Mick wrote:I once knew a guy who wanted to marry his own mother.

I don't believe you.

But I did know a Catholic nun once who insisted she was in a polygamous marriage with a deity. (true story)

You guys may find this interesting - http://www.spreaker.com/page#!/show/dogma_debate_with_david_smalley

This talks about why marriage and control of sex has occured in western cultures. Dr Darrell Ray did the research and brought out his book. I thought this was a very good epsiode in understand why religions, cultures try to control marriage and sex.

The conversation with Dr Darrell Ray starts very early on in the podcast is starts at 4:00.

Bribase wrote:Before the thread dissolves into another argument for how same-sex marriage will destroy the fabric of society and that certain parties' intolerance ought to be tolerated I would like to broaden the OP's topic, I feel that it is actually worth addressing.

Homophobia, in the etymological sense is the excessive or irrational fear of homosexuals. Of course the common parlance encompasses a much broader notion of the political and social regard for homosexuals but I would like to get to grips with the actual origin of the term. Namely because I self identify as being somewhat homophobic.

I would like to qualify that I petition for, protest with and argue in favour of gay rights. I have considered the arguments for gay marriage and have arrived at the position that there is no good reason to disallow equal rights for homosexuals in that regard. I have taken a look at the studies of children adopted to gay parents and while I think that such studies ought to be tentative, there is no reason to disallow such adoptions to go ahead. But regardless, in a very visceral sense I remain a homophobe.

I have homosexuals in my family, a handful of homosexual friends, I live in a very gay friendly city, the way I am with my closer male friends could even be considered a little too intimate to others but there is something about being gay that toubles me.

I'm certainly not here to provide answers but the talking points would be whether it is:

a) Attributable to outright xenophobia. Most people are a certain way, people who act otherwise are strange/scary.
b) Psycho-sexual. The "hierachical" notion of the fucker and the fucked is still very prevalent. Is it a fear of people who are able to fuck (and therefore efeminate) you?
c) Hygiene. Are we still dealing with the idea that bumholes are dirty? That it's an orifice that people have not come to grips with? It is an erogenous zone for many heterosexuals but does it remain a taboo for others?

This is by far not a complete list.

I would love to see a discussion of the psychology of homophobia, largely because I think it's a genuine thing. Or at least a discussion of why the forum members mostly identify as straight and what their feelings are regarding homosexuality and where they report on the kinsey scale.

Interesting post, thanks.

When I want to school it was normal to look at gays as one step below lepers. I don't think anyone even thought about it that much, it was just the received wisdom. Of the factors you mention though, the only one I could really relate to from then is (c). I remember being revolted by the idea of sex having anything to do with bums and poo. Of course then I didn't know anything about sex, the nature of the other bodily fluids involved or the fact that many gay people don't do anal anyway.

I have always been a social libertarian by nature. Even from an early age I remember reacting to statements and arguments condemning people for various things with a very visceral starting point that "as long as they aren't hurting others, they can do what they like and it's nobody's damn business". So the roots of homophobia were probably never very deep for me; it was just an accepted set of assumptions until I got old enough an experienced enough to think about them.

I really think the thing that changed it for me was sheer experience and exposure. I went to a music college after high school, where loads of the students, including one who became my best friend, were gay. I've then worked in the arts since then and been constantly surrounded by gay people, including some jobs where I was literally the only straight person in a directorial team of half a dozen.

I remember in particular, one event I was involved in which was a fund raising thing for an AIDS charity. As part of this event, a series of gay guys got up and gave presentations about what it was like to live with HIV, and most of these involved a prominent description of the role of their long-term partner and what that relationship meant to them. While I'd always believed in equality intellectually, it was at that point that it really came home to me just how astoundingly THE SAME as me they are; just how universal are the factors of love, need and fear that lead people into each others' arms, and just how mind-numbingly absurd is the idea of even caring whether those people have penises or vaginas.

I can honestly say now it would just never occur to me to give a toss about it. I don't pry into the details of my straight friends' sex lives, so why would it matter to me whether someone's having sex with someone of their own gender? It's just nothing.

As for myself, I'm not sure I give much credence to things like the Kinsey scale, but I must be as close to 100% straight as anyone. It really just never occurs to me that I might want to be physically intimate with a guy. OTOH I exhibit a lot of the external manifestations that people often associate with gayness, and am certainly not macho in any way whatsoever. I think partly that's why the whole thing just seems so ridiculous to me: the number of variable and possible combinations in peoples' personality traits and whom they want to fuck are so vast. People should be able to just live the way they want without all these stupid binary categories.

