Why have some of the nation's most vehement anti-gay activists Ted Haggard, Larry Craig had gay sex scandals of their own? An op-ed in the New York Times' Sunday Review section tries to explain. The authors of the piece, two research psychologists, say they have "empirical evidence that homophobia can result, at least in part, from the suppression of same-sex desire."
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an … lity_.html
it sounds like the Shakespeare quote,
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."....or do as I say and not as I do
The most who are vehemently against it are most likely gay themselves, but they have been brought up to believe it's wrong, so it's actually a case of extreme self-loathing. This isn't the brainwashed who just mindlessly repeat Church slogans. People like Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Fred Phelps fit the profile.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/sto … 54082202/1
That's funny. Some people might think that if they speak out against something it will make people less likely to suspect them. If someone is made to feel ashamed or embarrassed about themselves, they will have good reason to try harder to hide it.
Of course it is. Many homophobes have secret and subconscious homosexual desires but they wish to conform to the heterosexual norms of society for its intrinsic sociocultural and socioeconomic advantages. If they acted on their true feelings and beliefs, they would have the privileges that they have and feel that they would be ostracized by their associates. They adopt a "heterosexual" facade, actually pining to be gay. When they see gay people who are happy with themselves, it releases an emotionally obsessive trigger in them!
I hate articles like this... In fact I hate the whole "If you hate gays you must be a repressed gay yourself" argument. I find it ~at the least~ mildly insulting and along the lines of the childhood "I know you are but what am I" mentality. It also inevitably ends back at insulting a homophobe by calling him gay which I find EXTREMELY offensive.
I'm sure that there are cases where latent homosexuality is masked by homophobia but I'm guessing they are rare. Focusing on these rarities takes away from the root causes of homophobic thoughts and behaviors in the majority of cases. In those cases insinuating that someone is gay because they are opposed to homosexuality just builds more resentment where quite enough hostility exists already.
It's not an insult. It's a really sad situation where someone is so upset with who they are, they lash out at others. It just shows the depravity, and the social pressures, forcing themselves upon the human soul. The people like this need to free themselves and come to terms with their own sexual orientation. Studies also do not say EVERYONE who is against homosexuality is gay themselves.
Some people are just bigots. Brainwashed, either through their parents, churches, peers, or a combination of all three, some people were taught from an early age that being gay was wrong. The tide is turning though. It's only a matter of time before it's accepted, and people against it aren't going to look pretty in the history books (pragmatic argument in favor of it. If one takes the wrong position, it will never be lived down).
The science speaks for itself, this test has been done now for more than a decade with very similar results by different groups and universities, there is a correlation between homophobia and being aroused by homosexual pornography so in all likelihood this means that homophobia is an indicator of potential homosexual desires of course it does not mean that all homophobes are gay some people are just odious and hateful but apparently some of them are just coping very badly with their own sexual confusion. The message here I think should not be "HAHAH they are gay" but how can we help them understand the problem and try to make them less anti-social.
I remember seeing a documentary about various aspects of sex a few years ago. I watch a lot of the Science, History, and Discovery Channels but can't remember which one it was on. Anyhow, there were some researchers who attached probes to the genitals of various people and showed them pictures of same sex couples hugging and kissing affectionately. Prior to having the physical test the people were asked a serious of questions about sex and their beliefs. Turned out that the ones who were most vocal about being against "the gays" were found to have been aroused in this experiment.
Actually it's not additional evidence... The study is hugely flawed in both execution and conclusion.
1. Homophobia has no standardized clinical definition and has no universally recognized diagnostic tool. No one can be legitimately diagnosed as "homophobic" because no such diagnosis exists.
2. The "index of homophobia" was created in 1980 and was hugely obsolete by 1995. (the year the study was actually performed). Even in 1980 it didn't measure what is seen as today's definition of "homophobia" It was not a diagnostic tool for anti-gay beliefs... it was an indication of the likelihood of a person to commit violence against gays. Those who scored higher on the IHP were obviously more aggressive personalities in general. That is important to remember because men who are more aggressive are also clinically more prone to arousal by ANY sexual situation. Individuals like Robinson and Haggard would likely not have scored high enough on the IHP to be considered homophobic within the purpose of the screening tool.
3. A test group of 35 "homophobic" individuals is not large enough to draw the type of conclusions that the abstract states. The study results are anecdotal at best.
4. All the subjects were male.
5. An increase in penile size does not necessarily mean erection. It would be interesting to read the exact measurement changes and the conditions of the testing.
The study has been repeated multiple times with different methods of identifying homophobia and arousal results have been similar across the board, the results are statistically significant the sample size has been expanded and the results are repeatable, the experiment is valid and it teaches us an important correlation.
Interesting. I agree with your points 2 and 3. And I get your frustration with these kinds of studies. I personally am not annoyed by them, because I think closet homosexuality among homophobes is not really that rare, and the point is not to call them gay as an insult but to expose their hypocrisy.
