Skip to comments.What Is – or Isn't – Homophobic
Posted on 06/10/2013 9:40:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In a classic episode of "Seinfeld" entitled "The Outing," a student reporter is convinced that Jerry and George Costanza are gay. They strenuously deny being gay, while adding "not that there's anything wrong with that."
The phrase almost immediately became part of the way Americans talk about homosexuality.
The "Seinfeld" episode came to mind while reading recently about the brouhaha concerning Roy Hibbert of the NBA's Indiana Pacers. During a press conference, Hibbert used profanity and commented about being "stretched out" on the basketball court. And then he used the phrase "no homo."
If you're unfamiliar with that phrase, you're not alone. It's an expression from rap music asserting that "the speaker of such does not have any homosexual intent."
If that sounds like Wikipedia, that's because it is. I didn't know what it meant, and I strongly suspect that 99 percent of the people in the room didn't either. That didn't stop news of Hibbert's "gay slur" from becoming the biggest sports story of the weekend.
The NBA fined Hibbert $75,000, saying it was necessary to demonstrate that "such offensive comments will not be tolerated." I think that comes out to $25,000 per syllable.
I'm not going to defend Hibbert. His profanity alone warranted a fine, and absent his "no homo" comment, I doubt that anyone would have read anything sexual into what he said.
But I can't help but notice that what constitutes a "gay slur" is a moving target. LeBron James used the same phrase a few years back and nobody cared.
Again, I'm not defending anyone-I'm simply noting how fast the definitions of "homophobia" and "bigotry" are changing.
Take the issue of same-sex marriage. A few weeks ago, Michael Kinsley of the New Republic, commenting on the furor over Dr. Ben Carson's opposition to same-sex marriage, rightly noted that Carson "has views on gay rights somewhat more progressive than those of the average Democratic senator ten years ago."
In fact, Carson's position is about the same as President Obama's position just two years ago! Yet, Carson's opinion is considered beyond-the-pale in many circles today.
All of this has me wondering whether a Seinfeld episode like "The Outing" could even be produced today. The phrase "not that there's anything wrong with that" was a classic because it captured the audience's ambivalence about homosexuality: While people aspired to be "tolerant" and "open-minded," they certainly didn't want others thinking that they engaged in same-sex relations.
Some commentators are displaying the same ambivalence in reaction to the new HBO film on Liberace. They confess to being put off by the homosexual content-all the while feeling guilty about being put off.
If such ambivalence isn't already branded as "homophobia," it will be soon. The mere suggestion that there might be something wrong with same-sex relationships will be considered "homophobia."
So why bring this up on BreakPoint? Well, as Christians we can't be blind-sided by the accelerating speed at which the culture is jettisoning traditional views of sexuality. Nor should we be intimidated by the hostility we'll face for our beliefs.
It may be that the culture will soon be beyond repair-that traditional views will not be tolerated. Or maybe not. But one thing's for certain, we must, by God's grace, hold fast to His plan for human sexuality: marriage between one man and one woman, one time, for the couple's mutual joy and the procreation of children.
Only then will we be able to preserve-or perhaps create anew-a culture of life, goodness, health, and beauty.
And nothing is wrong with that.
Why is it called ‘homophobia’ anyway. Does anyone really think people have an irrational fear of homosexuals?
I prefer the term homophatic. I think it fits with the true dynamic. Some people are repelled by homosexual activity, and would prefer to be not faced with it.
That whole expression — “Not that there’s anything wrong with that” — is moral cowardice. There IS something most definitely “wrong with that,” and denying it confesses your fear of being condemned for speaking the truth.
Clinically speaking most anti-homosexual people do not have an irrational fear of homosexuals. I would liken the fear to that of socialism. Progressives and queers love to misuse and redefine words ... just something else to be afraid, since it is, in part, destroying our American culture.
A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. In the event the phobia cannot be avoided entirely, the sufferer will endure the situation or object with marked distress and significant interference in social or occupational activities. - Wikipedia.
In an abusive relationship the abuser keeps the victim off guard by continually changing the rules. It’s all about control. The gay agenda folks keep changing the definition to keep the issue (about which 95% are truly don’t-cares) in our face. People will be uncertain and go out of their way to appease the abuser.