Mick wrote:I once knew a guy who wanted to marry his own mother. Why not, eh, fellas?

For a whole bunch of reasons to do with the power dynamics of parenting, how these are integrated into the assumptions of society and their potential for abuse.

Jesus Christ, did you actually just stoop to that level? I had thought your bigotry was at least cushioned by some degree of intellectual sophistication. You gonna be telling us gay marriage is the same as letting people marry animals next, right?

Before Mick's derail, I offered up the following, but I think it got lost in the derail

scott1328 wrote:I think in this modern era, homophobia finds its basis in the fear of the same sex attraction one might find in oneself and the concomitant fear of being deemed homosexual by others.

Heterosexism, although sometimes considered a synonym of homphobia, is useful as a term to describe the relegation of non-heterosexual people to second class status. An example being Mick's pronouncements.

Anyone care to comment

scott1328 wrote:Before Mick's derail, I offered up the following, but I think it got lost in the derail

scott1328 wrote:I think in this modern era, homophobia finds its basis in the fear of the same sex attraction one might find in oneself and the concomitant fear of being deemed homosexual by others.

Heterosexism, although sometimes considered a synonym of homphobia, is useful as a term to describe the relegation of non-heterosexual people to second class status. An example being Mick's pronouncements.

Anyone care to comment

Not much to comment on, the real life examples of fervent homophobes turning out to be gay themselves lends lots of credence to your theory.
With regards to heterosexism, it's like the sexual version of a patriarchal society. Just like women are treated like second class, os are LGBT people in a cis-gendered heteronormative world.

Nicko wrote:

Teuton wrote:* Fone, Byrne. Homophobia: A History. New York: Picador, 2001.

* The Surprising History of Homosexuality and Homophobia

Interesting links as always Teuton. To which I would add this speech by John Boswell. His book, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980) expands greatly upon this idea.

Teuton's link is indeed very interesting.

homosexuality was present in Africa from at least the earliest of European contact, and without much doubt, from long before. It wasn't just central Africa, either. While European proprieties made such graphic description of African homosexualities uncommon in their descriptions of Africa, there are enough references to it to know that it was indeed present, and even used as a justification for considering African cultures primitive enough to justify slavery.

As crusade after crusade failed to permanently dislodge the Muslims from the holy land, Muslims became a favorite target of propaganda, including anti-gay propaganda. William of Ada wrote:

"According to the religion of the Saracens [Muslims], any sexual act whatever is not only allowed but approved and encouraged, so that in addition to innumerable prostitutes, they have effeminate men in great number who shave their beards, paint their faces, put on women's clothing, wear bracelets on their arms and legs and gold necklaces around their necks as women do, and adorn their chests with jewels. Thus selling themselves into sin, they degrade and expose thier bodies; "men working that which is unseemly" they receive "in themselves" the recompense of their sin and error. The Saracens, oblivious of human dignity, freely resort to these effeminates or live with them as among us men and women live together openly."

The reaction of Islam to this kind of propaganda, was, of course, repression of its own. To prove the Christians wrong, Islam came to a repressive stance of its own, eventually outdoing even Christianity in its repression of homosexuality.

That's pretty much what I was looking for in the first place. Looks like saying "religions are the main source and origin of homophobia" is rather close to the truth...

I have some experience working with people who had recently been hunter-gathers (within living memory) in Northern Australia and interviewed many in regard to sexual health issues particularly about sexually transmitted infections. For some groups missionaries had only arrived in the 1960's so I was able to chat with adults who could talk about pre missionary days. This stuff is purely anecdotal and the context was sexual health primarily rather than orientation but it was quite interesting the attitudes that continually cropped up.. Older people were scandalized by what they saw as 'foreign culture' but remained extremely tolerant of family members orientation no matter what it was. MTM sex was only scandalous to younger people, older people who were not heavily xtianized (and many that technically were) had no issues with this but their concern was focused on social structures, people could have sex with who they liked but marriages should still occur and children be born, really the form of the institution needed to be maintained, children born out of such marriages were treated as of that marriage even if gossip indicated otherwise. Again a lot of this was very mixed up as they had had significant contact and and my observations and conclusions purely anecdotal and necessarily due to the circumstances difficult to record. People were aware of another group with a much longer history of contact that had many cross dressing members, this they found rather weird and universally blamed it on the influence of Roman Catholic Brothers, this may or may not be correct, but was what was reported to me.
I was not able to talk about female sexuality due to my gender, but observed in other similar setting that people found outsider women who were overtly in same sex relationships within the community to be somewhat gossip worthy but not scandalous, and when in one case one of the woman became pregnant this was very well received amongst the older woman as a very good thing and her female partner fully accepted as co mother. Again in their society all sisters would be co-mothers so this fitted and made sense even to the most heavily xtianized members of the group.
Now what has all this to do with the origins of homophobia? Well what I have presented is a small peek from admittedly a limited angle at Australian attitudes during the transition towards monotheistic influence on sexual mores, with the negative attitudes focused mainly on form and societal structure rather than actions.
Disclaimer:I am not an anthropologist, this was not a comprehensive study and I acknowledge that the groups I observed are not representative nor the individuals I spoke to as they were selected from people willing to discuss potentially taboo subjects regarding sexual health.

