL page does give of evidence of homophobic behavior (e.g., ...WBC has picketed the gay community at hundreds of events nationwide). This is in no way libelous. Again, we are reporting what the ADL says, not auditing their work. I would ask what evidence would satisfy you of the WBC's homophobia, but from your history here I don't believe that you think that homophobia exists (unless Phelps declares himself to have a "fear", perhaps), and so I don't think this can be resolved to your satisfaction. I would also ask you to avoid wikilawyering. bikeable (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am happy to accept sourced evidence of Homophobia that falls within the bounds of the current definition for our purposes here. The problem that I see is that, to date, no one here has offered any sourced evidence that WBC is homophobic. ("sources" that merely include the word "homophobic" in connection with WBC without any explanation don't count)
 * This is my simple question that no one here seems to be able to answer: What is it (specifically) that the WBC has done that can be defined as Homophobic.
 * Lets use another example Gay activists have been known to protest at churches, we say that is their right (in the US) and no label (Religiophobic?) is applied to them. But when churches picket homosexuality, that is somehow different? That is Homophobic? How is that Homophobic? Isn't picketing free speech? Why should someone who pickets be labeled as prejudiced or hateful? (remember your answer applies equally to picketers of any ilk.) --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  10:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this question goes to the logical foundation that WBC is trying to raise a debate about, and by including the image here, we are furthering that debate. I think we should explain that debate if we are going to include the image.  Why do we say that the image is an example of homophobia?  If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is the WBC that is homophobic, and not God. I think the WBC would disagree with that idea.  So, according to that line of thinking, if I say that "Tim Hardaway hates gays", does that make me homophobic, or is it the use of the term "fags" on their sign that identifies the WBC as homophobic in the image? If the WBC sign said "God hates gays", would that not rise to the definition of "homophobic"? --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  22:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I continue to think that this is unhelpful hair-splitting. The WBC is not trying to "raise a debate" about anything; you give them far too much credit.  Pawning off their own hate on what they think God says does not make any difference, since they clearly intend to align themselves with their view of God.  However, if you prefer, we could change the caption to add, a group identified as "virulently homophobic" by the ADL, thus sourcing the identification of homophobia with the WBC.  bikeable (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kindly answer the question posed rather than indulging in the slander of the WBC (which is irrelevant to this topic) If you are unable to answer the question, then I encourage others here to do so instead. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 23:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * slander? Brit, the truth is an absolute defense against a charge of slander. any notion that the WBC is not homophobic (given the current definition and usage of the term) is silly. r b-j 00:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets try to remain on topic here. You seem to think that "everybody" knows the image is homophobic. Don't assume that, write it, and give your reasons. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 04:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did answer your question. The WBC is homophobic whether they themselves hate gays or whether they ally themselves with a god who hates gays; your question is hair-splitting.  Their use of "fag" merely reinforces this.  As to your question about whether they would be homophobic if they used the word "gay" instead, that is idle speculation.  Describing them as "virulently homophobic" is perfectly reasonable, and well sourced to boot.  bikeable (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very interesting that you would say that. Aren't you concluding that ALL the adherents (those who "ally themselves" with a "god") of the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic religions are Homophobic? The scriptures of all those religions say that God condemns Homosexuality. By my calculation, that would be about one-third of the population of the planet.--<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 00:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * taking a position that homosexuality is sin or somehow less than approved by God (along with a list of other sexual sins like adultry or, i just love this word, forn-a-ca-shun) is much different than saying that "God hates fags". whether or not you think that homophobia is good or bad, right or wrong, for a theistic believer to tell any class of people that their God hates this class of people is precisely a systemic hatred or loathing for that class of people. r b-j 00:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? Very interesting.--<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  04:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Bikeable on this. WBC has made it very clear in many interviews and public statements that they too hate homosexuals BECAUSE (they believe) God hates homosexuals.  They say "God hates fags" not in attempt to clarify that it is God and not them that believes this to be true, but to add authority and finality to their own hatred, again, which they do not deny.  Even if they did deny it, their actions clearly represent the kind of hatred and discrimination outlined in this article, especially the opening paragraph. Jamiearpinricci 23:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What "actions" are you referring to, and shouldn't those "actions" be included in the caption of the image in order to explain the use of WBC as an example?--<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 00:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly the person is publicly displaying a sign that propagates discrimination against homosexuals. The caption states that it is a protest, denoting it to be a public act.  Couple this with the content of the sign (both the use of "hate" and the derogatory "fags") and the further explanation in the caption, it seems very clear to me what "actions" it refers to.  Anyone wanting more detailed information about the protest or other actions that demonstrate their hate can click on the link within the caption, as it the normative approach in Wikipedia.  The photo should stand.Jamiearpinricci 04:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How about this for a caption: "A WBC protester promoting hatred of homosexuals (fags) by publicly proclaiming that God hates them. Hatred of homosexuals is a form of Homophobia." Is that about right? --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 05:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. In what way is this an improvement?  The statement "God hates fags" is itself homophobic and needs no further analysis.  bikeable (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A fascinating position to take. I don't think the reader would arrive at your conclusion on his/her own so quickly. I am sure there is an absolutely fascinating reasoning process behind your statement. While I don't wish to go that far off topic here, perhaps you would care to comment further about how you arrived at your conclusions about God, hate, and homosexuality on my user talk page. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 06:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Academic opinion
Prof. Jonathan I. Katz of Washington University in St. Louis has written an essay on Homophobia which may provide some additional material for this article. Academics have often implied that those who make up their ranks universally agree that homophobia and discrimination against homosexuals is wrong. In his essay, Prof. Katz takes the opposite view. The essay can be found here: --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 20:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First, who and where has ever said that academics agree that homophobia is wrong? I would never have suggested that, and I don't think people who work on this sort of thing (sociologists, etc.) are usually so explicitly judgemental in their academic work, whatever their personal beliefs.  Second, Katz is a physicist, and so his opinions on homosexuality are no more informed or academic than... well, mine, or yours.  bikeable (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some who contribute to this talk page have suggested as much. But, it is quite refreshing to hear that not everyone here agrees with academic opinion simply by virtue of it's being an academic opinion. Academic opinion is too often assumed to be interchangeable with fact on Wikipedia. --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  21:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that I don't think academics typically argue that homophobia is wrong, whatever their personal opinions, although of course ethicists and others may write about rightness and wrongness. But as far as word usage and etymology are concerned -- and that's most of what the disagreements here have been about -- yes, I do think informed academic opinion by the experts in a field is as close to "truth" as we are able to get.  bikeable (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that academics do not "typically argue" that hatred of homosexuals is wrong?--<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First citation
The OED gives the cited Time article as the first of its quotations. Does that mean it was the first time the word appeared in print? I don't know if that's necessarily the same thing. I don't know exactly how the OED chooses quotes; the word may have appeared elsewhere (presumably less mainstream?) earlier. Perhaps we should be clear and say, the first citation by the OED was in.... bikeable (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The OED comits a lot of resources to try and identify the first use of a word. It is possible, but very unlikley that it has been used in print before the Time article. The OED also use the UK and North American Reading Programmes to collect millions of quotations from all over the English-speaking world, and use them as the principal sources of evidence for words used in current English. Recently the OED (full version) has seperated the two uses of homophobia and the current entry simply states 'Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality' The term homophobic is citied as first appearing in 1971 in a Psychologist report and is defined as 'Pertaining to, characterized by, or exhibiting homophobia; hostile towards homosexuals. Also occas. as n., a person who displays homophobia.' rgds, ||:) johnmark†  16:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed defintion to that of Merriam-Websters...
Firstly, I'm pleased to see this page has improved considerably since I last visited it (no longer 'locked' (which is sometimes necessary on wikipedia, but awfully unfortunate) and with a lot of detail about the etymological problems and criticisms.

