From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sex.svg

This sexuality related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Entire debate moved to Talk:Atheism. --Signed by Elassint the Great Hi! 17:05, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Everything has its place and everything in its place right? tmtoulouse plague 17:06, 23 November 2007 (EST)
It bothered me. --Signed by Elassint the Great Hi! 17:08, 23 November 2007 (EST)
But I have no opinion on atheism, I thought we were talking aout homophobia. Susan... miaow ... 17:12, 23 November 2007 (EST)

You know, this artical needs major improvment. Anyone willing to jump in? --Signed by Elassint the Great Hi! 17:40, 23 November 2007 (EST)

truly pathetic[edit]

I see references to conservapedia, fred phelps, jerry falwell, and "groups of Christians". Where is the link to Ahmadinejad? Where is the link to Iran? Are you aware of what goes on there? This truly reveals much about this site, and the prejudices of its users. user:Bohdan N544023135 90578 6551.jpg 22:48, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Yes, i do agree with you on this.
Go to the wikipedia article on Human rights in Iran. user:Bohdan N544023135 90578 6551.jpg 22:53, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Woah. I would hate to live there. 22:57, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Instead of complaining, make it better! Researcher 23:00, 19 December 2007 (EST)
You are a researcher, I am a complainer. user:Bohdan N544023135 90578 6551.jpg 23:01, 19 December 2007 (EST)
How delightfully Jewish of you :) --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 145 edits! 19:29, 20 December 2007 (EST)
Did you just make an racist comment? I think you did. 15:15, 22 December 2007 (EST)
No, I was complimenting him on his incessant kvetching. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 270 edits! 15:19, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Jewish = Complaining = stereotype = racist.
One man's opinion. Carptrash 12:10, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Unfortunately some of this site's users are cowards or prejudiced. A Christian does something bad and they'll pick it apart like a shoal of piranhas; someone from another religion does it, crickets - unless it's Islam then they handle it with kid gloves. — Unsigned, by: / talk
Says the BoN who tried to whitewash articles... Meanwhile on the talkpages for the Islam and Muhammad articles... "How dare you say that Muhammad engaged in pedophilia!" "How dare you point out that Qur'an is primitive and flawed!". Oh wait, you never read those articles because you're an stupid ideologue. Huh, weird that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I said "some" of this site's users #NotAll. Thank you for pointing those out regarding Islam, good to see some on this site aren't handling Islam with kid gloves. What articles did I try to whitewash? Where's your proof? The only thing I changed on this page apart from adding the treatment of homosexuals/homosexuality in the Middle East was trying to make clear that the rumors of gay concentration camps in Chechnya are just that, check the edit history. My first point still stands; the fact remains there's far more talk about anytime a Christian does something bad than any other religion on this website (call it Oppression Olympics if you want, but just take a look at pages here that discuss religious subject matter and you'll see the editorializing). Just look at this page and compare how many gay people the Westboro Baptist Church has killed (actually and thankfully none, for all the hatred they've spouted) to how many died during the Iranian Revolution, then tell me which religion gets mentioned more. Not to mention this site's track record; a willingness of Dawkins and Harris to criticize Islam was one thing split the fans of the New Atheist movement here and turned some against the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris - who were once considered heroes here. / talk
Nah, that would be the racism. And the courting of Neo-Nazis. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I'm Christian and seeking to have an accurate and even-handed discussion. While I disagree with Dawkins and Harris (Chris and Dennett too, and yes even though there are a few times they've had a point) and don't consider them heroes - quite the opposite, but I don't consider them racists and won't defame them. I hope you're one of those people who says the truth that Muslims are followers of a religion and not a race, and not one of those people who try to conflate opposition of Islam with racism (a tactic often used by certain people to justify double standards of attacking some religions but not others - usually done to justify prejudice words or actions against Christians and Jews - here followers of the religion Judaism - while not doing the same to Muslims, especially when it's done regarding the same complaints such as opposition of homosexuality - refer to my WBC/Iranian Revolution comparison above). Racism often gets used as a snarl word to shut down discussions about certain groups or de-platform certain people, so to make sure there's a clear understanding how do you define racism? What proof do you have of racism on their part? / talk

I just moved the caption[edit]

from the picture to here.

'"But he hates this guy even more.'"

