Homophobia

Pride flag with dried blood, symbolizing violence against homosexuals.

Gay free zone Homophobia

Fighting the gay agenda

77 Non-religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage Heterophobia Pray the gay away Westboro Baptist Church

Judge not

Rastafari Nordisk Styrka My Genes Made Me Do It Fox News

That ye be not judged

Christine O'Donnell David Wilkerson Chuck Baldwin Boris Johnson v - t - e

“”Jesus regularly ate dinner with thieves and whores, and you're telling me it's against your religion to bake a cake for a gay person?

—Keri Karandrakis

“”Feckin Greeks! They invented gayness!

—Mrs. Carberry

Homophobia is the irrational fear or hatred of homosexuality, non-heterosexual people, or anything or anybody that deviates from a strictly normative heterosexual approach to sexuality and sexual identity.

Homophobia is common in both the developing and developed worlds. Examples of this range from laws prohibiting gays to marry or adopt children, to hate crimes committed against gay people to the hateful and violent lyrics of some Jamaican reggae performers (notably Buju Banton) and the criminal codes of many African and Middle Eastern nations. As of 2014, 76 countries currently have laws against homosexual activity; in seven of these, the death penalty may apply.

The peer-reviewed Journal of Abnormal Psychology defines homophobia as "an emotional or affective response including fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort, and aversion that an individual experiences in interacting with gay individuals, which may or may not involve a cognitive component."

Rationalizations of homophobia

Anti-gay demonstration in San Francisco. Note the amusing placement of "We don't hate homos" next to "Repent or perish". It could be read has "we Repent, don't hate or homos perish"

See the main article on this topic: Rationalization

Homophobes use several different arguments (and variations thereof) against homosexuality. Here are some rational responses for some of them:

"It's not natural"

See the main article on this topic: Appeal to nature

“”Homosexuality is against nature! This is true. Just like walking on water or rising from the dead after a few days. You could also come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a similar miracle.

—Herman Finkers

This is an inherently weak and uncogent objection. This argument is a blatant rendition of the appeal to nature, as it assumes that what is natural is acceptable or better and what is unnatural is not, and it does not define what "natural" even is. What this would entail logically is that adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, and nakedness must be acceptable as they are "natural", while playing checkers, sleeping on a bed, wearing clothes and indeed cooking meat are not "natural" and thus unacceptable. Most homophobic persons typically do not advocate creating laws outlawing things such as sleeping on beds, not to mention that using computers isn't natural either — yet homophobes still clearly use computers, if only to try to defend themselves on various wiki sites.

Moreover, even if it did logically follow that what is "natural" is good, it turns out that homosexuality occurs in nature; biologists have extensively documented same-sex behavior in over 500 species of animals and observed it in a total of 1,500 species of animals. Bonobos, for example, are known for indulging in almost any "perversion" humanity has thought of — and perhaps some we've missed out on. Mammals are far from the only kind of animal that do this.

Some, particularly Catholics, will argue this in the sense of violating natural law, which they claim dictates that everything be used for a particular (usually divinely-given) purpose (i.e. teleology). This, however, could be seen to devolve into the above. Further, there is little warrant to say that a thing must have only one purpose, something which even the same natural law theorists admit (e.g. regarding sex they agree it also works to bring a couple together, rather than just reproduction). Even under its own terms, such natural law argumentation fails to exclude same-sex relations without arbitrariness.

"It's a perversion"

This is simply a variation, with added bigotry, of the "It's not natural" argument. It implies that being gay is a mental disorder or disability even though there is no evidence to support such a claim. Defining homosexuality as a disability is a classic argument from definition fallacy. But the definition of disability does not include sexuality or gender. Being LGBTQ+ in no way impairs your ability to function as a human being in and of itself. In addition, drawing a parallel with sexuality and disability is a very troubling false equivocation, especially because it assumes that disabled people also do not deserve respect and empathy.

Meanwhile, some fundamentalists claim that homosexuality is a creation of the devil.

George Bernard Shaw's Man and Superman has the lovely line, "Chastity is the most unnatural of perversions."