kiore wrote:I have some experience working with people who had recently been hunter-gathers (within living memory) in Northern Australia and interviewed many in regard to sexual health issues particularly about sexually transmitted infections. For some groups missionaries had only arrived in the 1960's so I was able to chat with adults who could talk about pre missionary days. This stuff is purely anecdotal and the context was sexual health primarily rather than orientation but it was quite interesting the attitudes that continually cropped up.. Older people were scandalized by what they saw as 'foreign culture' but remained extremely tolerant of family members orientation no matter what it was. MTM sex was only scandalous to younger people, older people who were not heavily xtianized (and many that technically were) had no issues with this but their concern was focused on social structures, people could have sex with who they liked but marriages should still occur and children be born, really the form of the institution needed to be maintained

I find that extremely interesting because it's so similar to what we were discussing earlier re. the ancient greeks and Romans. ie, nobody really cared that much who you screwed, as long as somewhere along the line you had a kin-approved marriage and made a few babies. They had a strong sense of conformity about overall lifestyle structure, but probably less than many later societies about what people did with their bits.

We of course - most people even now - take for granted the strong link between marriage, love, sexual monogamy and orientation. In a way that makes it a much more "either-or" proposition. You either buy into the whole thing, or if you feel the need to and are brave and determined enough, you reject the whole thing and "be" gay - live an entirely "gay life", as opposed to just doing some gay things.

Sparta sounds rather similar, since it had its famous gay warriors, but apparently bachelors were ritually humiliated, since they weren't procreating, and making new soldiers.

Some anthropologists also relate homophobia to social conditions, since in a harsh environment men just have to be tough, going hunting, fighting off wild animals and bandits, and so on, and this is often connected with intolerance of gays. See Gilmore, 'Manhood in the Making'. Gilmore studied cultures round the Med, and argued that they were all very austere, since the land is poor, food not plentiful, therefore men are expected to be very tough.

There seem to be plenty of harsh rituals and hazing to ensure that young boys are toughened up early on.

I suppose you could argue that gays can also be tough, but the connection with homophobia seems established. There are a number of interesting examples - the military in many countries has been anti-gay, and in the UK, footballers still cannot come out as gay, since the cult of masculinity still holds sway. See also hip-hop, which used to be pretty homophobic, but there has been some fightback against this.

Well, I grew up in a tough working class area, with very few religious people, but tons of racist, misogynist and homophobic people. Hopefully, it has improved.

Beatsong wrote:

I find that extremely interesting because it's so similar to what we were discussing earlier re. the ancient greeks and Romans. ie, nobody really cared that much who you screwed, as long as somewhere along the line you had a kin-approved marriage and made a few babies. They had a strong sense of conformity about overall lifestyle structure, but probably less than many later societies about what people did with their bits.
.

I would not like to give the impression that no one cared, people did care, and took interest in each other sex lives and gossiped about each other, just it was not seen as something so extraordinary..
As long as forms were followed, and I am not even sure whether MTM sex or those preferring it would be seen as effiminate, certainly a man I knew who to my eyes seemed to be extremely effeminate was not viewed as such by his peers or family.

Beatsong wrote:

kiore wrote:I have some experience working with people who had recently been hunter-gathers (within living memory) in Northern Australia and interviewed many in regard to sexual health issues particularly about sexually transmitted infections. For some groups missionaries had only arrived in the 1960's so I was able to chat with adults who could talk about pre missionary days. This stuff is purely anecdotal and the context was sexual health primarily rather than orientation but it was quite interesting the attitudes that continually cropped up.. Older people were scandalized by what they saw as 'foreign culture' but remained extremely tolerant of family members orientation no matter what it was. MTM sex was only scandalous to younger people, older people who were not heavily xtianized (and many that technically were) had no issues with this but their concern was focused on social structures, people could have sex with who they liked but marriages should still occur and children be born, really the form of the institution needed to be maintained

I find that extremely interesting because it's so similar to what we were discussing earlier re. the ancient greeks and Romans. ie, nobody really cared that much who you screwed, as long as somewhere along the line you had a kin-approved marriage and made a few babies. They had a strong sense of conformity about overall lifestyle structure, but probably less than many later societies about what people did with their bits.

We of course - most people even now - take for granted the strong link between marriage, love, sexual monogamy and orientation. In a way that makes it a much more "either-or" proposition. You either buy into the whole thing, or if you feel the need to and are brave and determined enough, you reject the whole thing and "be" gay - live an entirely "gay life", as opposed to just doing some gay things.

"Overall lifestyle structure" is an excellent summary. (As is concern about "what people did with their bits". )

Ancient pagans didn't have "gay rights" as we'd understand them, but they do seem to have had a pretty laissez-faire attitude to same-sex screwing, so long as it didn't threaten what they perceived as the social good (ie, interfering with producing heirs, or involve high-status men being submissive to lower-status men).

Kiore's comments about indigenous Australians are really interesting in that they reinforce the idea of homophobia of the type that's sadly familiar to us being a construct of the Abrahamic faiths. Homophobia of a particular type is distinct from homophobia in general, as per nunnington's observations about non-religious homophobes. They might've picked it up from living in a culture heavily influenced by Christianity, but that's just one factor.

When it gets beyond "I find gay sex icky," homophobia does, at the least, seem to be tied up with social dominance, which has taken the form of patriarchy for much of our history. Whether other forms of social dominance would be so predisposed to homophobia, I'm not sure.

Lets jump in here
Homophobia is the irrational fear of something that I suspect many if not most heterosexual people find unpleasant.

I don't think its unusual quite possibly for biological reasons to find homosexual acts unpleasant, most heterosexual men would cringe if another man tried to kiss them. However the rational and humanist response is as long as it doesn't affect you or non-consenting people its really none of my business.

So basically homophobia is just an example of people being thick stupid illiberal bigots, there is nothing particularly scientific to study. Religion disgusts me bit as much as homosexuality disgusts homophobes the difference is I don't go around punching christains

Hell I cringe when I see heterosexual people kiss.

Animavore wrote:Hell I cringe when I see heterosexual people kiss.

Don't think homophobia is any more complicated than that, i'm sure if heterosexuals were a minority they would be victims for the same reasons gay people

Animavore wrote:Hell I cringe when I see heterosexual people kiss.

It actually brings a smile to my face, if I see a couple kiss. As long as it's romantically and not overtly sexual.

mrjonno wrote:

Animavore wrote:Hell I cringe when I see heterosexual people kiss.

Don't think homophobia is any more complicated than that, i'm sure if heterosexuals were a minority they would be victims for the same reasons gay people

I just realised that comment might make it sound like I'm gay. I'm not. I just think people should get a room!

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
It actually brings a smile to my face, if I see a couple kiss. As long as it's romantically and not overtly sexual.

Even if they're ugly?*






*Thank fuck there's not a hell for me to go too

Animavore wrote:

mrjonno wrote:

Animavore wrote:Hell I cringe when I see heterosexual people kiss.

Don't think homophobia is any more complicated than that, i'm sure if heterosexuals were a minority they would be victims for the same reasons gay people

I just realised that comment might make it sound like I'm gay. I'm not. I just think people should get a room!

Not liking PDAs doesn't make you sound like you're gay, not unless the listener is rather unintelligent.
There are people on all parts of the spectrum who don't like PDAs, regardless of the genders involved.

Animavore wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
It actually brings a smile to my face, if I see a couple kiss. As long as it's romantically and not overtly sexual.

Even if they're ugly?*

Yes. It's an expression of love. Just to clarify it makes me happy. Not aroused or anything.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Not liking PDAs doesn't make you sound like you're gay, not unless the listener is rather unintelligent.
There are people on all parts of the spectrum who don't like PDAs, regardless of the genders involved.

Personal digital assistants?