I have come to believe that voicing our opinions here is fine as long as they are deemed in-line with the Rationalwiki dogma. I think that posting what God thinks (ignoring the point that the existence of God, or rather non-existence of god, is the party line here) is going a tad too far, even as a jest. Carptrash 13:37, 8 November 2008 (EST)

I disagree... the point of the caption is pretty clear - it makes fun of the guy in the picture claiming to know what God thinks... ħumanUser talk:Human 13:50, 8 November 2008 (EST)

No problem. I do understand the irony implied here, just think it's . . ......... uncalled for. The guy is pretty much carrying a sign that says, I'm an idiot. No need to drag either " god " or " hate " into it any more than he already has. Carptrash 13:54, 8 November 2008 (EST)

How about a caption that reads "In English, the sign says "I am an idiot""? Eh, not very funny. Can you think of a better caption? ħumanUser talk:Human 14:09, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Meanwhile, another unsolicited (subjective - thus highly suspect) story.[edit]

Years ago a retired NFL (National Football League -American style football, that is) played named Reggie White, - who was also a fundamentalist minister - hit the talk show, lecture circuit carrying a message that, among things, many folks felt was racist and homophobic. So my wonderful, supportive and long-suffering partner and made a sign that said,

"Discrimination has a face. Is it yours?"

and headed out for what we believed would be a demonstration at my college alma mater where the Rev. White was "preaching". We sidled up to a large group of sign totting folks across the road from the auditorium and staked out a place, ready to do what ever needed to be done. The folks in the crowd looked us over and finally an intense youngish (younger than me) woman came over and informed us that this was a demonstration pushing black values and so as white folks (so now you know) we were not welcome.

We had been kicked out of the anti discrimination demonstration because of our race.

However, we'd been at this game a lot longer than most of them, so we crossed the street, got by the main entrance and forced everyone entering the hall to read our sign while I took pictures of them. Actually I ran out of film (this was way before my digital life began) early on, but continued to click away, shooting blanks at folks. Because of our placing we got the press coverage, which sort of felt good and sort of not.

Wait. What was your question again? Carptrash 13:58, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Female Homosexuality and the Bible[edit]

The article claims that the Bible does not mention female homosexuality. However, in Romans 1:26, female homosexuality is condemned. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Huh, so it does! Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 01:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, from my understanding, that passage had to do with prostitutes and not lesbians. Not that anything in the Bible really matters, anyways. LimpWrist (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, taking a look at the verse in context makes it look a lot less like a condemnation of lesbians, but rather people having sex in the course of worshiping *gasp* other gods! But of course, our mysterious unsigned person above is free to pluck a verse out of context so it'll mean in isolation something they want it to, even if it's still a bit of a stretch. Creationists and the like are good at quote mining, why not do it to the Bible too? (FWIW, the passage just sounds like impotent wish fulfillment on the part of someone who really doesn't like those not of their religion, but that's the Bible for you). --Kels (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
"....The passage just sounds like impotent wish fulfillment on the part of someone who really doesn't like those not of their religion, but that's the Bible for you," You said it, Kels dear! LimpWrist (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC) says So Romans 1:26-27 speaks only of heterosexual people who act 'contrary to their nature.The text provides neither ethical nor behavioral guidance to lesbian, bay or bisexual people." And it implys that God influenced them to behave Gay , naughty God . Hamster (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
(EC)I would say restore the section about female homosexuality, but add that some claim Romans 1:26 is a condemnation of lesbianism, but the claim rests on a very shaky foundation, and use LW's link as a ref. --Kels (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Kels. Gutting a section because some BoN points to one verse is silly without at least checking the context. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
My bad. I'll put the bamboo under my own fingernails. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 01:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
No need for self-flagellation, unless that was on your agenda for the evening already! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I must pay my penance< Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 01:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Exact change only. --Kels (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


Roots of homophobia section appears to mistake the USA for the world. Broccoli (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

True. It could be expanded. And I might be just the person to do it! 01:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Fag. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Untimly ripped from article's womb[edit]

"Also note that homosexuality, until very recently, was pretty much non-existent in mainstream media, which has traditionally been run by presumably heterosexual men. As such, when people first realize homosexuals indeed exist, react in surprise and then move on with their lives. Homophobes tend to prolong this feeling of surprise, and, instead of educating themselves and realizing that homosexuals are indeed still human-beings, mistake their confusion for disgust and seek validation for these emotions instead of neutralizing them. Their continued fascination with the 'sexual' aspect of homosexuality suggests attraction, like when a kid annoys a girl with verbal abuse in order to get her attention. The 'disgust' reasoning stems from most all countries or cultures being rooted in patriarchal order, and thus the idea of two men doing the dirty tango may seem disharmonious to the image men should retain as powerful and masculine. "