Even if the result is that straight men are less likely to be outwardly homophobic because they're afraid people will think they're gay, that's good enough for me. It beats the alternative.
The author of the recent study (the Rochester/Santa Barbara team) does make clear that this doesn't explain all homophobia, though.
Before I go on you know I love ya
My problem with the "exposing the hypocracy" thing is that by doing such to someone who is actually a closeted gay we are essentially forcing them out... which is also horrible.
There is absolutely no good that can come from it and a whole lot of bad. Insulting someone who isn't gay by calling them gay = insinuation that being gay is somehow insulting. Force outing = stronger desire to stay in closet and more anger towards the gay community.
I really see no upside other than a temporary "ha ha" feeling and that just gets in the way of the education and understanding that really needs to happen to end this fight and move on.
I think there are lots of closeted gay people who have the sense to not bash gay people; they avoid the subject altogether. If they don't want to attract any questions about their sexuality for whatever reason, public knowledge about the association between homophobia and closeted homosexuality will just discourage closeted people from making gays a public target.
The conventional wisdom for a long time was that if you hated gay people, you couldn't possibly be gay yourselves, and that CW just encouraged the worst in homophobic behavior, among self-loathing closet cases and other bigots who didn't want people to think they were gay.
I'm all for education and discussion among people who are civilized enough to do that. For those who can't, I'd prefer they shut up and keep their fists to themselves.
I think the anti-defamation league gives a good definition.
Homophobia is the hatred or fear of homosexuals - that is, lesbians and gay men - sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility. Homophobia is not confined to any one segment of society, and can be found in people from all walks of life. Organized hate groups have viciously attacked homosexuals and have used especially violent language in attempting to persecute and intimidate them.
Discriminating against homosexuals and then saying you aren't a homophobe is like discriminating against African Americans and saying you aren't a racist. I have no sympathy for an outdated view of reality. 1950 is gone. It's time to come to the 21st century.
Scientific evidence shows it's not a choice. Basic critical thinking skills requires one to change his/her view when new evidence arises. That is the case now.
That is a fairly good definition however it isn't a CLINICAL definition. You can not base a scientific/psychological study on a condition that does not clinically exist. Saying that all X's exhibit a certain trait is automatically invalid if there is no definition for X.
Socially, my issue with the definition you've given is that not all people who discriminate against gays hate or fear them. With the issue of gay marriage, for example, there really is a base of people who have no hatred or fear of gays who oppose gay marriage. From my POV it seems like hatred or fear but then again I also know at least one person who opposes gay marriage that shows no sign of ANY hatred fear or hostility towards gays. She simply believes in traditional marriage as between a man and woman. I honestly believe that her desire to see the world through 1950's Leave it To Beaver glasses has nothing to do with anything but a nostalgic view of societal perfection.
It's a socially acceptable way of expressing discrimination against a group of people based on an irrelevant characteristic.
You could weak the definition to "strongly dislike." If you are in favor of keeping gay marriage subordinate to "straight" marriage, then you are engaging in a sort of hate of another group.
It's like the old woman on What Would You Do in Utah. They did a fake interracial couple and some of the older women said they didn't want the African American with the white girl. They weren't willing to lynch him or anything of that nature, but they were in favor of discriminating against him. The old woman who was against interracial marriage even talked to him and rubbed his arm. It was a really odd situation.
by Callum 13 years ago
We do not wake up in the morning and decide to be gay today, we are naturally born gay just as others are born straight, bisexual and whatever else. Each to their own I say, we have no choice in being gay its who we are and what we are, why do people make such a big thing out of it? Are they afraid...
by fierycj 14 years ago
Everything has a scientific name these days, its crazy. I'll make you a bet, say or do one thing that has never been done before. I mean like never, ever been done. If even thats possible. But say or do it. And I bet you my life savings that there's a scientific name for it somewhere. No...
by SEXYLADYDEE 10 years ago
Why is homosexuality such a hotbed issue?As a Christian I don't believe I have the right to make judgements. I also think it's interesting how we are supposed to be living with love in our hearts as Christ did but so many drag out the old testament when it's serves their purpose. Ham, Noah son...
by Brie Hoffman 9 years ago
My article titled Gay Agenda Threatens Christian Business Owners and Employees had the ads disabled.I think Hubpages is discriminating against me because of my viewpoint. I noticed several pro-Gay articles that had ads. I am so mad I could spit!What do you think?
by SpaceShanty 9 years ago
The quote on Google's home page appears to be critical of Russia's anti gay laws.
by Susan Reid 12 years ago
Does Michelle Bachmann even read the Bible she quotes so "liberally?"http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/mic … homosexualMichele Bachmann says she's a 21st-century version of Saul's son, Jonathan. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has a habit of breaking out Old Testament references...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|