John Meyer

English 102

Dr. Alexander

Essay II—Definition Essay

Diagnosis Homophobia?

"Literally, homophobia refers to an irrational fear of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. This definition has grown to include hatred, discrimination and overt acts of violence against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals (LGBs)."

—"Homophobia and Heterosexism in the Classroom", Matt Kiney

Homophobia. For most of you , you understand homophobia to be fear of gays, lesbians, and/or bisexuals. It also is not much of a leap to suggest that most of you do not find homophobia to have a good connotation. It has become the latest tool in the left’s belt of political accusations and rhetoric. Amendment 2 was decried as homophobic. Ministers like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and others are also described as being homophobic for their actions and speeches. Whether they are homophobic or not, by the usage of the term, homophobia carries the same weight to some people as racism.

Still, the term homophobia carries only as much weight as the definition it is given, and the one given above is largely inadequate. It does not fit the definition of other phobias and is too broad, too general, for a phobia. Still those who use it continue to use it because that it implies that not only are their opponents wrong, not only are they evil, but they are some how insane or mentally challenged. If only for some information, some caring, and some nurturing, these people who irrationally oppose homosexuality will come around, accept homosexuals for who they are, and maybe get in touch with their own "feminine" and "masculine" sides.

A phobia is more than just a simple fear. As an aquaphobe (or one who fears large bodies of water), I know the feeling well. It isn’t just running away from the water or refusing to learn to swim, although both of those are true. My body numbs up, empties of all emotion at the same time that it feels like a part of the concrete close to the pool. While my mind circles like a trapped bird inside my head, all that my eyes will feed it is the scene of the water in front of my toes, feet and feet of water ready to engulf me and choke off my breath.

Irrational? Yes, but the physical feelings still come, and they paralyze me. The same is true of an argeophobic, or one dysfunctionally afraid of large, open places. Several cases document where an argeophobe has refused to come out of the house for many years. To call this case a simple fear of open places is to do it a grave injustice; that does not recognize the dysfunction that comes with the irrational fear.

The idea of irrational fear of homosexuals is not new. Sigmund Freud and other analysts speculated that those who were afraid of homosexuals in fact had their own deep homoerotic desires that they repressed. Even today, the theory that homophobes are repressed homosexuals is espoused by several studies. One study published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology states that homophobic men are far more likely to be aroused while watching male gay sex videos then are non-homophobic men (Segall, Feb. 1997).

The problem with this study, as with Freud’s analysis, is that it did not define what is homophobic and what is not. Well, taking the original definition, we find that the first part is fairly straightforward and simple, but the second part is problematic.

The second part states that not only is the fear homophobic, but the acts—discrimination, hatred, and overt acts of violence—also define homophobia. Unfortunately, some psychologists and even some gay rights groups have to say that homophobia is not a phobia in the traditional term of the phrase. While a phobia is dysfunctional, "homophobia" is largely functional. The street thug beating up the two gay lovers is not suddenly overcome by a paralysis when he sees the lovers kiss; rather he is so inflamed that he is compelled to go over to the two and use a baseball bat, for example, in order to convert the two love birds to heterosexuality.

So, homophobia cannot be a clinical phobia because it is a functional and not a dysfunctional problem. According to the definition given above, homophobia is expressed in terms that are largely functional. Evil, horrendous, even vile, but functional nontheless.

Now, this is not reasonable or civil, but is it irrational? Let us take the claims of several people that homophobes have a tendency of coming from largely uneducated, morally conservative families and have not had contact with homosexuals. Putting aside the first complaint and assuming that the definition is correct what would the rationals, or irrationals, of a "homophobe" be?

Well, many Christians advocate the position that the Bible discourages homosexuality. Discourage, in fact, is to moderate a term; it forbids it outright. At several points in the Bible, the Bible says that a man who lies with another man as one lies with a woman shall be put to death. Paul, in a letter to the ancient Romans, says that one of the signs of an evil empire is the rise in homosexuality and God allowing such things to go on before the empire destroys itself. Two cities in ancient Mesopotamia were destroyed for homosexuality, among many things.

Also, the homophobe can see no natural benefits of homosexuality. Homosexuals do not contribute to the growth of the population at large. After all, if we all turned gay, and stayed that way long enough, the population would not fare well, whereas a totally heterosexual population would continue to survive. It might breed itself out, it might not; but lack of breeding would certainly not be a problem.

So we have nature and we have God agreeing, in the homophobe’s mind, that homosexuality is wrong and evil. God also demands that those who practice homosexuality should die. So, we have the following logic:

1. God condemns homosexuality.
2. Nature does not allow a homosexual population to thrive.
3. God demands that homosexuals should die.
4. I should then be doing the work of God

Agreeing with the logic is not the point. I am sure that many people could find flaws in this logic, and I am not saying it is perfect, just like I am not saying that those who practice such logic are perfect. The point is that the homophobe is acting with some form of logic, albeit flawed. By logic I mean that he is acting with premeditated action according to the world around him. He is not wildly shouting that homosexuals come from the planet Jupiter and are here to steal his brains. He is acting in a cold, premeditated manner.

Let’s take a real case, the case of Jonathan Schmitz, the young man who was on the Jenny Jones show. The shows producers informed him that he had a secret admirer (Schmitz says that the Jones producers told him the admirer was a woman: the producers say they made no such claims). The admirer turned out to be a man: Scott Amedure. Schmitz made no indication on the tape that the incident bothered him, saying that he was "flattered", but he was straight, yet later on in the week he shot and killed Amedure. Was he crazy? The unpopular answer is no: Schmitz had enough time to seethe, coldly plan out, and kill his would-be admirer. As the New Republic pointed out, the incident and the concentration by the public on the "ambush" portions of this show, indicate a shocking hatred of homosexuals (New Republic, 4-3-1995). Yet the incident does not indicate insanity or a mental disorder.