"Homosexuality might encourage other perversions"

“”I almost can't believe I'm about to do this, but let me explain it to you in the simplest of terms. Pedophiles. Fuck. Kids! Okay?! Are you with me so far?! Pedophiles! Fuck! Kids! Now I don't know what cunting planet you live on where two adults having sex is just as wrong as a man raping a child, but if that's how you think, turn this video off.

—Jim Sterling

Homophobes might claim that acceptance of homosexuality might be a gateway to acceptance of pedophilia, zoophilia, incest, or other perversions, in the same manner as public acceptance of Earl Grey tea is a gateway to public acceptance of heroin. That is a slippery slope fallacious argument; in other words, bullshit. In the past, pederasty certainly existed in Western culture, especially ancient Greece and Rome (and likely fueled some of the early Christians' animus against it), but today's gay communities overwhelmingly condemn pederasty and other such acts just like the rest of us.

"It's against God's law"

Lesbian couple kisses in front of angry homophobic fundamentalists.

Before we try to address this issue: why do the infidels have to pay attention to your God? Then comes the presuppositional argument that everything is contingent on the God of your religion, or double standard of saying that freedom of religion does not apply to those people, or that separation of church and state does not really exist.

Conservative Christians claim that God condemns homosexuality, but Jesus actually never brought the subject up, as it was apparently not very high on his list of important things to do or not do (although he did give some forceful condemnations of hypocrisy and those who used their temporal or religious authority to oppress others and enrich themselves). While this argument may be relevant for some religious practitioners, it has no relevance to those people who read Scripture in a more accommodating fashion, or to those who simply do not believe in God, those that are are followers of a different religion, or to the law that respects the divide between church and state.

While the strongest religious criticisms of homosexuality (at least in Western countries, especially Poland and Germany) usually come from Christians, but Jesus Christ himself is not recorded as saying anything whatsoever about homosexuality. Biblical condemnations of homosexuality come from the Old Testament, specifically Leviticus (you know, along with not eating shrimp, Leviticus 11:10, and not wearing clothes made of multiple materials, Leviticus 19:19) and later apostles such as St Paul. Back then, many people in Ancient Rome disapproved of same-sex marriage before Christianity came along. Christians may just have wanted to make themselves look homophobic to look acceptable in the eyes of the average Roman.

The Old Testament is explicitly against homosexuality, because it claims it has perverted ancient civilisations (homosexuality, that is, not the Old Testament). Evidence of impacts on any civilizations remains to be found.

"It's disgusting"

See the main article on this topic: Argumentum ad fastidium

This is simply a value judgment which has no weight outside the mind of the person expressing it. Some people, even other heterosexuals, can consider heterosexual sex as equally repulsive; after all, many people of all attractions and lack of consider mental images of Donald Trump having any sort of sex at all to be disgusting.^{[citation NOT needed]}

If the standard chauvinist opinion of "disgusting" is being used, we can assume that God is fine with lesbians. That might be why there's no real mention of female homosexuality in the Bible aside from a questionable reference in Romans 1:26. That claim rests on a very shaky foundation, as the full context of the passage seems to be more of a condemnation of shrine prostitutes than of lesbians. It might be the most honest reason, even if it's the most ridiculous.

"It allows corruption, or sexual abuse, in single-sex communities"

"LGBT-Free Zone" stickers from Poland.

Some communities are sensitive to corruption due to sexual relationships, or sexual abuse. How is that problem solved? Gender separation rules out the opportunities for heterosexual relationships. But to rule out homosexual relationships, the gays must be thrown out, too. The Boy Scouts of America is an example. The Catholic Church also intends to end sexual abuse by throwing out gay people. Except abusive priests. They can stay, provided the Church can shuffle them around to another (unsuspecting) congregation.

The problem is that sexual abuse is very different from consensual sexual relationships. Prison rapists are usually not gay, though they are men who have sex with men. The reason is that rape isn't really about sex, but about dominating and abusing others.

