The word hoplophobia, meaning an irrational fear of armaments, gets nowhere near the same level of acceptance, yet we have all seen comments from people who clearly exhibit it.
"You shouldn't carry a gun. I never would. Knowing I could kill someone would gnaw at my mind and maybe someday I'd flip and shoot someone."
That's a phobia.
I think you should read down a bit on some of my other posts. I address that subject specifically more than once, but most recently in "why I carry a gun"
Oh, given your handle, any chance you are a home brewer?
I don't have much to add to your post. It basically sums up my position. Not being gay myself, I have no first hand knowledge of what one in their shoes might experience. Having said that, I think "homophobia" is a term used to denegrate any/all critics of the overly premiscuous and indeed wreakless behavior on the part of SOME homosexuals.
Responsibility from gays would go a long way. Although, hyper-moralists will eternally critisize that which they perceive as SIN.
Two points:
First, I think Jason Kuznicki partially agrees with you, but he also persuasively rebuts your statements about gays not planning for the future etc. here: http://www.positiveliberty.com/2...s-on-
hoppe.html
See also: http://www.positiveliberty.com/
2...mmendation.html (wherein he echoes a couple of things you said from a homosexual perspective)
Second, I think it is fair to term a great number of anti-gay people homophobic. You are correct that there are rational reasons to idislike gays , though I think all of them are specious.* However, if someone says, "I dislike gays because God/God's Book/Bob Dobbs told me so," that strikes me as irrational simply because there is no rational process at work. Saying "I dislike gays because they make poor choices" allows for some sort of rational dialogue in which points can be proven and disproven. Appeals to invisible authority are completely unprovable, and constitute another type of logical fallacy.
Furthermore, I think you underestimate the extent to which hate shades into fear when you're dealing with the topic of homosexuality. Growing up in Indiana, I saw as much or more outright fear of homosexuals and their "agenda" than I did hatred.
In my opinion, then, we've got irrationality and fear. Together, I think they create a phobia in some people who are anti-gay.
*Besides Kuznicki's refutation of the economic argument, most of the rest of the rational reasons remind me of Churchill's comment about blacks in the U.S. (paraphrased): America forces the Negro to shine its shoes, then derides him for being a boot-black. If anti-gay messages pervade the whole culture (I believe they do), then we should not be surprised at high gay suicide and depression rates, just to name two behaviors.
Steve, as I said, I don't want to get into the root causes, but to some extenet I agree that increased societal acceptance would reduce the various depressive and destructive pathologies common to gays.
I also said that I do not deny that there are certainly those who hate or fear gays irrationally.
What I object to is the notion that all disapporval of homosexuality is based in hate and fear.
More generally I object to the general characterization that victim classes make of those that "oppress" them, as being afflicted with a pathology of some kind.
This is especially objectionable, when that opression is simple disagreement, or disapproval of behavior.
For example, as a straight white male, if I call a gay black man a scum bag because he sleeps around on his boyfriends (jsut as I would say of a straight white man), and I criticise his behavior as being sexually risky with respect to disease, (a matter of reasoned opinion and scientific fact) I will be almost certainly be charaterized as both homophobic and racist.
You may have recently heard of protests being organized against the release of sicentific studies about B strain AIDS, because these verfiable scientific facts "might inflame hatred against the LGBT community".
How can you protest fact?
I believe that the word homophobia does nothing helpful, and in effect reinfoces the culture of victimhood that hurts everyone.
I like your references there. I'mna trackback this, and maybe write the authoer. I'd like to talk with him about this subject.
Oh and as to whether faith is rational, well thats a whole nother can of worms entirely.
I'm glad you like the references. If you like philosophical fiction, you might get a kick out of some of his prior posts (incl. The Celestial Fortunes of Desdomona Lok, which is on his favorites bar).
I think you're right about your scumbag and B Strain HIV examples. Anyone who'd call you homophobic for mentioning those things is guilty of stupidity, using "homophobic" to silence debate, or both. I was merely arguing that there is a set of people who do irrationally fear homosexuals, and thus there are some people who are technically homophobic. Applying that term to people who are not technically homophobic is itself irrational and, as you noted, allows the audience to avoid having to deal with the speaker's arguments.
