Homophobes: inexcusable stupidity, or just hasty heuristic?

But how about

• Making Out In Public ("MAKE OUT") and
• Talking About Sex In Public ("I fucked X and X so hard you should have seen how orifice A accomodated screw B etc."

most people I know who are homophobic, when pressed for why they have such an animosity, complain about these. Of course, if you mention the straight equivalent, they'll also admit that it is unseemly

They're also very afraid of the reputation of gay people: gayness being underground and criminalized, it has actually ended up rubbing on them, you know, gays have a bad reputation. It's not the making love of the men that troubles people, it's the having sex in the park and the absuing of the newbie Twink Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places, the end result of which being a boy crumpled in a corner near the disco, crying and looking miserable (I stumbled upon such a sight quite a few times while jogging (I happen to live in a gay neighborhood), the helping each other fap in the cinema, the aggressively hitting on lonely passers-by in the streets at night (it's probably only for the sake of scaring the shit out of them and having a laugh afterwards, but that's just mean, and self-destructive, "we are scary! hahaha!") the drugs, the Camp Gay attention whores (note: the female version is just as irritating, especially as it grows older)...

So, yeah, the male homophobes I know don't have a problem with the Chris Colfer or Ian Mc Kellen type "daylight", "wholesome", "normal" gay. They're afraid of the promiscuous, depraved, aggressive, unhealthy, scary, strange night-time gay.

Female homophobes, on the other hand, are a little of an enigma to me, and they're surprisingly common. There was a book on this specific topic and gay misogyny at the neighborhood public library (we have a whole section on gay history and literature) but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

That's why you really really shouldn't call your opponent a moron until you've given them time and opportunity to explain why they feel the way they feel. This may take "asking the right questions" and helping them find out something they didn't actually understand about themselves. Usually this results in them softening their positions, perhaps because, knowing why they think that way, they calm down.

There are still some specific guys where this does not work.

So it's not homophobia, it's the Get-A-Room platform? Plenty of straight college students need to be hit over the head with that one.

Yeah, but that's just one aspect of the problem.

See, straight people who engage in predatory behavior are much more tolerated, especially if they're actually attractive/successful. But a Leisure Suit Larry or a Lena Hyena will only be treated with contempt, not outright violent hatred. You'll still get some flak for being a "womanizer"/"man slut" or a "man-eater"/"woman slut", though in both cases the implicit complain seems to be something between "you're filthy and unhygienic", "you're shallow and superficial", "you're an Attention Whore and someone who constantly needs to feel loved and appreciated" and "you get more sex than I do".

I think you have to be careful not to give people who genuinely do hate homosexuals for their sexuality an excuse for their bigotry.

Basically the gay community, like every other group ever, has its share of weird, creepy and simply annoying people. As with other groups that have been subject to bigotry, sometimes they'll use that status as an excuse for their behaviour - "It's part of gay culture to be insanely promiscuous/have sex in public toilets/whatever, you homophobic bigot!"

It shouldn't be an excuse for them, but it also isn't a reason for lumping all gays in with them. That's like seeing some troll claiming to have Asperger's and saying - "What did I tell you? Aspies just use their condition as an excuse for being jerks."

In answer to the thread title:

Inexcusable stupidity. Plain and simple.

Easy. "The Family" is a tradition that goes back to pre-Mosaic times. Keep your slaves tranquil by encouraging them to have lots of kids. In the modern era, "slavery" is replaced with "in hock to banks."

In short, alternative families of any sort are a threat to our neo-feudal system.

...Even if they adopt lots of kids? And what about poor single mothers? Shouldn't social conservatives be delighted that they're so thoroughly enslaved?

I'm really not sure what planet that talking point came from.

It may be that homophobia is adaptive, i.e. societies that were intolerant of gays pressured them into being "normal" and having children, and so demographically outnumbered "tolerant" societies, resulting in a majority of intolerant societies (that seems a bit stretched though).

Or, consider that in pre-modern times, a lot (most? I'm not sure, it probably depends of the culture) of marriages were arranged, and "romantic love" as we know it didn't really enter the picture; so someone being homosexual would be a threat to the marriage (that's still the case today, but homosexuals are less likely to get married than before). That could also explain some of the stigma.