This was also inserted ahead of a footnote to what preceded it. Most of it just just looks like one person's (perhaps justified) rant rather than an effort to make the article "better". There's also a lot of "wrong" in it. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of a new section title, but I'm writing anyway[edit]

To be honest, I've never liked this word. I have Christian friends, who are one of the most honest and friendliest people in the world, and who know that I am gay. Although they dislike homosexuality, they are my friends, and I would never even think of using the word "phobia" about them. I kind of fear (how funnily that sounds) that it's nothing else than labeling, saying that it is not possible to oppose a particular political/moral view without having a phobia.

For example, when the Miss California USA 2009 said, in the most polite way possible, "Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I think I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman."

...then was she really homophobic?

I do not want to say that there are no people who could be described as "homophobic", but I do want to say that this word is used unjustly against every person who opposes homosexuality (and who may actually be a very nice person).

And I'm writing this because it seems that this article does not handle this question fully at all.

--Earthland (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a sort of clause in the definition of "homophobia" that basically says that it isn't an irrational fear - it's a prejudice that turns people against them. So it's a misnomer in that sense, but it's stuck anyway. There are a few other examples where "phobia" is used; chemophobia for example, is less to do with any irrational fear of chemicals (it's not recognised as an actual phobia by any psychologists) and more to do with pre-existing prejudices and distrust of them, although these distrusts can also be irrational like a phobia, unlike a phobia they don't manifest as fear. Scarlet A.pngpostate 19:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm sure I made this point about homophobia in the article, it must have been elsewhere. Scarlet A.pngpostate 19:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
It's mentioned briefly here: Phobia#Non_clinical_use, which I think would be the better place to go into depth about it as the issue you have with the term also should apply to the other non-clinical uses of "phobia" (Islamophobia, xenophobia, chemophobia and homophobia [and heterophobia?]) Scarlet A.pngpostate 20:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it does, although in other cases it is less important, since the "distrust" or "hatred" is probably the basic issue about xenophobia, but the debate over homosexuality is wider and more complex. I basically mean that saying "no logical argument against this or that can't be made" is also a prejudice, isn't it? --Earthland (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
EC--"Was she really homophobic?" Fucking right she was, at least as the term is commonly used. And in my view, being a "nice person" is irrelevant when we're talking about "opposing homosexuality." I know lots of "nice" people who are flaming racists--does that make their racism/fundamental hatred/personal vile-ness any less reprehensible? Of course not. While I agree that using the "phobia" suffix is linguistically problematic for a number of reasons (it blurs the line between bigotry and pathology, which makes it appear as if a person's hatred can be thought of in the same way as, say, my absolute, gut-wrenching fear of crowds or confined spaces. The difference? I don't want to keep crowds or open spaces from getting married, or adopting kids, or performing sex acts between consenting adults...) it's the word we have (I would rather "heterosexism," or something else that puts it in the same discursive realm as "racism.") and the word we're stuck using... TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Then how is it "commonly used"? She told her political position, in a very peaceful and polite way, and how is it connected to being "angry, anxious and fearful"? Saying that any rational argument can not possibly support her political position is equally a prejudice. You should note that there is a difference between opposing homosexuality and hating homosexuals. A person who opposes homosexuality can have a very good relationship with a homosexual person (although this is a rare case, I suppose) --Earthland (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, hating homosexuals and opposing homosexuality as a practice isn't the same thing, but in both cases they seem happy to strip the rights of individuals for an irrelevant reason, in this case their sexual orientation. In the case of racism, it's skin colour, and so on. In that respect, the two cases of "opposing" and "hating" are no different and are labelled as such. Scarlet A.pngpostate 20:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

EC--" A person who opposes homosexuality can have a very good relationship with a homosexual person..." ah, the "some of my best friends are black/Jews/whatever" argument. Just because she was peaceful and polite doesn't keep her from being petty-minded and hateful. Sexuality is one of those things that's pretty hard to separate from the person, so that "love the sinner, hate the sin," or whatever the secular version of the argument is, is really a pretty weak sister. There may be a difference between "opposing homosexuality and hating homosexuals" (I don't think there is...) but there ain't no difference between "opposing homosexuality and opposing blackness," so really, we;re back to where we started, with a bigot who judges people by those aspects of their being from which they as a person cannot, in our society, be easily separated. I would love to see a "rational argument" that supports opposing something fundamental to human identity. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hateful" is also an unjust word, because even if she supports something really awful, she may honestly believe that this is the greatest good she is fighting for. It does not affect the truth or whatever, you can be absolutely sincere and dead wrong, but I think you can't really say "hateful" about every person who opposes homosexuality.
Even if you can rightly compare sexuality to skin color or race (since it is argued that homosexuals are not born and sexual orientation can be changed), then I think rational arguments against equal rights are still possible. For example, if it was somehow proved that children who live in a homosexual family have worse life than those living in a heterosexual family, it would be a very good argument against homosexual families.
As far as I know, one of the main arguments used against homosexuals is that homosexuality makes people more sick, more violent etc, and for me it seems to be the only argument that (to some degree) holds water, because there actually are studies that indicate that quite clearly. I quote: "/.../ more than a century of scientific, peer-reviewed studies and clinical observation that indicate that much homosexual behavior originates in deficient family relationships and is associated with a wide range of diseases and pathological behaviors. Homosexual behavior is also statistically associated with a host of diseases, disorders, and pathological behaviors, including venereal and other diseases, promiscuity and unstable relationships, anxiety disorders, depression and suicide, alcoholism and drug abuse, domestic violence, pederasty, and early death. /.../ "
(this is one article and from a probably biased source, but it just summarized the general argument)
Unfortunately this is the one questions that the pro-gay side almost never addresses. I think that there is answer, and I think I'm getting quite close to it. I am gay myself, so in most cases it is quite uncomfortable to honestly talk about these issues; however, I prefer to read what they write against homosexuality without any prejudice and since most of what I've read is intelligent (even if, as it's finally turned out, wrong), I hate this "they're all hateful and irrational" attitude.
--Earthland (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
"because even if she supports something really awful, she may honestly believe that this is the greatest good she is fighting for." How is this different from white supremacy, then? The Klan believe they are fighting for a greater good, too. "For example, if it was somehow proved that children who live in a homosexual family have worse life than those living in a heterosexual family, it would be a very good argument against homosexual families." And if it could be proven that Jews and non-Jews would produce children who have a worse life than non-mixed marriages, that would justify banning Gentiles and Jews from marrying. Or if it the same thing could be proven about blondes and redheads, or right-handers and left-handers. But you can't prove either case, so the less said, the better. As for your arguments about homosexuality and violence/social ills, stop it. You sound like Ken Demeyer. I'd be fucked up too, if I'd been marginalised and systematically discriminated against. That argument is wrong, dangerous and full of shit. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The thing is that, although homosexuality is widespread in the nature, the homosexual parenting is very rare and, in human civilization at least, completely unnatural (in sense that homosexuals couples aren't meant to have children in the nature). As such, it can't be compared to Jews having children. But yes, it's pointless to discuss.
I'm not particularly aware of what Conservapedia writes about homosexuals, but being an editor at CP does not prevent someone from getting something occasionally right. I urge you to go trough all the different forms of ad hominem, there are quite many of them.
That being said, I probably sound rather conservative on this issue. I'm quite restless indeed, I feel I can truly trust no side.
--Earthland (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"one of the main arguments used against homosexuals is that homosexuality makes people more sick, more violent etc" I think most of that can be simply attributed (like suicide rates, drug abuse, etc) to the very fact that society is not homo-friendly. Is there a better suffix than "phobic"? One that means dislike or disapproving or hatred of something that other people simply "are"? I have been wracking my brains since this thread got started to think of what it would be. This should be easy... we have "phile" for "lover of", what is Latin for "hater of"? We seem to use "phobe". As in "francophobe" or "zenophobe". I think the psychiatric jargon does not apply - in psych it gets read as "fear of", but, really, a claustrophobe hates small spaces, it's not just "an irrational fear of", it is probably correctly translated as "hate of". What say ye all? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But suicide rates and drug abuse amongst homosexuals is the same in very homo-friendly countries, such like The Netherlands. --Earthland (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Links to facts? I suspect you are not really gay, btw. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Mm, yes, you probably do. But, even though I wouldn't classify myself as a homophobe, you should know that being gay does not stop anyone from being a homophobe. You can probably imagine homophobic closeted gays, but there are also out&out gays who go to a gay bar simply to say, "what, you think that I'm happy because I like to fuck other men?".
I probably wouldn't myself think that I'm gay if I read all I write, but that's what I think and that's who I am, and that's all you gonna get, so let it be so.
As for evidence, I can probably find it some day (that sounds pathetic). --Earthland (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear, EL, still craving the attention. Now no-one is playing with your beloved abortion you have to stir up another sacred cow. Now why was it I called you EarthTroll... Jack Hughes (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"more than a century of scientific, peer-reviewed studies and clinical observation that indicate that much homosexual behavior originates in deficient family relationships"[edit]