That is an extreme case, however. What about the people who refuse to accept homosexuality, to see the rise in homosexuality as morally wrong? Are they homophobic? I would probably be an enigma to most psychologists specializing in homophobia. I see homosexuality as morally wrong and going against the Bible. I see it as a problem in history when homosexual relationships are seen as equivalent to and interchangeable with traditional family units. Yet I refuse to use physical force against homosexuals and I demand an end to sodomy laws, and I agree with the Libertarian Party when it says, "Governments must neither dictate, prohibit, control, nor encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or consensual relationship," (Libertarian Party, 1996). I have never beaten up a homosexual in my life and I see those who do to be barbarians engaging in the worst form of politics around. Am I homophobic?

I do believe that there are homophobes in our society. The man who is wildly obsessed by his own sexuality to the point of sleeping with dozens of women to prove his own heterosexuality, the man who assumes that every homosexual is out to rape him and make him his bitch, the inadequate irrational feelings of dread in being around a homosexual, are all signs of homophobia. Simply disagreeing, simply not condoning or refusing to accept homosexuality itself, however, does not in itself constitute homophobia.

That view is not accepted by many, however. To some, homosexuality must be ‘accepted’. If one does not accept homosexuality, then he or she is homophobic. This attitude is often represented in the hotbeds of idealism, colleges and universities. For example, in an article by Dennis M. Kalup for the Collegian, he interviews a man named Darin Loccarini who has set up a group called Students Reinforcing Adherence in General Heterosexual Traditions (STRAIGHT). According to the mission statement of STRAIGHT, one of the purposes of the group is to, "assist in protecting freedom of religion as it relates to general heterosexual tradition and to educate students of their right to freely decided not to endorse or accept homosexuality based upon the First and Fourteenth amendments of the Constitution," (STRAIGHT, 1998).

Kalup was not sympathetic to this view. He wrote, "I felt that this statement was homophobic because it gave people the option to refuse acceptance of lesbian, gay or bisexual people.

"Well, I was informed that homophobia does not exist. Darin contends that homophobia is simply a fabrication of the LGB for use as a political tactic," (Kalup, 1997).

While homophobia may exist contrary to Mr. Loccarini’s views, it is used widely by LGB as a political tactic. LGB activists have used homophobia as a political charge, heated up by the fires of debate. After Reggie White made a speech against homosexuality on March 25, LGBs virtually went on the warpath. On a web page on the GLAAD site, GLAAD has asked that he apologize for his comments, including his claim that homosexuality was a ‘decision’ (which it certainly is, as is any heterosexual or bisexual relationship or act) and for the NFL, CBS, and Campbell’s Soup, for which White is a spokesman, to drop him (Romesburg, 1998). So much for toleration.

While I do not argue with GLAAD’s right to do this, I do question GLAAD’s commitment to free speech and toleration. Granted, Reggie White is a football player; he is not a philosopher. White, however, has a perfect right so say what he wants to say.

But not in the mind of the liberal statist. In the mind of those civil rights activists, any expression of speech against their views is deserving of a boycott, while those who boycott gays for coming out of the closet are simply closed-minded. Certainly being gay has nothing to do with your job performance or the way you handle your job; only political thoughts (usually conservative) can affect that.

If you think that that logic is weird, try telling that to the college columnists who run the risk of being boycotted or fired for not being sensitive enough to homosexuals. While this is not as horrendous as the gay students and teachers who are routinely beaten up in this country, if left to fester, it will become something of a gag on speech.

And what do we gain by this? What positives come from labeling somebody homophobic? The answer is none. We drive people into radical groups where homosexuals are all bad or all good. Those who feel that homosexuality are all bad certainly will not change their views because they are called ‘sick’ and ‘deranged’ (believe me, it doesn’t work; Christians have tried this on homosexuals for years). On the contrary, they will grind in their heels and make their views even more hostile.

And it often doesn’t stop with the simple homophobia. One of the favorite connections of those on the radical left is to assume that if you are homophobic, you are automatically a racist as well. One paper on a web site began with the phrase, "Have you fallen victim to the RadiKKKal [sic] Right’s disinformation campaign about Gay Rights?" (Heather and Selene, 1996). Aside from the obvious insinuations about racism and religion (the play on religious right), there is an insinuation that if you agree with the right, then you are obviously a "victim" and a dupe.

An article by Richard Shumate of OutNOW claimed a link between homophobia and that bombing of the Oklahoma City’s federal building. Although not advocating a panic in the gay community and it does say in some points that not all homophobes are violent, this does little to help gays with the society that they deal with. Now, not only are you a homophobe and a racist, but also a child killer as well. Do you have any reason to change your views?

Given these reasons, I think that homophobia is a term ought to be done away with. Some gay groups agree, surprisingly. One group at the University of Buffalo says that there is not enough evidence to think of homophobia as a true and clinical phobia. Their answer is to use a new term, heterosexism, which essentially means everything that homophobia does. While I have arguments with this term, those will have to wait for another day.

Even if homophobia is abandoned for heterosexism, that will not change the fact that name calling does not substitute for argument and discussion. All gays are not child molesters; all people who oppose homosexuality do not fear homosexuality, nor are they hicks who resort to violence to express their views. Only when we pass the rhetoric will we be able to achieve true toleration that says, "I may not agree with you, but I recognize your right to disagree and your right to live."

Works Cited

Well, what do you think? Please tell me down below: