"nonprogrammed divisions of Quakerism"

What is this? I'm imagining brainwashing vs. deprogramming, which I suspect is wrong, wrong, wrong.  :-)

I know something about the brainwashing vs. deprogramming issue. May I help? --Ed Poor

First we have to find out what the person who wrote that means. I doubt he means it in the sense you took. Quakers are very far from "cultish" (and I use the term advisedly).

I was the one who wrote it, and perhaps I should have said "unprogrammed" rather than nonprogrammed, but in any case, it refers to Quakers who continue the traditional style of silent worship without a paid minister, where there is no predefined "program" of service. It is described in the article on Quakerism, if you are interested.  :)

I just deleted the word. It didn't add much to the discussion. Sorry to tramp on you Egern, I think using "unprogrammed" OR "nonprogrammed" without taking the time to explain what that means, is too easily misunderstood. --Dmerrill

I would never slap you, D. Your tweak of my tweak looks fine:

Homophobia (etymologically homo = same, phobia = fear) is never used according to its etymological meaning, fear of sameness. Generally it is taken to mean opposition to homosexuality, or alternately, hatred and fear of homosexuals themselves.

I was even thinking of shortening it to:

Homophobia (etymologically homo = same, phobia = fear) is generally taken to mean opposition to homosexuality, or alternately, hatred and fear of homosexuals themselves.

I think the difference between etymological meaning and usage is interesting and should remain. --Dmerrill.

So be it. It's clear, accurate and interesting. What more could an encylopedia entry aspire to?

But I have a problem with the following sentence, being one of the "religious people" it refers to:

Religious groups and some others strongly deny that their disapproval of homosexuality, often based on their interpretation of religious scripture or principles, constitutes homophobia.

Religious people, in my experience, don't work very hard to throw off the label 'homophobic'. What they expend much time and energy disputing is the claim that irrationality, fear, or hatred is any part of their motivation or actions. Perhaps an article on hate speech would clear this up, er, bring this into focus.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm on friendly terms with (a small number of) homosexual men and women. I have managed neither to hide my disapproval of homosexuality or alienate them completely. I also know quite a few 'fornicators' and 'adulterers' and manage to be on good terms with them as well. (Pats self on back) My motto is love the sinner, hate the sin.

It works, because my disapproval of (what I regard as) immorality is rather faint, almost like a parent who wished their son had become a doctor instead of a musician. I'm actually rather easy-going.

--Ed Poor

Then by my definition, you're not homophobic. I'll take a stab at correcting the sentence you referred to. I have an idea how it can work. --Dmerrill

Thanks, and I like the way you wrote the following, because the "lumping" does seem motivated to change the lumpee's mind:

. . . used by advocates for social change to indiscriminately lump together true homophobes (i.e., those who actively fear and loathe homosexuals) with those who merely disapprove of homosexuality, perhaps on principled or religious grounds, in order to shame the latter into abandoning their disapproval.

--Ed Poor

I didn't write that. I've done a lot of work on this article, but not all of it by any means. That's Wikipedia fer ya! --Dmerrill

At this point (1/3/02), the article is sufficiently NPOV, but it seems to be trying so hard to avoid taking sides that it doesn't say anything. Perhaps there is too much back-and-forth: some say, others say, these counterargue -- all in the same paragraph.

Perhaps we can maintain the balance of the article AND make the various points more clear and fully described, by maintaining the POV of one side for a paragraph or two. THEN, balance it with another side.

(I'm not sure I can do this, myself. Any takers?)

Ed Poor

I think it reads great as it is. On a controversial topic, this may be the best that's achievable. You're welcome to try, though! --Dmerrill

I'm not sure beginning with the distinction between principled and irrational opposition to homosexuality is the best way to begin, even though I think I have been the one most concerned with making that distinction.

Is there anyone who knows something about homophobia, from the point of view of those who use the term homophobia?

I gather in common parlance it means

1. opposition to homosexuality (on, say, moral or religious grounds)
2. discrimination against homosexuals (can't be Boy Scout leader or get married)

Is there, as I think, the intent to label opposition and discrimination as literally irrational, fearful or hate-filled? --Ed Poor

Fairly often. I suppose I can't think of a reason for opposing or hating homosexuals that isn't irrational, fearful, or hate-filled, because at least one of those adjectives adequately describes every incident of homophobia that I've witnessed or suffered. However, we don't necessarily or even usually have the full range of implications behind the word every time we use it (hence questions like "Why are people homophobic?" - if the word denoted all of the above, the question would lead to a tautology.)

En passant, it's kind of fun to see I'm becoming one of the local Gay Guys. :) - user:Montrealais

I only agree with you half way: reasons for hating homosexuals are all irrational, fearful or hateful. As for "opposing homosexuals", I can't comment unless I know what you mean by that. By "opposing homosexuals" do you mean (a) opposition to homosexuality, or (b) discrimination against homosexuals, or what? --Ed Poor

Amazingly I find myself agreeing with Ed here. Religious arguments for opposing homsexual activity are neither irrational (by the standards of religion, anyway - *so long* as you believe the world was sneezed out by the Great Green Arkleseizure, if the Great Green Arkleseizure apparently said "homosexuals should burn!" it's not technically irrational to say homosexuals should burn. Which leaves us in the difficult position of condemning all religion as irrational, or accepting my/Ed's point...), necessarily fearful or necessarily hateful. Now let me go read the page. =) --AW

Adam, while there are some religious folks who say "homosexuals should burn", in general religious disapproval of homosexuality is not so, um, heated. It usually falls into the same category as religious disapproval of any other sort of extramarital sex. I think this is explored on the homosexuality and morality page.

Ed - I hoped it was clear my post was exaggerated for clarity and so as to make it clear it wasn't an attack on any particular group. This is why I used the Great Green Arkleseizure (who comes from H2G2, and so far as I can tell has no followers in the real world :>). Obviously it wasn't, sorry. --AW

Adam raises a curiously interesting question: is the rational implication of an irrational belief itself irrational, or rational? -- in other words, is irrationality transitive? ;-) -- Tarquin

I moved up and labelled the section "Manifestations of homophobia", because I thought it was more important than the wrangle about the term homophobia. --Ed Poor 15:33 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)

Hardly anyone but me on this talk page. It's getting boring. Maybe it's time to do something to (grin) mix things up a bit.

I propose to revise the article to explore 3 main categories:

1. irrational hostility toward homosexuals: discrimination, beatings, etc.
2. principled opposition to homosexuality: e.g., religious grounds
3. attempts to score debating points by equating the above 2 categories

--Ed Poor

Well, isn't 2) often the foundation of 1)? Can you really argue that religious opposition to homosexuality is "rational"? Who equates 1) and 2)? I think people are rather saying that 1) happens because of 2). --Eloquence

Well, isn't what you just said above an example of 3)? ;-) --Uncle Ed

Equating them is different from claiming a cause/effect relationship. --Eloquence

An example of (2) would be the belief that the nuclear family is the bedrock of society, and therefore homosexuality is not a desirable thing. That's a perfectly rational position, though not one I share. I tend to use the term "homoskeptic" to describe this non-violent opposition, and "homophobic" to describe (1). I'd definately be in favour of revising the entry along those lines - "homophobia" is similar to "freedom fighter" - it's absolutely essential to clarify what the words mean before going on to discuss the subject.