In cultures that care a lot about male lineage (and that would be most of them), it would also make sense for people to be unhappy about their son being homosexual, it reduces the chances of them perpetuating the name, etc.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

It's like racism, there are plenty of people who hide their racism behind semi-logical arguments. The trick is to observe how they really act in such a situation, to read the non-vocal cues in their arguments. If you see a pattern of actual bitterness and hate...well, then they're probably homophobes/racists.

Oi, I'm afraid...

Are gay people okay if, besides being gay, they act stereotypically straight?

What's that...get married, find children, and live together forever?

I for one find all public displays of affection sicking. But I only complain about when blood relations do it around me.

^Meh, I'm sure to some.

Most of the homophobes I know fall into one group. They're usually people who were told from birth that gay people are sinful and go to hell and don't know any better. So I wouldn't say that it's inexcusable stupidity, because sometimes people can change their beliefs once they meet more gay people and understand their lives.

Inexcusable Stupidity. And ruining my country/making it look more fascist than Nazi Germany!

What if I can't get with a woman? You gonna shoot/kill me for that? Really?!

I am self-confessed homophobe, but it is not raiotnal reaction. It's just the way my body and subconciousness is wired. In the end, I can get on with "Get a Room" and NIMBY principles. Don't ask, don't tell. I know gay people and as long as they don't go and throw it on my face, we are all friends and all.

Oprresing gays for sake of them being gays is wrong and goes against my moral system. That's why, despite my body and mind rejecting it, I am rteady to support their rights.

However, like said in OP, those who go overboard are bigger problem to gay community than those who you don't know to be gay untill they say so.

Modern homophobia is essencially a type of xenophobia, one of the bad aspects of the psychological forces that are responsible for communal instincts. It can be battled easily with education.

The only reason why the solution is not availiable is because the religions responsible for homophobia won't allow it. And before you use Japan as an example of a non-religious homophobic place, consider that homophobia was only settled once western influences came in.

Okay if johnny is homophobic because of his beliefs, and johnny's beliefs are the result of his upring. Does johnny have free will?

edited 15th Nov '11 5:02:20 PM by joeyjojo

Yes, because your not a product of your upbringing. It merely lets you see the world from a limited vision.

If homosexuality is natural, why not homophobia?

Natural doesn't imply good. Homosexuality and homophobia are both natural; however, homophobia is both harmful and changeable, while homosexuality is neither.

I thought that hatred was only born from reason—homophobia in particular born from popularity.

I the rised idea for an homophobia gene a while ago.

edited 15th Nov '11 5:20:02 PM by joeyjojo

@joeyjojo. Yes they have free will. I know people who were raised to be homophobic who aren't. My mom, for example, was raised under the belief that homosexuality was a sin. But today she does not believe the same things and accepts it and is by no means homophobic. So yes she did have free will in the situation. Even my older aunts, who definitely were raised with the belief that homosexuality is wrong and sinful, don't believe that as much and were able to raise children that are very accepting.

edited 15th Nov '11 5:24:14 PM by wuggles

Well, if we're defining homophobia simply as "the general fear of personal contact with homosexuals," then I would probably qualify, in the sense that, as a straight male, (male) homosexuality produces an adverse reaction in me, as one would expect, since, well, duh, I'm not gay.

Wanting to avoid personal (read: sexual) contact with homosexual men (I mean, I talk to gay people, and I have gay friends, but I wouldn't want to be hit on by them or such, and they respect that) does not mean I hate gays in any fashion, and I am very much so for free and equal treatment of homosexuals by the legal system. I simply don't want to engage in homosexual activities myself.

"Homophobia" is prolly the wrong word to describe harmful/hateful/restrictive treatment of queerfolk: "misohomy" is closer to the mark.

I think one should be careful about being too judgmental of those deemed bigots. We are all prejudiced in our own ways; it's human nature to be prejudiced; they just happen to vary in social acceptability for a variety of reasons, not all of which are necessarily valid.

Homophobia is still considered more acceptable than things like racism, but it is becoming less acceptable at a rate probably more rapid than racism; overall this is a good thing, but I'd hate to see the same knee-jerk politically-correct hypersensitivity often applied to racism spread to reactions to homophobia. If such reactions to prejudice are irrational, how much better are they than the prejudices themselves?