It’s about control. And, soon, not talking about it will be unacceptable. We must all wear lapel buttons saying it’s great! We support it. They’ll be like WWII’s Germany’s ubiquitous Nazi lapel pins.
Leftists tag everybody who disagrees with them as having some kind of “phobia.” Then, they don’t have to bother with any of that defining work or anything. Just label someone as mentally deficient and you’re done.
It’s just like playing the race card, call it the “Crazy Card.”
It's a made-up. nonsense word. As poster ConservativeInPA notes, the "phobic" means fear. But "homo:" can either be "same", as in "homogeneous", or "man", as in "homo sapiens". So here are the choices:
"Fear of Sameness"
"Fear of Man"
Either way, it's just plain silly. I have no fear of "sameness", although I might not prefer it. Likewise, I have no fear of man, or any man (I can defend myself).
Homophobic, no. Homomisia - disgust, repulsion, anger and hatred towards homosexuals that want to have anal or oral sex with their own kind which may include pedophile behavior with children and may include recruitment of children into their lifestyle. Yes.
So homophobic, no.
I don’t fear them, I just want them to shut up and perform their perversion behind closed doors.
Phobia means an irrational fear such as acrophobia, fear of heights. People aren't irrationally afraid of homosexuals. They are repulsed by their unhealthy and perverted lifestyle. They do not want to be propositioned by them and they do not want their sons propositioned by them. They do not want to have to pay to treat their sexually transmitted diseases or to subsidize their decadent and immoral lifestyle.
Agreed. Perhaps we should coin a new term or two. faggotphobia (fear of a bundle of sticks in the UK), or queerphobia. Either rarely occurs, since the fear is neither irrational nor debilitating.
There is something grimly amusing about those with homoerotic attractions regarding “homo” as a slur, while using “homophobic” as the term of art for opposition to their agenda.
If they aren’t called “homos” then “homophobic” means “(morbid) fear of the same”, and one needs a longer word (maybe homoerotophobia — though that might have the more specific meaning of morbid fear of being subjected to homoerotic advances or of engaging in homoerotic sex).
The term “homophobic” may be applicable if it means being bent over a pickle barrel by that 7 foot basketball player. But, as a general term, fear of homosexual advances is not a description of a group of people, but rather, an act.
Phobic means fearful. What’s an appropriate Greek or Latin word for distaste or disgust?
RE: Whats an appropriate Greek or Latin word for distaste or disgust?
The Latin word for distaste is FASTIDIUM. The Latin word for disgust is nauseam.
Homosexuals are homophobic - it is why they insist on being called gay.
It’s like my problem with “hate crimes”. If you beat someone to death, yeah, I’m pretty sure that “hate” was a factor. I don’t care what the cause of the “hate” was or anything else that was (or wasn’t) going through your mind nor what came out of your mouth.
I’m not Homophobic”— I’m “homotimeo” and I fear what their agenda has done and will ultimately do to moral fabric, and therefore the stability, of this country. 54 years of observing the decline tells me the fall the US seems inevitable now. We’ve passed the moral tipping point.
I prefer “Homomisa” a revulsion of homos.
And Islamomisa, a revulsion of Islam.
It is like someone who takes dog poop, smears it on bread and tells you it is Ham on Rye.
You know what it is and you won’t take it.
So they get the mental Health profession, the Congress and the President of the US to declare it Ham on Rye!
You still won’t take it BECAUSE YOU STILL KNOW WHAT IT REALLY IS!
How about “gayphobia”? (fear of being happy?)
Just admitting that you dislike sodomists intensely and they make your skin crawl and you believe the laws against sodomy should be reinstated could get you branded a hater.
What is both interesting and significant, although not mentioned in this article, is the stand of the bishops of the Catholic Church. Their individual and collective stand on this issue cannot be defined as anything less than collective cowardice of the first order. The bishops may well pull the wool over the eyes of most of the faithful; and the mainstream media will always give them the cover they seek when theyre in the process of denying Jesus Christ. But they will not fool God Almighty On that day of judgment for each and every one of these bishops there will be a terrible accounting for their willful abandonment of their sheep.
Any normal person would be repelled by a sexual act that can cause Typhoid Fever along with numerous other diseases.
Typhoid Fever. That is horrifying.