RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

  1. That canard has been around for decades though. Might as well say that all people who insult ‘breeders’ are secretly longing to be heterosexual.

    Comment by The Livewire — April 9, 2012 @ 2:40 pm - April 9, 2012

  2. @The Livewire, no.

    Because of the stigma that has long existed societally against homosexuality, especially from conservative religious quarters, people who are the most vehemently opposed to homosexuality tend to be the ones with shame about their own sexual attractions. This is why there is such a ridiculously long list of people who once screamed the loudest condemning gays from either the pulpit or elected office, only to be caught red-handed like the closet cases they are.

    And Dan, this isn’t the first study of its kind.

    Comment by Evan Hurst — April 9, 2012 @ 3:03 pm - April 9, 2012

  3. I don’t think there is any single reason for heterosexuals not accepting LGBT people. I do think the most prevalent reason, and it’s the one I was exposed to while growing up, is the one that says LGBT people are not like “us” (hetrosexual) and so they need to be shunned. It was “peer pressure” that didn’t say LGBT people should be hated specifically but that they should be shunned/avoided.

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 9, 2012 @ 3:14 pm - April 9, 2012

  4. Reading the article, it’s absurd still on the face. I mean the entire “I don’t like X, because I’m secretly X” is silly. So if someone doesn’t like spiders, does that mean they’re secretly a spider in a man suit?

    Some people may be trying to repress/come to grips with their feelings. To issue it as a blanket reason is just… stupid.

    Comment by The Livewire — April 9, 2012 @ 3:22 pm - April 9, 2012

  5. I find this type of self-satisfying smugness study to be fatuous at best and pandering at worst.

    Skipping over the fall back stuff about the Greeks, the world would have produced an enormous amount of homosexuality among the “barbarians” who rampaged and satisfied essential lust in long tides of history if this theory had basic validity.

    There has not been very much time since Freud and his crowd began spurring academics to explain nearly every human mystery of the mind and complex human motivations. This is no more than an extension of phrenology dressed up in different terms and specialized psychobabble that creates a mystique and then proceeds to explain it.

    I don’t know if universities have turned swarms of laboratory mice into a majority population of homosexuals acting out their proclivities. But, certainly it would be more effective to have parasites screw non-productively than to go through the process of sterilizing them and then releasing them to rush for the lady parasites and cause them to wear out with a bug shooting blanks. Why not just have male bugs that seek male bugs and lady parasites which seek lady parasites? Is it a shortage of psychological studies that have the bugs all doing what is ‘socially approved’ sex?

    “Studies” of this type pop up periodically and get a few days of headlines and perhaps a follow-up book that goes into remainders two weeks after publication.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 9, 2012 @ 3:29 pm - April 9, 2012

  6. Livewire, are you rejecting the scientific rigor and process behind the results by just saying, “Me no like”, or did you have something substantive as to why the research is faulty? Calling it a canard when there’s some research showing it very much can be true is an evasion, no?
    And your objection is easily handled: no one said it was a “blanket” reason. Just that in some cases, it can be true. Not one line of this study tried to say that it was the only reason or even the main reason, for homophobia. The headline says “may” and the first line says “could”. Hardly a blanket statement. Just that it can be and is one of the causes.

    Comment by torrentprime — April 9, 2012 @ 3:31 pm - April 9, 2012

  7. LW, tis possibly true that not all folk expressing disdain, disgust oreven disappointment in and of the Mo, but I do hold some support for heterosexism.

    There are public figures that did protest too much

    Roy Cohn. Pastor DL Eddie Long & Theodore Haggard
    Alobg with many more

    Comment by rusty — April 9, 2012 @ 3:36 pm - April 9, 2012

  8. Of course that’s the reason some people do. That seems to me neither profound nor all that important. Wanting to use it as The Answer to why there is dislike or hatred of homosexuals (I am not saying you are doing this) seems simplistic and self-serving. Campbell’s sloganeering version of Jung’s shadow concept is an all too common reductionist shortcut among the “psychologically aware.” The overuse of shadow projection as an interpretive lens among Jungians is one of their most prevalent and telling intellectual faults. Simple logic: you probably hate what reflects your shadow, but not everything you hate reflects your shadow. Was Simon Wiesenthal a secret Nazi in his shadow?