Is this true? That sounds like nonsense to me. --DamoHi 07:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, guess what else is "statistically associated with a host of diseases, disorders, and pathological behaviors, including venereal and other diseases, promiscuity and unstable relationships, anxiety disorders, depression and suicide, alcoholism and drug abuse, domestic violence, pederasty, and early death"? Heterosexuality. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess the proportion is the question. It could be accused of this, but it is (to some degree), true. If you believe Wikipedia, you can read it. It is mixed, for example "Gay men are not at a higher risk for drug or alcohol abuse than heterosexual men", but it also says that "In a Dutch study, gay men reported significantly higher mood and anxiety disorders than straight men, and lesbians were significantly more likely to experience depression (but not other mood or anxiety disorders) than straight women." (Dutch is a very gay-friendly country, isn't it?) and "The likelihood of suicide attempts are increased in both gay males and lesbians, as well as bisexuals of both sexes when compared to their heterosexual counterparts." --Earthland (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, that was this other thing. Well, twin studies make it quite clear that even at best very many gay people are not born to be gay, or at least that genes are only part of why people are gay, which means there must be social influences also. I personally do not believe that deficient family relationships make people gay, itis nonsense. --Earthland (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I also understand they're at a higher risk of Gay Bowel Disease, deceit, smoking, obesity, syphilis, anal cancer, and being Scottish. I think you need to take your fine self over to a different wiki, chump. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


Gays being at a higher risk of anal cancer sounds correct and logical to me, however, I can't see how it exactly is an "argument against homosexuality". You can keep your advice to yourself; you need it more than I do. It is not "heresy" to talk about these issues, and to admit the truth. Here you can read that Gay and Lesbian Medical Association admit that homosexuals suffer disproportionate rates of disease. believe me now? --Earthland (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What about straights that have a lot of anal sex? what about gays that don't have a lot of anal sex? It's not that I don't believe you, it's that you don't seem to understand that it's not a case of gayness = more disease; it's a case of gayness = higher risk of being marginalised by a fundamentally homophobic society = higher risk of lots of bad stuff. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed the jump from very many gay people are not born to be gay, or at least that genes are only part of why people are gay to deficient family relationships. It looks like EL is Olympic level at leaping to unsupported conclusions. He blames his mother for having an abortion and now he blames his mother for making him gay. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I forgot the word "not". Three letters make quite a differnce... --Earthland (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
There are massive issues with correlation and causation here. Forgive the broad brush generalisations but..
  • Even in the most gay friendly countries there is aversion to homosexuality and being gay at school is likely to be traumatic as one is marked as "different"
  • In particular the act of 'coming out' is highly traumatic and tends, in part, to happen in late teens, a time when youngsters are particularly vulnerable.
  • A traumatic upbringing has a tendency to lead to emotional problems later in life
  • Higher suicide rates amongst homosexuals is therefore a result of societies reaction to homosexuality rather than the homosexuality itself.
It is precisely for this sort of reason that I find role models like potential "Miss World"s making statements that she is against same sex marriage abhorrent. Imagine the outcry is she had said she was against miscegenation, and yes, I do feel the comparison is valid. The statement marks out homosexual love as, in some way, less than heterosexual love, and, by implication, gays as lesser beings. OK, so I'm arguing from adverse consequence but, in my eyes, anything that ranks one human being as less than another is abhorrent and, at the end of the day, based in fear - hence the 'phobia' part. All the health concerns about "the gay lifestyle" are as nought compared with the right for one human being to love another in whatever way they wish (assuming informed consent, of course). Jack Hughes (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Define "deficient"[edit]

I would like to see a definition of deficient as applied in the phrase "deficient family relationships," please. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It means "having too few siblings". ħumanUser talk:Human 23:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

An Earthy question[edit]

Hi. EL. You have previously stated that you are gay and that you have a "gay agenda to push - so I wondering how you feel all this affects you? For instance:

  • Do you think you are gay because of genetic reasons or becasue of some environmental cause?
  • Are you worried about the claimed claimed increase in cancer which you face?
  • Do you have suicidal urges as a consequence of your gayness?
  • Do you suffer from: "a host of diseases, disorders, and pathological behaviors, including venereal and other diseases, promiscuity and unstable relationships, anxiety disorders, depression and suicide, alcoholism and drug abuse, domestic violence, pederasty, and early death." (Though I guess the "early death" comes later.)
  • Do you find yourself prone to violent impulses as a consequence of being gay?
  • You seem to imply that there could be therapeutic "treatment" for gayness. Given all the negative aspects which you seem to associate with gayness, and given that you seem to believe that it can be "treated", I would imagine that you have tried the treatment. If so, how did it go? If you haven't tried it - could you explain why not?

Sorry for so many questions but I'm a little confused about how you (and for that matter your homosexual partners) cope with these issues. Cheers.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In the right order: both, no, no, no, no, and what gave you such idea? And I have no homosexual partner, I'm 17 and still a virgin, damn it. It's something extraordinary nowadays. --Earthland (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, Earthy has referred to the lack of a boyfriend before. Give the kid some slack, it can suck to be 17 and lust but not have love. Or something like that. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

image problem[edit]

Homophobia God Hates Fags.jpg

is failing. why? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


If nobody has any complaints, and I'm going to assume nobody does, I'm going to switch out that. . . odd, acronym for one which includes all potential targets of "Homophobia", as per the last sane guideline of the LGBT page. Admiral Lowe (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edits, mostly because they were a bit weird. But I'd like to see this:

"Further, it is not uncommon for a homosexual pair bond to serve all of the same functions of a heterosexual pair bond in nature, including adoption, which has lead to further theories about homosexuality being not just an incidental fact of nature, but a helpful function, which would directly contradict any attempts to state that some supernatural entity didn't intend homosexuality."

reworded and included somehow. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


Hey guys, I researched the bit under "it's against God's law" about eating four-legged animals, and nothing like that is in Leviticus 17. A nearby chapter, Leviticus 11, does say "You are not to eat any creature that moves along the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is unclean." I think it's talking about things like alligators, which either drag themselves along or otherwise move very low to the ground, rather than cows and such. I'd change the article myself but you'd probably do a better job of integrating this with the existing arguments. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

"The law of fatherhood is not applicable to same-sex couples"[edit]

Shouldn't same-sex couples have right of adoption [child]? (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Eclectic Eccentric Spammer No.1

Pederasty and Christianity[edit]

One major bulwark of the Jews' opposition to homosexuality was that it was a foreign and "idolatrous" practice. When the Bible recounts that King Josiah "brake down the houses of the sodomites" during the Deuteronomic Reform, it refers to catamites living around the temple to perform ritual prostitution. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"The law of fatherhood is not applicable to same-sex couples," Redux[edit]

Make no sense to me, the section does. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 04:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Racial pride[edit]

Stumbled across this page and noticed that both instances link to homophobia. Glancing the talk page, I'm guessing it's a remnant from an earlier version of the article. Is this some sort of in-joke, an event that happened only in the U.S. or is there some real connection between SPD and homophobia? --Polite Timesplitter talk to me sugar, but best keep it on thedown-low 12:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Saint Patricks Day is a celebration of Irishness first and foremost. It is only technically a religious event. The Irish diaspora is one of the largest and most politically influential in American politics (Or at least it used to be) so obviously it has become a cornerstone of ethno-national self identification. It isn't nearly as big a deal in Ireland itself, as it is in America. The Italians, Polish and Germans don't have anything comparable, despite having similarly large numbers of people of such descent in the USA. To say it is an example of 'racial pride' is slightly inaccurate as I don't think it is even exclusively Irish American any more. The big diaspora of Irish people cam in two main waves: One was at the founding of the American Republic, and featured mainly Irish Protestants and Presbyterians. The second wave was following the Irish famine in the mid 19th century, overwhelming comprising Catholics. This became the much more influential diaspora, as their concentrated numbers and shared collective identity lasted well into the mid 20th century. It was supplemented somewhat by further waves of emigration, with distant relatives often staying over with second or third generation Irish Americans. Distant cousins from some village in west Cork suddenly became lodgers and began to set up their own families. It was a rich and distinctive social group that reached its height 50 years ago. Nowadays St. Patricks day is a fun carnival for all the family, and an excuse to get drunk. To get any over political moral out of the occasion requires conspiracy theories of the worst kind. I don't know where the homophobia allegation comes from, but it is self evidently silly. MC.
I know of no formal connection, but I do know that those who celebrated St.Patrick's day most widely in my own home town are the 'townies,' the native dwellers that are mostly lower working-class, irish (the other half of them near me is Italian) and very religious. I don't really know their stance on homophobia (considering I live in one of the bluest voting districts of one of the bluest counties in one of the bluest states, it probably isn't too terrible) but if anybody in town had a Rick Santorum sign on their lawns, it was them. Up near me St. Patrick's day is treated as one of those holidays in which people drink and sin and then the rest of the year go back to being devout. Sort of like a smaller, lamer, un-organized cousin of Mardi Gras. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 13:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There are complaints about homophobia. Protest Homophobia of NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade, March 17th Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

