Talk:Homophobia/Archive 8

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-24 Homophobia for mediation.

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? --Britcom 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. --Britcom 10:00, 19 March 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.--Britcom 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. CaveatLector^Talk 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.--Britcom 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. CaveatLector^Talk 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. CaveatLector^Talk 20:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick thing

God does not hate "fags". I know, I'm a Christian. If you have a beef against Christianity, don't. God never hated homosexuals, never will. He hates the sin of homosexuality. Yes, it is a sin, but you can live homosexually. -66.218.14.115 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that, honestly a response like this is just as bad as a full-out "god hates fags" sign. "Yeah, you can be gay - but never act on it" is not really an acceptable attitude. 66.240.35.207 18:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is if you are tolerant to it then some may say you are an immoral liberal pervert, whereas if you are intolerant to it then some may say you are an intolerant bigot. Either way there will be those who disagree with what you think and I do not know how I can work/find out whether it is wrong or perfectly acceptable.

I agree with the first comment, although I am not sure about the "but you can live homosexually" part. But that is generally the view that Christianity holds, as anyone who has read the Bible in context back to front knows. God wants to forgive and help these people, in that order. Forgiveness is what Christianity is all about, not condemnation. Abishai 23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree. Hate the sin not the sinner is a meaningless distinction when it comes to identity traits like being gay.

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."

DanB†DanD 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. --Britcom 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? --Britcom 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. --Britcom 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)

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 == lol

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. CaveatLector^Talk 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. --Britcom 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".--Britcom 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. --Britcom 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.--Britcom 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. CaveatLector^Talk 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 CaveatLector^Talk 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. --Britcom 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'. CaveatLector^Talk 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 [1] quotes the OED as defining Homophobia as:

"an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals." (emphasis added)

How can this be?--Britcom 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)

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? --Britcom 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.) CaveatLector^Talk 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". --Britcom 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. --Britcom 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.--Britcom 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. --Britcom 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 Britcom'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.--Britcom 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. --Britcom 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". --Britcom 02:51, 4 March 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. CaveatLector^Talk 03:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, lets go back to calling it Anti-homosexualism. --Britcom 12:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this. Homophobia is not the neologism. Your 'anti-homosexualism' is. CaveatLector^Talk 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate fags. I am not afraid of them. So do many people who hate fags. If you are a fag and think this article will change my thinking by saying Homophobia is 'fear', you must be really stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aubyte (talk • contribs) 08:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC).