: The term 'homophobia' seems odd to describe a behavior where the supposed 'feared' are beaten and/or killed by the 'fearful'. Soo ... the Nazis engaged in a genocidal campaign against the Jews out of 'fear'? Did the Bolsheviks slaughter kulaks out of a deep-seated inferiority complex and a lack of self esteem?Of course Nazi's acted out of fear! Have you never read anything about Hitler? Not very uplifting reading material, but he had to be about one of the most gutless wonders ever. Top ten at least. He had a hugely low self-esteem. For an entertaining way to learn this watch the Boys from Brazil. How can some one on such a huge power trip not possibly have low SE! The whole Nazi movement was based on these very feelings of inadequacy. Didn't you ever do that blue eye brown eye thing in school? Where the blue eye kids ridicule the brown eyes and how the reactions are? The Germans were at a low point as a nation. They were ripe for the power boost picking on others gave them. It is pretty likely KKK's get the same rush. The ole blow out your flame so mine looks brighter logic. You are not a neo nazi are you? Sorry had to ask, can't see how one could not see the fear aspect otherwise. Even today old poles admit why they went along with the germans. Because they were jealous and wanted a piece of the pie. You can find some good documentaries at the library.
: Furthermore, the issue of 'repulsion' is not only relative, but cultural (and perhaps even biological). The range of attitudes on blatant homosexual behavior span the spectrum, and do not reflect on other attitudes held by the offended/pleased/neutral bystander (In point of fact, there are some repelled by blatant acts of heterosexual behavior. Others pay substantial sums for the experience).
People have been repelled by alot of things over the ages that we now laugh about, like the sight of inter-racial couples, blacks in the front of the bus, children out of wedlock, women without coursettes, etc. I assert once again this is a direct result of ignorance, willful or otherwise.
: I would think the point here is to acknowledge a political shift. When homosexual behavior was conducted solely by poor, marginal individuals outside of mainstream culture, the act was vilified. Now, with 'queers' in possession of substantial wealth and improved organized political behavior, they are able to change public perceptions to their advantage. In the same way that Ronald McDonald can become the friend of children, so also homosexuality becomes merely a new consumer choice. Meanwhile, the wealth and prestige of the Christian church is in a noticable decline; thus, their opinion on matters secular is increasingly attacked. Wicca, the 'Pepsi' to Christianity's 'Coke', is newer and more aggressive, and is increasing their market share of the religion business (incidentally, the same could be said for Islam - appealing to a more conservative and traditional element, of course).
WHAT? Homosexuality was never exclusively a poor thing! Ever heard of King Ludwig II? He was pretty damn wealthy(for example)Since when is sexuality a consumer choice? Is this true for you personally. I'm a little lost on this line of reasoning. Please explain.
: Is it objectively offensive? Are those that find such behavior repellant 'ill'? My opinion is that the question itself is a tactic. Much as declaring the Muslim prohibition against nudity and alcohol an 'illness', it is more meant as an attack on the groups connected with the attitude than as an honest quandry. A weakness is perceived, the counter-groups possess strength; thus, the weakness is acted upon. The reason that the same issues are not brought up in the Islamic world is that they are liable to cost the petitioner a limb or a life. The questions are themselves patently absurd - it is true that Klansmen are frequently people of low self-esteem, but it is hardly related to their stance on homosexuality, and rather more related to the low status that the Klan holds in society. Those who willingly join weak groups frequently feel they have a low status in society, precisely because they do. During the early portion of this century, this was hardly the case with the KKK, and the esteem of members was much higher (a fact, incidentally, which I find of trivial relevance).
I wouldn't choose the term illness myself. But I also wouldn't mistake false pride with high-self esteem. When a person gets off on belittling others, to me that says alot about their own sense of self worth.
: If one wishes to argue the merits of a more tolerant attitude toward sexual preferences and practices, I could see the sense in it. These juvenile attempts to make fagdom 'cool' and Bible-thumping 'uncool', however, insult my intelligence and my sensibilities (much more, I might add, than over-eager male bonding or Jimmy Swaggert ever have). If I thought that this debate had any relevance to what the average person felt, I would be positively appalled. Luckily, the common man is far more rational, and can be depended on to moderate these excesses of the academians.
: As for homosexuals, worry not. Capitalism has a way of taking care of the successful and the productive, and they are no exception.
So what is your stand on homosexuality, if you don't mind sharing that info?
I contend that the fear of the unknown brings out ugly things in people.