But that's about one group getting politicised, rather than SPD itself. In the current climate, there are homophobic elements in all sorts of things because that's the culture war's current battlefield. It'd be a mistake to say SPD is generally homophobic because of this occurence, although here in England it's just an excuse to pretend to get blitzed on Guinness and Harp. SophieWilder 13:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Orson Scott Card[edit]

That post is pretty good. Makes me question what's going on with Songmaster, though. (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Islamophobia propaganda[edit]

I removed a very obvious plug for Islam stating that homophobia in Africa is "mostly a sub-saharan (I.E. it's not Islamic, it's Christian) phenomenon." Who are the vile people who put these pro-Islamic plugs on these pages? The Muslim Brotherhood must have people working around the clock just editing wikis all over the internet - or maybe 90% of fellow liberals are just so blinded by your dogmatic allegiance to politically correct nonsense that you're incapable of thinking in the slightest, I don't know. 95% of Egypt hates homosexuality. Libya punishes any gay act by 5 years in jail. Algeria it's 2 years in prison - if you're not honor killed by someone for it. In Sudan, the third offense of Sodomy carries the death penalty or life in prison. I don't know who the PC police are around here, but when Islamists are vandalizing your page - better watch out.

This link is dead[edit]

This is the dead link: Can someone find a replacement? ClickerClock (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Homophobia doesn't exist because I have a bad dictionary[edit]

I know someone (he's Portuguese) that thinks homophobia doesn't exist and therefore he is not a homophobe, because his dictionary says that phobia only means fear. No matter how many times people show him, he's still adamant about it. How do I convince him otherwise? Can I convince him otherwise? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Any comprehensive modern English dictionary should include an entry for homophobia. Often its entry for phobia will also acknowledge that it can mean hatred or aversion rather than specifically fear. E.g. see Wiktionary's entry for -phobia (as a suffix). Plus there's always Wikipedia for more lengthy coverage of these topics & what they mean. & Ultimately it's just semantics. If your acquaintance has prejudices or hatred towards gay people, that's a problem regardless of what he chooses to call it. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

White privilege[edit]

Why is this page so racist? The first paragraph mentions only the supposed homophobia of Jamaica and Africa, in order to hide White homophobia while putting all the blame on oppressed people of Global South and create a false image of Blacks as bigots. (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Arguments about children and reproduction (prejudices ≠ homophobia)[edit]

The section "Arguments about children and reproduction" is strongly funded on the incorrect idea that "being against same-sex marriage and/or child adoption for gay parents is necessarily homophobic". Of course, all homophobes are against gay marriage and gay parenting, but there are many people who are against those practices without having hate for gays.

For example, a person could believe in some "Freudian argument" for which a child needs both a male and a female parent in order to grow psychologically healthy and, as a consequence, that person would be against child adoption for gays (and also for single parents), although his ideas do not imply any hate for homosexuals. Similarly, one could believe that same-sex marriages would have a bad impact on the economy, or on the human reproduction.

Note that it does not matter that the "Freudian argument" and the other arguments have no scientific basis, and that they can be show to be false in many ways, the point is that wrong concepts about homosexuality are not necessarily funded on hate for homosexuals, i.e., homophobia.