Chris, it seems that your objection to the term "homophobia" is that it unfairly pathologizes an attitude that could have an entirely rational basis. If you object to the term, then it is incumbent upon you to explain why you think "homophobic" attitudes could have a rational basis. Otherwise, the attitudes labeled homophobic are irrational and perhaps deserve the clinical term.
I just don't think's possible to "rationally choose to be anti-gay" for reasons that "have nothing to do with fear or irrationality or ignorance." An anti-gay stance always, always boils down to at least one of those reasons. Choosing to be anti-gay is just as rational as taking a stand against the asteroid belt, or expressing moral outrage at hazelnuts. Your rational basis seems to consist of statistical evidence that, if it is even true, (a) could itself be explained by pervasive homophobic attitudes and (b) don't really address a person's status as gay or not-gay. Homophobia cannot justify its own existence.
"Hate" is an incendiary word. It would help me understand your point of view if you could dissect precisely why it is you disapprove of homosexuality without citing bogus statistical evidence. What is it about being gay that pisses you off so much... and so rationally? If you were presented with two absolutely identical people, and knowing nothing about their personal histories, choices, or inclinations other than that one is heterosexual and one is homosexual, would your dislike persist?
I agree with you on Communism - there are rational reasons to dislike Communism; parts of it are inherently at odds with reason. As you say, "Man should be free, and have control over his own life."
I think you missed the point entirely Kris.
I DONT dissaprove of homosexuality. I have no problem with who somebody loves or screws so long as its consensual.
What I dissaprove of is the assertion that people who don't like gays are mentally ill, rather than just wrong.
We don't call racists mentally ill (Well actually, some people do, but its a very small minority opinion, no pun intended).
We dont call agists or sexists mentally ill.
But people who dislike gays are automatically mentally ill? No matter what their reasoning?
As to something not being able to justify it's own existence, are you familiar with the difference between philsophical justification and objective factors?
Oh and and did you not notice that you made a self justified argument above?
And you're a psychologist involved in statistical analysis?
love the comic BTW. Very cute.
Thank you for the clarification about your attitude toward homosexuals. It is true that one will not find homophobia in the DSM-IV. Perhaps "gay-hating" would be a more appropriate term because it does not evoke the stigma of mental illness or clinical sanction, accurately describes the thing it's meant to describe, and still admits of the possibility of a rational basis. Or perhaps, like ageism or racism, we should give this suite of attitudes an "ism." The parallel seems strong to me. Would "homoism" be the parellel term? Hmmm, I guess not, otherwise "terrorism" would mean hating terror. Suggestions?
My beef is with the notion that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that a rational basis exists. If the "statistical truths" you cite are genuine, please support your claims by citing specific sources, preferably reputable scientific ones. Otherwise the naive reader might come away with the impression that your essay is misinformed at best and hate-rhetoric at worst. If your statistical truths are not genuine, your attempt to use them as rational support for an anti-gay position is baseless.
As to something not being able to justify it's own existence, are you familiar with the difference between philsophical justification and objective factors?
All I meant was that, if one contends that homosexuality is "bad" and cites evidence for it, either the evidence is bad (in which case the conclusion is specious) or the evidence is correct. Let's say for the sake of argument that the statistics you invoke are correct, which you have yet to demonstrate to my satisfaction. If it is true that ample statistical evidence exists to show that homosexual behaviors are the root of all evil, then they may constitute a proximal justification for disapproving of homosexual behavior (but not, importantly, homosexuality itself). But if, in turn, pervasive homophobia is what led to the statistics in the first place (i.e., a distal cause), it's not very fair to lay the blame on homosexuals, is it?
Regardless, one would still need to draw a distinction between homosexuality and the irresponsible, harmful acts which is may or may not entail. Does "anti-gay" mean "against homosexuality" or "against irresponsible sexual behavior"? If the latter, why involve homosexuality at all? Why not focus, for example, on condom use?
And thanks about the comic. It is my fond hope that at least some of my students walk away at the end of the semester understanding why it's funny.
Ahh Kris, now we get into the argument of fair vs. true.
No it's not fair to blame homosexuals for the societal conditions that make homosexuality a risky lifestyle choice. But those societal conditions are a fact of life. They are the objective reality, as bad as it is.
As to provable statistics, a simple web search results in hundreds of studies, but who knows what's creidble or not.
I can say that in my personal experience everything I have said is true.
More importantly though, I don't agree with the arguments I made. I presented them as the arguments I hear from the people around me. Whether they are valid or not, they are what people believe, and when we are talking about matters that are not empirically true or false i.e. a value propisition "homosexuality is wrong", it's peoples beliefs that we need to reference.
This is what I meand by saying you made a self jsutification argument above BTW. Your argument asumes that "homosexuality is not wrong" is an empirical truth. Others may assume that "homosecuality is wrong" is an empirical truth.
Both of these positions are self jsutified, and any argument in support of either position is still an argument from first principle. When two parties have different first principles, there can be no useful debate on anytong other than those first principles. Theres no framework for compromise or acknowledgement.
Oh and Kris, I'm assuming you came here from positive liberty, and that's why you assumed I hated gays.
Jason apparently read what I wrote withou really reading it, and then wrote his reaction to it as an ad hominem attack.
A very well written and interesting one, but an ad hominem nonetheless.
Maybe it was the "I hate bitter angry queens" comment. It just seems so harsh and insulting. Couldn't you have said something a little less insensitive, like "I fail to understand why some homosexuals are bitter and angry"? Doesn't oppression justify bitterness and anger in the oppressed? Apathy and acceptance are much worse.
Actually i think he went into the essay assuming I was a bigot, and jsut didnt see anything that could have been otherwise.
I left some pretty extensive comments on his site about it. I hope he puts them up on his front page.
Actually I hope even more he comes and reads what I wrote again from a different view point.
Oh and as to the whole sensitivity thing, read my essay below "subtlety and bullshit".
I dont believe in "being sensitive" just becuase my ideas might offend or upset others. This is my space for expressing my ideas without reservation, and I plan on doing so.
Besides, it's true. I very intensely dislike bitter angry queens. I find their behavior incredibly irritating and offputting.
The same applies to jsut about anyone bitter and angry though. I hate the bitter and angry, no matter thwat they are bitter and angry about. They are all too often hostile, and closed minded to everyone because of their anger and bitterness.
I'm going to take a guess and say that you really hate the bitter, not the angry. Is that a fair characterization? I think that addresses Kris's point about anger and bitterness being superior to apathy and acceptance. Anger is superior, but bitterness can sometimes be no more than backhanded acceptance of the status quo.
I think the statement "I very intensely dislike bitter angry queens" is the core of the controversy here. First, I suspect that many "queens" consider that term to be the functional equivalent of an ethnic slur, regardless of how others may use it to define their own sexual identity.
Second, I think that a cursory reading might leave someone with the impression that you were using the phrase "bitter and angry" to dismiss the efforts of all homosexuals and [people whom I view as] civil rights activists to remove laws that criminalized homosexuality. I don't think that's the case, and I think a better definition of the phrase "bitter and angry" will clear up a lot. What, in your opinion, makes someone "bitter and angry"?
See, once again, people are not reading what I said, but what they expected me to say given an assumption that I am a bigot.
A gay man is not a queen. A loud, flamboyant, effeminate gay man IS. Load and flamboyant irritate me be they gay or straight, but adding the bitter and the angry to it, oi.
I actually dont mind the bitter, or the angry seperately, its the combination I cant stand.
Anger can be good, it provies passion and motivation, and when it is not mixed with bitternss or too much cynicism it is useful.
Bitterness can be overcome, through chenaged experience or useful discussion.
Were I gay it would not be a problem for me to make this distinction, nor would anyone have inetentionally misunderstood it (and yes, it is intentional).
When someone is both bitter and angry, you cant talk with them, you can't reason with them, all you can do is stand there while they scream at you.
I refuse to be screamed at.
I think Jason, many of his readers, and I misinterpreted "Queens" by a lot. I owe you an apology for assuming you meant what I thought you meant.
One of the new catch phrases I've heard from the Extreme Right is:
"Tolerance is just another term for a lack of convictions"
God knows, there should be more intolerance in the world.
BTW: My best brew is a Theaxton's Old Peculiar knockoff. I use blackstrap molasses instead of treacle syrup and it works great.
Don't get a chance to do much brewing lately. Been dumping some extra tonnage.
Well I accept it. Jason is a sharp guy, as are you, as is Kris. You all write very well, but as readers, there's a pervasive problem with our society.
As I said, I dont write gently, and I dont write for peoples sensibilities, I speak my mind. I realize that offends people, but it's who I am.
The problem is that everyone assumes everyone else is talking in code i.e. when you say this, you really mean this etc... I refuse to participate in that sort of interaction unless I'm being paid for it (I'm a consultant, code is part of the gig).
Got it. Well, at least one good thing came of this exchange - I'll be visiting your blog more often now.
Well I'm glad to hear that Kris. Honestly I very much welcome this discussion, so long as people arent acreaming "GAYHATER!!!!!" at me all the time.
Fair enough. All words are a code (with the arguable exception of onomatopoetic words). I just don't always know whose decoding book to use...or what edition.
I've seen very interesting scholarship arguing that the construction of words is a weapon of oppressors, but languages are useless without such construction. Heck, a lot of those articles I mentioned pursue their point so relentlessly that the arguments become completely evanescent, moving beyond any semblance of English into a highly contextual and self-referential realm that consistently stymies my attempts to translate it back into my own world. It drives me nuts, because I think the world that deconstructs my desire for Cheerios in the morning has some interesting insights for the world in which I eat Cheerios, but these insights often overlook the simple fact that I'm hungry in the morning.
The we get into "post hoc ergo proctor hoc", and Occams razor.
Chris,
I am gay, and find myself unfazed by your post. You are entitled to express your opinion, and you've done it well.
One thing I did wonder about was the hundreds of sad-sack gay acquaintances you mention. Is it really true that you've known hundreds of gay people and not one of them was happy?
If true, I find it surprising. I am a very happy gay person. I'm in a loving, monogamous, long-term relationship. I don't do drugs and I haven't set foot in a bar in years. I have a good job, I have money, I have tons of friends, I'm close to my family, I'm handsome...
Yep, I'm pretty damn happy. So now you know of at least one happy gay guy.
Joe
One more thing, I happened to notice that you have my boyfriend's father (Terpsboy) listed on your blogroll...small world!
Also, I thought you might like a recent post of mine taking my fellow gays to task for their reckless irresponsibility.
Joe
http://riddle13.blogspot.com/
200...untability.html
Joe,
It is true that I've known hundreds of gay men and women, and I wont say none of them are happy, but I will say very few were.
I have spent a lot of time involved in the alternative, industrial, and progressive medal scens. I'd say about half of the folks in that world are gay (and jsut about every girl is at least bi), and almost all of them are miserable, but that's not really a valid sampling.
What I have had is dozens of gay co-workers, a few gay protectees, a few dozen gay clients for my other services, 3 close relatives, and 5 very good friends who are gay. 2 of them are happy, about half the rest are moderately unhappy, and the rest are outright miserable.
Oh and Joe, it is a small world indeed. Although I've only spent about 8 hours on the phone with him helping with his computer and network problems, and echanged some emails, I'd consider him more than an acquaintenance but less then a friend.
Unfortunatley english doesn't have a word for that, so we just end up calling people friends when they aren't close enough for that.
Anyway, he's a good guy who Im glad to be associate with.
As to your post, preach on brotha. If I try and say the same things, I end up being called a bigot, or people start arguing the exact details of my statistics or sources, or really anything other than arguing the principle.
You should definitely take a look at the threads going on at positive liberty. Great discussion, and some more about me that I haven't put up here, because I dont think it's completely relevent to this discussion, but it was to that one.
My only pet peeve are the men who excuse two women being togetiher to rationalize their own fantasies, but everything else is repulsive and wrong. If it's wrong, be consistant in that belief.
You may not be a bigot,I am and proud of it.what political correctness has done to America,has snipped mans balls off.one is entitled to a opinion,good bad or ugly.
The left keeps everyones mouth shut for fear of being called a bigot or a racist,even now Senator Conyers wants to enact a bill to make it a hate crime to say anything bad against Islam,or destroying theQuran
You need your balls back boys.