Anyway, I changed the definition to Merriam Webster's 'irrational fear or predjudice, etc.' for two reasons; After checking www.dictionary.com, every definition mentioned fear (even the definition formerly used here, in it's uncut form on dictionary.com, uses the word fear) It might also be worth including that quote (from the discussion page) by the fellow who invented the word 'homophobia' (if it isn't already in the article.) Also, I included an "in-text" citation ("Merriam Webster's says") because the statement "Homophobia is" sounds a presumptuous and will immediately prompt curiousity about the sources, etc. (It's great to consign odd details and sources to footnotes when the majority of people aren't going to care about them and the minority can take a few extra seconds to click the links. But, when someone says "Homophobia is," I think a large enough number of people are immediately going to want to know what he's basing that on, to justify an "in text" citation.

Personal rant, now. You needn't read. My own problem with the word 'homophobia' is the inaccuracy of it. I read a movie review which mentions some character who disapproves of homosexuality being 'homophobic' and I immediately wonder if I missed some line of dialogue revealing he was secretly gay. Now, wether people believe in the Bible or not, the argument "Homosexual acts are wrong because the Bible says it is wrong" offers plenty of explanation for why most 'homophobes' don't approve of the activity. Heck, why not create a word called "Shabbathophobic" to describe people with a 'fear' of doing work on the Shabbath. Now, you may or may not agree with the need to refrain from work on the shabath, but you hardly need to explain a Christian (or, more commonly in this case, a Jew) holding a 'shabbathophobic' view in terms of 'fear' Also, something which occured to me about the etymology (although, this sort of thing seems to be much more strongly addressed now) most perjorative words like "racist" don't actually have anything etymologically negative about them. The 'perjorative' aspect is purely through association and the general consensus that racism is bad. When, age 15, I first heard the word 'homophobia' however (in some television 'Public Service' type commercials,) I immediately thought of double-speak from the book (1984) I had just read (in terms of manipulating the public perception through language, I was actually somewhat impressed by the cleverness and/or audaciousness of it.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.5.98 (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Reference List Mix-up
Items #1 and #2 on the Reference List are a bit mixed up.