Labelling all people against same-sex marriages and adoption for gays as "homophobes", instead of simply "mistaken", does no good to those causes. Because you can convince a mistaken person to change his mind, but you cannot convince an homophobe to change his hate. McLaghing (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree apart from the last sentence, bigoted people can change. Christopher (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I am glad that you agree, but what should I do? Should I delete the section "Arguments about children and reproduction"? (I bet that doing so I would too became part of the incorrected labelled homophobes.) McLaghing (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"homophobe" does not refer to hate. It refers to fear. Webster, for homophobia: "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." McLaghing is using a warped definition to make himself right. --Some random Smith (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
But the "you need a mother and a father" bit could still come from sexism rather than homophobia. Christopher (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
And a rationalization can be developed for anything. Yes, one can define a role of mother and a role of father and then believe that these roles are necessary for children's developmental health (which may be true), and then it would be a sexist belief that these roles can only be filled by biological females and males, respectively. However, in actual practice, those who argue against two-parent adoption, are they also arguing against single parenthood? Should courts appoint a second parent if one of the original parents becomes unavailable?
No, Christopher, the argument is rooted in the idea that there is something about gay parents (assuming they are gay, is that required to be partners?) that makes them unsuitable as parents, and the most probable source is fear that they will raise the children to be gay. Which is Bad, of course. Homophobia.
I have no doubt that two parents are better than one. That the parents are different is probably beneficial as well. However, two gay parents are not the same, they are individuals, (who might be "femme" or "butch") and two gay parents is probably much better than one parent, other things being equal. There are far more worrisome possibilities with parents than gay/straight. How about alcohol or drug usage or emotional volatility and possible abuse? How about indoctrination into some abusive sectarian religion or other belief system? --Some random Smith (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Some random Smith "McLaghing is using a warped definition to make himself right." read again all my post replacing "hate" by "fear" and the conclusion does not change. You are missing completely the point: It is not about if gay parents are good or not - it is about if being against same-sex marriage and child adoption for gays is NECESSARILY a homophobe (fear/hate of homosexuals) behaviour. I say that it is not, and I explained why. Of course you can say that any "non-homophobe" argument (like the Freudian male and female roles necessity) is in reality a rationalization of a homophobe mind, and I think too that indeed in many cases it is. But since nobody can read somebody else mind, we have to stick to the arguments and - even if they are illogical and without any scientific basis - if they do not contain fear or hate for homosexuals, we can not call them homophobe. Otherwise, this is no more a logical discussion, by became just "calling names" McLaghing (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Tax money for LGBT services[edit]

I have deleted the section Tax money for LGBT services because I think that it does not make any sense:

Some governments fund LGBT festivals, LGBT education for government employees, condoms, or other services to benefit sexual minorities. Well, government spending could always be subject to debate, but this spending in no way makes homosexuality, itself, a problem;

I agree. Indeed I do not think that people against government funding of LGBT festivals argued that "homosexuality is wrong because government funds LGBT festivals", they are probably just against that use of public money. This entire section seems to be founded on this false premise.

if gay people had their rights, the services wouldn't be necessary.

It depends. LGBT festivals usually are done to promote gay-rights, but even in countries were there are same-sex marriages and adoptions for gay parents these festivals keep going... Also, LGBT education (which I guess means sex education including gay sex) could be still important even after all gay-rights are ensure. Also also, I have no idea what condoms have to do with gay people rights.

Furthermore, there are not separate "gay" and "straight" economies: both are part of a wider thing generally known as "the economy". Governments and tax agencies do not employ people to ensure that the taxes paid by heterosexuals only go into programs targeted at sexual minorities, so it is definitely not a matter of "straight" money going to gay people.

I doubt anybody says that takes paid by heterosexuals go only in LGBT services, so I do not see what is the argument...

And if we were only concerning government cost, wouldn't putting gay people on trial, and sending them to prison, or give them lifetime appeal before executing them be much more expensive?

Strawman. It started by talking about people against the use of taxes to fund LGBT programs, and now it is saying that these same people think that gays should be imprisoned and even killed.

Opposition to funding for LGBT services can be a hypocritical point of view when you consider that tax money going to orphanages and public schools could be described as directing tax money, including that paid by gay people, towards the results of heterosexual procreation.

Well, it would be hypocritical if the heterosexual against public funding of LGBT services had all procreated and then left their children in an orphanage to be raised by public money... but I doubt it is so... Moreover, by the way, some of the kids in orphanages are gay...

McLaghing (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)