Look gays can do what they want in their bed room,i think gays are i believe what the bible says is true,but ill let God sort it all out,What i hateis when gays,agendas are pushed on othere,i dont think a child should have to read in school,or be told by a 2ndgrade teacher that its a alternitive lifestyle,and its ok for two men to [play catch the penis] to make it a hate crime if someone gets into a suituition with a gay ,they all come out and say kill,kill,kill ita a hate crime.
what the hell is this country comming to when we cant voice our opinion..look the KKK can say anytghing about anyone they want,,but its a hate crime to say things about gays,i dont support pepole hurting gays,but you should have the right to say what you want
Gay groups today ,now are trying to have parts of the Bible banned for hate,as they have accomplished that in Canada
So slumber on,and the left wing fringe will have lulled you to sleep,while they pass their hate crime bills,and make you scurry into
a conor thinking you may really be a bigot
Gay people have no special gene or lack thereof,that makes them gay,a Genetisist once published some physco babble about being born gay,he has now said he was wrong and there is no such gene,[go to google look it up] the Gays took this and ran with it,it was their salvation,who would hate a diabetic because he was born that way
They can put what they want,where they want to,but do it in your bedroom,and shut up about it,i dont go around telling people i am hetrosezxual,nor do i wave a flag in support of it
i am gay
i also agree with you and would love it if more people shared your attitude... especially my fellow gays.
frankly, i don't really care if everyone loves me or even accepts me, as long as i my safety is not threatened and i have all the same rights as everyone else.
that's why i am (probably one of the few, sadly) gays to support our war against those backwards islamics.
i can't begin to tell you how fucking frustrating it is having a conversation with about 90% of the idiot gays i meet who say shit like "bush is a nazi" etc... sometimes i wish they could spend a day in pre-9/11 afghanistan and maybe their minds would change.
anyway, thanks to you and your blog.
peace
I thought "phobia" meant "aversion to". Either way, the way a regime treats gay people is a pretty good indicator of its moral propriety and general mental health.
A Government that gives gay people equal rights is, IMHO, pretty much on the level.
A government that sets up gay affirmative action campaigns and makes "Gay, Lesbian & Transgender Studies" part of its core curriculum for under 12's is probably drinking too much moonbat Koolaid.
A regime that uses executes people for being gay probably has the same rules against alcohol, atheism, extra-marital intercourse and any of the other fine things in life.
A gay campaign group here in the UK has become, to its credit, the first left wing grouping to stand up and speak out against Islamofascism. Turning the left against Islamism is something that needs to be encouraged if we are going to tackle it from all sides.
First of all I will agree with you that the term 'homophobia' has become sensationalized. It is sometimes employed as a catch-all phrase for anyone who does not like or agree with homosexual behavior, possibly for rational reasons. It's been turned, perhaps, into more of a generic retalliation and emotional appeal to be slung against anyone who dislikes or opposes gays, for whatever reason, and perhaps the same phenomenon happens with terms like 'liberal,' 'conservative,' 'communist,' 'fascist,' 'anti-semite,' 'gun nut,' and many others of which I could probably think.
You're right in saying that the application of a '-phobia' term to someone who simply dislikes or opposes homosexuality is in error. Having read your post, you also do not appear to be a homophobe, and are right in objecting to being inappropriately called or labelled one. That said, however, real homophobia DOES exist. There are plenty of people out there, perhaps concentrated more densely in cities or areas less cultured than your own, to whom the term 'homophobia' genuinely DOES apply. Homosexuals probably do actually have a higher statistical risk of AIDS/HIV than heterosexuals, although I caution against broad-based generalizations here very strongly, because it's just as possible to gather statistics that gun owners are statistically more likely to fatally shoot another person than non-owners, and yet it would be fairly irrational, failing any other indicators, to refuse to associate with YOU because you might flip out and kill me, unless I have other reasons to suspect you of being mentally unstable or aggressive. A real homophobe, though, is just as irrational about being afraid to sit next to a homosexual, claiming that he's afraid of AIDS (when there are no documented cases of catching it from sitting next to someone) or drink out of the same cup as a homosexual, again fearing AIDS (when there are no documented cases of AIDS being transmitted that way, either), or be alone with a homosexual, fearing that he's going to flip out and rape you. Yet there are many people out there in the world with exactly these types of irrational fears, and these are the people to whom the word 'homophobia' accurately applies. There are more people like this out there than you're aware of, and that's why the word exists, and that's why it serves a valid purpose.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, though, because the fact that you aren't homophobic, in the legitimate sense of the word, doesn't mean that plenty of other people aren't, and that's why the word exists, and why it should continue to exist.