"Marriage has a traditional, ancient definition"

Further information: Same-sex marriage

Homophobes might say that marriage is an ancient institution, clearly defined as a union between man and woman (though they don't specify what ancient institution they're referring to). They ignore that ancient institutions have included slavery, polygamy, forced marriage, and child marriage, and that ancient traditions have banned interracial and inter-religious marriage. Some ancient institutions were also really gay, shown in various Greek art. Also, conservatives' precious Old Testament disagrees with that definition, since its model for marriage seems to be polygamy.

Many conservatives claim that extra-marital sexual relationships are sinful. So if same-sex marriage is not allowed, all same-sex sexual activities would be sinful, by definition.

Homophobes might say that gay marriage would ruin the sanctity of straight marriage. Typically, the sanctity of marriage is only ruined when one partner in the marriage has sex outside of the marriage, so it is difficult to see how same-sex marriage could impinge on the sanctity of marriage between straight individuals. Some use vague non sequitur explanations as to why it would devalue their marriage. For example, "If we recognize counterfeit money, it devalues the real thing. Therefore, if we recognize SSM, traditional marriage is devalued."

Besides, straight people have beaten up and devalued marriage on their own with no help from the gays. Straights have allowed divorce, unregistered cohabitation, the de-criminalization of adultery, quickie Vegas wedding chapels where people can get married by Elvis Presley impersonators, dog and cat weddings, and pathetic marriage-themed reality television shows where people can marry strangers they just met before divorcing 48 hours later as soon as they actually had to get to know each other. And many years later, when some gays want to marry, they get the blame for ruining straight marriage?

"Homosexuals choose to be that way"

Protester in Boston compares gays to Nazi Germany, also fails at basic poster design. Reality check: gay people were targeted and killed in Nazi Germany.

“”Dear Dr. Carson, If being gay is a choice, prove it. Choose it. Choose to be gay yourself. Show America how that's done, Ben, show us how a man can choose to be gay. Suck my dick. Name the time and the place and I'll bring my dick and a camera crew and you can suck me off and win the argument. Very sincerely yours, Dan Savage

Homophobes often claim that those living the "gay lifestyle" have simply chosen to be gay.

This could be correct for any given individual making this argument, but only if they are bisexual. Most people are attracted primarily to either men or women, and can exercise very little, if any, choice in the matter. Bisexual people, however, could conceivably choose to act on their attraction to the opposite sex and ignore their similar attraction to the same sex. But this would not make a bisexual person heterosexual.

Also curious and rarely discussed is why this should even be relevant; it's not as though societies routinely ban behaviors just because they appear to be choices rather than innate and inflexible preferences, whatever that distinction can be said to mean in an apparently deterministic universe. Blind to their own irony, the same people who revile the gays with the non-argument that homosexuality is a "choice" and thus wrong (…implying that it'd be okay if it weren't, as most evidence suggests?) are often very pleased to attempt to inflict a distinctly choice-based religious lifestyle on anyone who'll sit still and listen to their crazy, and none of them ever flips on his gay switch to show us just how easy it is to swap boning preferences.

Also, why would people choose to be gay when they have a higher risk of being harassed?

Sexually transmitted infections

Men who have sex with men are prone to some sexually transmitted infections, most notably HIV. This is mostly because anal sex transmits HIV and other infections at a rate 18 times higher than vaginal sex. Some people have transmitted these infections to heterosexual partners.

STIs are indeed a public health problem. However, most gay people are not infected, and most know how to protect themselves, just like straight people. This is simply not a problem unique to homosexuality, and some STIs such as genital herpes may not really be much more common among men who have sex with men.

If one is to believe Warren J. Blumenthal, homophobic conservatives might well be shooting themselves in the foot: "Anti-gay bias causes young people to engage in sexual behavior earlier in order to prove that they are straight. Anti-gay bias contributed significantly to the spread of the AIDS epidemic. Anti-gay bias prevents the ability of schools to create effective honest sexual education programs that would save children's lives and prevent STDs."

HIV rarely spreads through lesbian sexual intercourse. Does this mean we ban all marriages except between two women? I mean, stopping AIDS is super important enough to justify criminalizing loving relationships, right? Nope.

"Homosexuals are promiscuous"

For more information, see: Debunked: gay men have 500-1000 partners

So promiscuous that they got married.

First, even if this were universally true and demonstrable with convincing evidence (which it clearly isn't), it wouldn't mean anything. Promiscuity is not a vice in and of itself, unless you're religious and want to force everyone else to be as miserable as you.

Second, while some gay communities encourage casual sex, some straight communities do too. Meanwhile, many gay people prefer lifelong, monogamous relationships. All people, no matter their sexual orientation, have different tastes.

Third, what the hell? You're arguing that gays are promiscuous, so we should keep them from an institution designed to encourage monogamy??

Anal sex

Many homophobic jokes and arguments center around anal sex, taking as read that it's a despicable act and implying that The Gays are obsessed with it. Male-on-male anal sex seems to matter more to homophobes than to gay men. There are some health issues with penile-anal penetration, but these also apply to male-on-female anal fun, which is popular among some young Christians and usually not condemned in the same way. Also, some gay men don't do anal sex anyways. Furthermore, due to the invention of that newfangled piece of technology known as the "strap-on", straight female-on-male anal sex is also possible and regularly indulged in.

"Homosexuality is not reproductive"

Most sexual encounters, including those within marriage, are non-reproductive. These include barrier birth control, biochemical birth control, fertility awareness, non-penetrative sex, sex with sterilized people, sex with less fertile people (due to old age or other reasons), and homosexuality. Oddly enough, when someone makes the claim that it's all about children, they tend to become very unhappy if someone suggests that sterile couples should also be banned from marrying… almost as if that wasn't their real reason for opposing same-sex marriage.

Same-sex couples also commonly do something that is arguably more humanitarian than creating new people: they adopt children. There is also no requirement to make new people anyway, and a growing childfree movement against the entrenched emphasis on family and reproduction, while the world's population is still increasing. Does the planet desperately need more reproductive sex that badly? Same-sex couples can also procreate using artificial means, such as artificial insemination or surrogate mothers. Some closeted or semi-closeted homosexuals also have children through marriage before coming out.

"Homosexuals don't even exist, anyway."

Some organizations (and even entire countries) simply deny the existence of homosexuality, seeing it as a rebellious phase, a simpler way to "get some," or simply bisexuality, as opposed to a genuine lack of opposite sex attraction.

Common arguments:

• Most homosexual men enjoy women as friends. (Answers in Genesis used this argument.) People making this argument may be thinking that opposite sex friends (sometimes thought of as a psychological impossibility) are some sort of repressed desire for the opposite sex. This argument is even more ridiculous when considering the fact that most heterosexual men enjoy men as friends.
• All homosexuals are actually bisexual (also used by the same AiG "Scientist" on the same article). First of all, there is some confirmation bias in the study. He was a reparative therapist, who deals with people who want (read: are facing immense pressure) to "change". People who are in accepting communities, who are content with the same sex, may not feel the urge to change. Secondly, having past straight relationships does NOT make a person straight, any more than eating soup makes it your favorite food. Third, if homosexuals DO feel heterosexual feelings, they are very weak, in the same way that straight people may have faint homosexual feelings. Does that make everyone bi? Fourth, many homosexuals do not find the opposite sex attractive, describing it as "indifferent". Some may describe forced heterosexual relationships as feeling "unnatural" and like "doing it with my sister". Sorry to leave you with that image. This also excludes the possibility that they are bisexual, but don't identify that way, since they may have largely same-sex attraction. Conversely, the opposite could be the case, and due to internalized homophobia, they might want to act only on their opposite-sex attraction.
• There are no gay men. They are just too lazy to be with a woman. (Used by various homophobes.) The homophobe's train of thought probably goes like this:
  1. Men are naturally promiscuous.
  2. Women are naturally choosy, slow, and hard to get.
  3. Men have to go through great struggles just to "get some".
  4. Since there is no woman in the mix, homosexuality provides men with a simple, lazy, unsophisticated way to "game the system".
• I can't even imagine how you would like a man instead of a beautiful woman with beautiful breasts and luxurious hair! (used by various homophobes to deny the orientation). That's because you are attracted to women. Also, how could heterosexual women like a man instead of a beautiful woman with beautiful breasts and luxurious hair?

"I can't be homophobic if I'm not afraid!"

Some homophobes deny they are homophobes using an Argumentum ad dictionarium. The argument usually goes that the suffix "-phobe" refers to fear. Homophobes say they do not fear gay people, they just hate gay people.

There are several problems with this argument. Firstly, some dictionaries include irrational "aversion" as a possible definition of phobia. Homophobes may not fear gay people, but they certainly have an aversion to gay people.

Moreover, some arguments raised by homophobes do seem to indicate a fear of gay people.

Additionally, words do not necessarily match the meaning of the etymology of their parts. Even if one accepts that "-phobia" usually refers to fear, "homophobia" also refers to hatred of gay people.

Roots of homophobia

Repressed homosexuality

See the main article on this topic: Closet

It has been theorized that homophobia could be caused by repressed homosexual feelings. One clinical study (Adams et al 1996) showed some arousal in homophobes looking at gay sex images. However, a later study noted that Adams et al points out the possibility of the role of anxiety in sexual arousal and found an aversion to same-sex sexual imagery in homophobes. The validity of penile plethysmographs for use in psychological testing has also been called into question. Openly virulent homophobes may indeed be overcompensating for their own homosexuality, though the high profile incidents of said homophobes being outed has likely led to a spotlight effect.

Overcompensation

It has also been theorized that homophobia might be due to masculine overcompensation. According to this theory, homophobia could arise from threats to masculine identity. However, research has also shown that the belief that homosexuality is biologically determined and thus immutable reduces homophobic attitudes.

Homophobia around the world

Westboro Baptist demonstration.

Being gay is still illegal in 68 (!) countries worldwide, punishable by death in Afghanistan and Iran. Even where legalized, gay people are subject to discriminatory laws regarding age of consent. Gay marriage and adoption for gay couples is also illegal in many countries.

United States

Homophobia is the irrational fear of homosexuality that leads to gay people being denied their basic rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and expressed in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Supporters of homophobic propositions, such as the Defense of Marriage Act, often attempt to delegitimize homosexuality by arguing any of the illogical arguments above.

Many opponents take it further, alleging a conspiracy theory they dub "the gay agenda", which is the belief that gays and liberals are plotting to use things like the public school system and Hollywood movies to turn every child gay.

Some go so far they turn up the dial to 11. For example: some advocates of firearms, besides arguing they should be totally free to exercise their Second Amendment rights, will often point to the gay agenda as a reason to own a gun. After all, how else will people be able to effectively fight back against the villainous gays that will force them to become homosexuals? This is especially troubling in light of the Orlando Shooting.

Most of the developed world has moved away from the blatant, institutionalized homophobia that used to pervade it. Sadly the United States of America is one of the few developed countries that has a limp and is having a hard time catching up. In many states it is still legal to discriminate against gay people or deny them rights and privileges. These are very slowly going away thanks to growing criticism of homophobia and public activism for gay rights.

Europe

Homophobic graffiti in Serbia.

Atheist Ireland fief and notorious Islamophobe Michael Nugent used the word "flounce" as a homophobic dogwhistle, and doubled down when called out.

In 2009, Muslims from Britain, France, and Germany were interviewed for a Gallup poll, one of the questions being whether homosexuality is morally acceptable. 35% of the French Muslims agreed; 19% of the German Muslims agreed; but none of the 500 British Muslims interviewed for the poll agreed.

In November 2012, a same-sex marriage bill (called by some: Mariage Pour Tous - Marriage for Everybody) started to be debated in French Parliament and the first wedding was celebrated in May 2013. Between those dates, France saw huge demonstrations from the ultra-religious/far-right coalition "Manif Pour Tous" (Demonstration For Everybody). Not a single wise person would have considered playing the Gay Agenda/Marriage Drinking Game during that time as alcohol poisoning could result almost instantly. Those events could be surprising to many as Europe and France are considered (since the French Revolution) to be way less religious and more advanced on social matters.

Western Europe, in general, is more accepting of homosexuality and more progressive in terms of protective legislation, than North America.