"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." ~Merriam-Webster Online

Someone please make the correction.

Also, I'm not too sure the statement, "It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures," is acceptable as a definition.

There are two reasons for this.

One, I am acquainted with a Senior Editor of the American Heritage Dictionary for Houghton Mifflin Company. He informs me that the definition presented in the current printed and online editions of AHD, are sorely inadequate. He has assured me that they will be updated with a more accurate definition. It will read more like Merrian Webster's definition. He informed me that the next printed edition will not be released for some time. However, the online edition of AHD will be updated much, much sooner.

Two, to say that, "It can also mean...." seems more like another attempt to manufacture ligitimacy for the asertions of those who wish to alter it's definition for their own personal political agenda. It doesn't also mean anything. It means what it means, and that's it! Rational disagreement in no way qualifies as an element in ANY phobia. Phobias are by their very nature irrational. Whether that irrationality manifests itself through fear, aversion, or discrimination of, to, or against something or someone, a phobia's irrationality is at the heart of the condition in EVERY instance. Certain people wish to redefine terms to their own liking and usefulness. In order to be able to use a word as a weapon against those who simply disagree, they must adulterate the meaning so that it includes their target. This is reprehensible behavior which should not be tolerated.

The Amish disapprove of electricity. It's a reflection of their adherence to simplicity in life. This is a notion rooted in their spiritual beliefs.

If the disapproval of or aversion to homosexuals or homosexuality is homophobia, then you'd have to say the Amish are "electophobes" for rejecting or disapproving of electicity and it's uses. To do so, of course, is absurd and ridiculous. You'd really have to be some sort of nutcase to think that that made sense. Unfortunately, these are the nutcases we may be dealing with here - and for the same reasons. --HngKngPhooey 22:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would add that American dictionary sources (at least the oldest and most quoted American Dictionaries) have in recent years become sloppy, naive, lazy, and/or corrupted by recent political culture and seem to have dropped much of their traditional reasoned and rational methods of defining newer words. Much respect has been lost for them and personally I no longer trust them any further than I can throw them. In some cases ('homophobia' being one of them) I suspect some of the owners of American dictionaries have been the "tail" attempting to "wag the dog" of the English language by defining some words according to "philosophy" rather than observation.  Normally this would be called "corruption". But that word may have been redefined as well.


 * With respect to the Amish, they are a good example, but their rejection of electricity has more to do with self-reliance than anything attributed to the technology itself. The Amish do not want to be "connected" the outside world, because they see that connection as the avenue that sin is introduced through. Much the same way that some conservatives reject Hollywood. They are not against movies per se, but rather they are against what they are used for.  The Amish do use technology that they can control locally, (i.e. propane powered milk refrigeration equipment) because there is no permanent "connection" to the outside sinful world. This example of rejecting outside ideas is quite similar to "Flyover County's" rejection of Academia's assumptions and pronouncements regarding that which is to be regarded as "Wise" and "Good".  --<span style="color: red; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">Br <span style="color: blue; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">it <span style="color: black; font-family: Rockwell, helvetica;">com  08:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good grief, this article is truly awful to read, one definition followed by another politically motivated counterpoint - the whole article needs to be totally revamped. Is it just me or is this one of the worst examples of Wikipedia being used as political tool to the detriment of clarity in the definition of a term? Surely Wikipedia was not developed for this level of inanity.--62.249.233.80 20:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A Note About Linguism
Technically, those who say that the original, literal definition of homophobia is uniquely about fear are correct. They have, however, the misfortune of making this argument in English, and so face issues like trying to explain why sinople's definitions include both green and red, why flammable and inflammable are synonymous, and especially why hemophilia isn't remotely like necrophilia, coprophilia, or zoophilia, despite the use of the same root word. I strongly recommend people visit the etymology and historical linguistics pages for further detail: and

To put it mildly, English words don't just mean their literal, original definitions. Their histories are far beyond this, which is what we see at work with the word "homophobia" -- thugs aren't cultists from India, and calling a black man a Negro, while at one point the socially preferred term, is now considered a racial slur. "Homophobia" is very much alike to these other terms: yes, the literal origin of "phobia" is solely based in fear, but it has not been so defined in some time, allowing for definitions like "aversion" or "hatred" instead.

If people want to clarify that homophobia is a non-clinical term, by all means do so -- the entry on the word "phobia" makes this clear here:. If you wish to argue that opposition to homosexuality does not necessarily include hatred or fear of homosexuals, go right ahead. Arguing the definition of the word, however, is a losing battle. English's evolution isn't consistent enough to justify that. San Diablo 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)