Reading down to more of your replies,
> We dont call agists or sexists mentally ill.
We probably would if someone were afraid to sit next to an old person or a female, or to be alone in a room with one. Most phobias DO have some basis in real fact. Is it irrational to be afraid of heights or water? Not really, you can fall and die from a great height, or drown in a body of water. It's not a phobia until it becomes over-reactive and causes difficulty for the individual to function normally.
Also, agists and sexists are probably less likely to advocate extermination of or killing of old people and women. Those who do probably do end up getting labelled as mentally ill, though.
DG, a perfectly valid, and well presented point there.
I don't say that homophobia doesnt exist at all, just that it isn't an apropriate response to most of the actions or people to which it is applied as a label. Those people who are truly homophobic are in fact mentally ill, and have the equivalent of any other irrational phobic disorder like agoraphobia or acrophobia. Of course the human consequences of those phobias could be far less offensive.
Well i guess maybe people can be harsh and it is co complicated to be accepted if different . I was bisexual for years , well in my twenties and then i tried to stay with one personn of same for two years but the cheating of my partner and the constant bitching of all the queens around me made me want to change and i stayed abstinent for three years and then i met someone very nice of the opposite sex . Well i really ended up falling in love but of course the gay community ruined it for me and felt like i was back stabbing them . They made my girl friend feel awful at times telling her mean things and i guess now i am going to a meeting to understand both attraction . I think woman are sweet and nurturing and a man could never be that kind . I am single now and i have stop being friends with my gay friends . they want to be accepted and loved but then they can be really cruel and if someone is bi they should respect that sexuality and stop fighting with woman . If a woman marry a guy that is in a down low and he tells her later she would be very accepting and often remains good friends . but if a gay guy realize he might be more into woman oh boy no way of understanding there . I think this will be another reason why gay people are not liked . I want a woman in my life . gays who never had sex not soever with woman are the most bitter one .
what's wrong with being homophobic? a man that doesn't like sex with a woman (or worse has never had sex with a woman) is pretty scary to me
Chris,
I too share your dislike of the word Homophobe. A while back I started using the term Homo-repugnant to describe myself. I too have had some gay friends over the years and didn't have problem with them, it's the Hollywood "in your face, every tv show will have a gay character and if you don't like it you're homophobic" attitude that I dislike.
I recently spoke with some folks from an older generation (born in the late 40's) on the topic of homophobia. In their eyes it homophobia was legitimate at one point, back before it was known how AIDS/GRID was transmitted. They had no idea how the disease was spreading, however they knew the disease was horrible, deadly and rather rampant in the gay communities.
So when science decided that GRID was not the appropriate name, and AIDS was accepted as both a homosexual and heterosexual disease; homophobia logically had no reason to exist. As it is being used today (dislike of homosexuals) the term should be buried along with the GRID.
-Brian
And for clarification, GRID (Gay-related immune deficiency) was the term used before AIDS.
This was an interesting post. I am curious about the concept that gay people are less likely to plan for the future. I'm working my way through grad school right now, and most of my gay friends are also gainfully employed. I do think that there are a number of closeted gay people out there who are angry and depressed because they don't want to be gay, they want to fit the "American Dream" paradigm of a wife, a husband, and two and a half kids. It would be interesting to note if your source noted whether those gay people "who were not planning for the future" were closeted or out.