In Central Europe, things aren't so pretty. Social conservatism is ripe and the region is a battle ground between liberals and illiberals, with illiberals gaining ground in Poland and Austria. However, Austria was forced by court order in 2017 to recognize marriage between people of the same sex. Hungary, despite early wins in LGBT rights has plunged into illiberal rule recent decade. Central Europe is as of 2018 the European battleground for gay rights.

Only one Eastern European country recognizes same-sex marriage in their country (Armenia, which can be classed as Western Asian), nor do they allow same-sex couples to adopt children. Russia has passed a bunch of idiotic laws that ban gay "propaganda" and has banned gay pride parades in Moscow for… 100 years!? The homophobia there is thinly veiled with hurting religious people's fragile feelings, shielding vulnerable, impressionable children from the horrors of homosexuality, and preventing the spread of gay HIV/AIDS (while doing nothing about the spread of straight HIV/AIDS). Chechenya, a hell-hole republic in Russia, has a leader who believes gays don't even exist and there are rumors of gay concentration camps in it.

Africa

Rules for a hotel in Kenya.

Due to a lack of stable education systems as well as high levels of radical religious evangelism (both Islamic and Christian), racists claim that Africans oppose homosexuality more than other peoples in the world. Uganda in particular has made waves with its hostile treatment of gay people, passing new laws to persecute them more than they already were, and allowing the public to deny them basic human rights. They've even shut down any support for them. In 2014, Uganda proceeded to broaden the law, resulting in a rise of homophobic violence in the country, though homosexuality is thankfully still not a capital crime.

Amnesty International reports that Uganda is not unique. Criminalization of homosexuality is growing in Africa according to an official report published in June 2013.

Currently, South Africa is the only African country to legalize gay marriage. Cape Verde, however, is said to be pretty LGBTQ+ friendly as well, even if same-sex marriage still isn't legalized there.

Middle-East

The treatment of homosexuals in the Middle-East varies from country to country, though in general the Middle-East opposes homosexuality even more than Africa or anywhere else in the world. Several Middle-Eastern countries have the worst track record of human rights abuses of gay people of any country. Not only is support for them shut down, the Middle-East includes the majority of nations where homosexuality is potentially a capital crime; examples of the latter are Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan (although the last is generally considered to be a part of South Asia, rather than the Middle East).

This is mostly due to widespread prevalence of severe religious laws in these countries; the religion in question being Islam, which is overwhelmingly dominant in these countries (from at least the 21^st century onwards, Islamic countries are also the only countries where homosexuality can potentially be a capital offense). Iran is one of the only remaining nations in the world that's a full theocracy and the only Islamic one; Saudi Arabia's government doesn't identify as a theocracy despite the predominance of Islam and their control of Mecca. Many people there are unwilling to question or challenge this harsh opposition of homosexuality, either because they approve of it, want to assuage the public, or fear violent reprisals from fundamentalists among them for doing so. Political factors have also played a small part, a key example being the Iranian Revolution in 1979, which caused the execution of as many as 7,000 homosexuals.

While Iran began to legally recognize transgender people and subsidize their surgery in the 1980s, and there was talk of allowing more rights to homosexuals, homosexual acts can still potentially lead to execution. Iran effectively uses gender transition as a "cure" for homosexuality, despite being gay and being trans being completely different things.

See also

• Steven Anderson
• Biphobia
• East London Mosque
• Jerry Falwell
• Gay panic
• Ayatollah Khomeni
• Greg Locke
• Haggard's Law
• Heteronormativity
• Homosexuality
• Iran
• Fred Phelps
• Reaction formation
• Same-sex marriage
• Transphobia

• Fun:Homophobia Bingo

External links

• Orson Scott Card
• "The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay Fascists" — a 2008 Huffington Post essay on rampant homophobes with fascist beliefs who turn out to be in the closet (at least to outsiders)
• Meet The Blowtorch-Carrying Gay Marriage Opponent Who Set That General Mills Lawn On Fire, The Smoking Gun (a video that's just as stupid as described)
• "The World's Worst Place To be Gay" — Gay BBC reporter visits Uganda (57 minute video)
• Time For Love — A poem that explores homophobia in modern society.