The problem with the pro-gay crowd is the aggressiveness and duplicity exhibited by it's advocates. My rather conservative Christian views are as systematically bludgeoned as homosexual agendas are propagated. A very liberal relative of mine went off on a rant and I commented that I had thought he was “anti-gay”. After another rant I apologized by verbally acknowledging his “homophilia” (end of rant). So where does this lead to. Promiscuity, homosexuality, pedophilia, beastiality? I once served on a jury where a man tried to act out a “snuff flick” fantasy on a nineteen year old exchange student. She lived (barely). The cause and effect from the media he had was overwhelming. You might say I have been biased by a heavy dose of in your face reality. Actually I don't have an unreasonable fear of homosexuals. I don't hate them either. I also don't accept their behavior as normal or beneficial. Question: Does the idea of an older man having anal sex with your teenage son bother you in any way? Or the fact the school system is promoting it as desireable? It doe me.
excellently put. but the most important implication of the rectitude of your self-evidently valid/cogent argument is not that the purveyors of terms such as 'homophobia' 'racism' 'hate' 'antiSemitism,' etc. are idiots, becuase they are not. people who take these terms seriously as something other than the obvious social conditioning they represent are idiots. The developers and purveyors of these terms are able to do so with no concern for the obvious truth of your point from the positions of power they enjoy as part of a widespread societal coalition with other minorities in power, one of these warranting special attention historically and especially as we plow into the 21st century.
A phobia is not a compulsive mental ilness.
Other that that I can't see any other major problems with your essay.
Personally, I hate having sexuality thrown in my face at any time by anyone, homosexual or heterosexul (excluding my wife).
i am NOT gay.
i believe that being gay is religiously and scientifically wrong. i don't know what makes people gay. i am not a great lover of whiney minorities and people who insist on being victimized. if some one could please provide me with a rational, educated answer of why people are gay it would be greatly appreciated )= ^ ) >!!!!!!
stupid hetrophobes
Interesting post but I'm afraid you're confusing phobia with ~phobia. In fact you even put at the top of your post "phobia -n" in other words noun.
As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
Phobia: [noun] (A)Fear (a)horror (an) aversion
(which is the way you are interpreting the the "phobia" part of homophobia), but the Dictionary further defines words that END in phobia as follows:
-phobia [SUFFIX: Latin from the Greek phobos see phobe] Forming abstract nouns (esp. irrational) fear, dislike, antipathy ...
NOTICE: DISLIKE AND ANTIPATHY!!!!
The salient point here is that when used as a conjunction the meaning changes significantly. While it is noted that abstract nouns "esp. irrational" it does not mean ONLY irrational, one can have a RATIONAL reason for a ~phobia [suffix] (conjunction) as opposed to a phobia [noun]
In this case homophobia or homo~phobia[suffix] can refer to fear but more usually (as is commonly understood to be) a DISLIKE or (antipathy) HATRED of homosexuals.
Therefore when homosexuals argue that a person is being homophobic they are not saying:
"you are afraid of me because I am gay"
They are actually saying:
"you dislike/hate me because I am gay".
As to whether fear of homosexuals is rational or not is another point but should not be confused with phobia the noun or at least if that is the way you are using the word this needs to be made clear from the context.
As to whether you should be afraid of gays is another matter. You mention Aids and it's prevalence amongst homosexual men, but while that is certainly statistically true you should also mention the relative rarity of Aids amongst lesbians to be fair. It is also worth remembering that heterosexual people get aids too and will do so in vastly increasing numbers in the future, and that heterosexual people statistically as likely to get aids if you count the proportion of gay men and lesbian women together against the proportion of heterosexual people with aids or at least this trend is rapidly emerging.
It is I think quite unfair to characterise unsafe sex practices as being simply a problem of the gay community. Perhaps as you're in America things are different but in the UK EVERYONE is having to wake up to the need to have safe sex and if you look at the transmission of STI's (sexually transmitted infections) as a whole you will see clearly that heterosexuals are not all that great on practising safe sex and what really makes the difference isn't sexuality but education as the single most significant predictor of safe sex behaviour.
You mention that gays are more prone to depression, self destructive behaviour and suicidal tendencies. This may be true and if it is it warrants cause for concern, certainly if any minority group is having such problems then it is well worth looking at the issues that are causing such problems, such as acceptance and value within the community, difficulties with employment, marriage, bullying, abuse, self esteem (or lack of from internalised negative characterisations of homosexuals), etc.
As for saying that gays don't plan for the future I think that is a little unjustified statistically or otherwise. Perhaps you mean that (largely) they are not as likely to have families and therefore do not have to make the same long term plans, but if so this answers itself, but as a general statement I see no basis for such an allegation.
You say:
> You know what I really hate? I hate this chant:
> "We're here, W'ere Queer, Get over it"
(BTW "we are" is we're - sorry for being nit picky)
Where you hit the nail on the head when you say "hate" and that is the crux of ~phobia [suffix] and ironically the reason for the chant that you hate so much.
Think about it, what they are saying is surely not so awful that it is worth HATING! (hate is a strong word and a strong emotion and when directed to a free expression of speech, seems to me extreme and egregious.
In their slogan all they are actually saying is:
"we are people, gay people, please afford us the same human rights and freedoms as you would for anybody else"
Why would you HATE that?
If people didn't mistreat, discriminate, beat up, victimise, tease, rape, bully and try to outlaw homosexuals; they wouldn't need chants or marches or anything else, they could just go on with their lives and not annoy you with their chanting 
The reality is that TERRIBLE AND WICKED things happen to gays; so isn't it worth putting up with a tacky slogan; or whatever PR, demonstrations and marches, or whatever it takes until gay people can just be treated like people?
Wouldn't you do the same for women's rights? father's rights? blacks rights? native American's rights? or ANYONE'S basic fundamental human rights?
I like to think that I would, I'd like to think you would too when you think of it in this way.
[Quoting]
PANZER>i am NOT gay.
PANZER>i believe that being gay is religiously and scientifically wrong. i don't know what makes people gay. i am not a great lover of whiney minorities and people who insist on being victimized. if some one could please provide me with a rational, educated answer of why people are gay it would be greatly appreciated )= ^ ) >!!!!!!
1. I get it you're NOT GAY! I suppose you feel the need to point that out so adamantly is because being gay would be such a terrible; egregious thing!
2. Religiously wrong maybe, scientifically wrong? How can anything be scientifically wrong?
Science exists to observe and explain natural phenomenon, unless homosexuality isn't a natural phenomenon then it cannot be scientifically wrong.
Science makes no ethical or moral judgement.
The only exception would be if homosexuality were a miracle then it would be hard to explain scientifically and therefore contravene natural law and only (perhaps) in this case could it justifiably be described as being "scientifically wrong" but if that was the case then it would contradict your first statement: that it is religiously wrong; because it cannot both not be a natural phenomena; and not be a miracle.
So which is it natural, ergo: scientific or a miracle, ergo: divinely ordained[religiously moral]?
3. Clearly you don't know what makes people gay, do you know what makes people heterosexual?
4. Not a great lover of whiny minorities eh? Why is that? Don't you like minorities, or don't you like people whining. If it's the former then you're not a great representative of humanity; if the latter then I agree completely whiny people are annoying; BUT what if they ARE VICTIMS should they be condemned for whining then?
5. "insist on being victimised" Interesting choice of words, is that what you say when your stamping on their heads with your jack boot "why do YOU insist on being victimised!!!!" There is only two possible answers to that question; either minorities enjoy being victimised and therefore all minority members are masochists (possible but rather implausible) or that they ARE victimised in which case whining, or ANYTHING to bring attention to their plight would be a good thing.
6. To paraphrase your question
You ask: "why are people gay?"
I answer: They want to be.
Sorry is that answer not enough for you: if not; why not?
Actually there are probably a multitude of bio-social factors involved, how else do you explain homosexual behaviour in other animals, particularly our closest evolutionary cousins, chimps, but I doubt you believe in evolution either, so I won't wast my time with facts, but that does rather contradict the whole "scientifically wrong" hypothesis you proposed.
The simple fact is though; if you are not prepared to accept that people CAN BE gay because they JUST WANT TO BE then you have seriously consider the possibility that you are prejudiced.
Why shouldn't someone, anyone choose how they want to live their life?
By way of example:
Do you prefer glock or H&K? (or whatever your gun of choice may be)
Do you prefer to have sex with men or women?
Don't you think that everyone should have choices?
I assume you wouldn't force people to buy only one type of gun?
Why should you force them to one gender for sexual parter?
[BTW I only used the gun analogy as it seemed pertinent to this website]
Commenting by HaloScan.com