    Having been out, and about, for about three decades, while I am quite happy with my erotic orientation, my views of gays as a group have changed over the years. There are some kinds of “homophobia” which are not hard to understand. On a bad day, in fact, probably the only thing I like about gay men is that they have sex with other men.

    Comment by EssEm — April 9, 2012 @ 3:40 pm - April 9, 2012

  9. Sorry smartphone autocorrect combined with glare on this sunny day
    Not all who express are actually closeted folk

    Comment by rusty — April 9, 2012 @ 3:41 pm - April 9, 2012

  10. Here’s a thought: the fundamental reason for dislike of homosexuality is that it transgresses one of the deepest archetypal characteristics of humanity: sexual dimorphism. Regardless of the fashions of the last ten minutes, Male and Female are the fundamental categories, crucial to our survival as a species. Messing with that, or how that is perceived and ordered by a particular culture, is a seismic transgression, provoking powerful reactions. It’s not trivial.

    Comment by EssEm — April 9, 2012 @ 3:58 pm - April 9, 2012

  11. I have never been too friendly towards gay people. Back when I was deep in the closet, I thought all gay people were the “flaming queen” type. When I started to realize that wasn’t the case, that is when I began to view homosexuality more favourably. I have thought that perhaps my dislike of gay people was a way for me to distance myself from them (because I was afraid of being gay myself) (combined with immaturity), but I still think it was more dislike of effeminate men. And that is because I still don’t like effeminate men. I’m sure someone could use some sort of complicated psychological explanation as to why I don’t like them, but I am not interested in that. There are many kinds of people that I dislike (for example: arrogant people, people that complain about their adversity, overly preachy people, unsanitary people). If some effeminate guy were to show me that he is in fact a good, respectable person, I’m sure I would get over it.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 9, 2012 @ 4:09 pm - April 9, 2012

  12. Livewire, are you rejecting the scientific rigor and process behind the results by just saying, “Me no like”, or did you have something substantive as to why the research is faulty?


    Define “homophobia” and how a person is diagnosed as “homophobic”.

    Define “controlling parenting” and how a parent’s style is defined as such.

    Funny, I don’t see THAT anywhere in the article cited. In fact, I don’t see anything of the sort reporting on what specific measurements or definitions were used for either “homophobia” or “controlling parenting”.

    Which is important, because we should remember the following:

    - If you object to dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to a sex fair, you are a homophobe, according to gays and lesbians.

    - If you object to raping and molesting children, you are a homophobe, according to gays and lesbians.

    - If you are a politician who states that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, you are a homophobe, according to gays and lesbians.

    Now, granted, I understand that gays and lesbians like torrentprime and Evan Hurst aren’t prone to ask questions when something confirms their biases and bigotry, but that’s hardly scientific.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 9, 2012 @ 4:10 pm - April 9, 2012

  13. Awwww, talkingpoints prime decides to show up.

    You might note that the article doesn’t say “some” until the third paragraph from the end. Prior to this it strongly implies “All” it takes 5 paragraphs to say ‘many’. So which is it? There’s no methodoligy given, small sample size, and skewed demographics from what we can tell.

    Comment by The Livewire — April 9, 2012 @ 4:10 pm - April 9, 2012

  14. EssEm @ #10, you nailed it.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 9, 2012 @ 4:10 pm - April 9, 2012

  15. Rattlesnake, if you don’t already know it, you’d find some things to like in Jack (Donovan) Malebranche’s book, Androphilia. As well as in his new one, The Way of Men.

    Comment by EssEm — April 9, 2012 @ 4:45 pm - April 9, 2012


    NEW3 days ago – 10 min – Uploaded by byuitgetsbetter
    USGA (Understanding Same-Gender Attraction) is an unofficial group of Brigham Young …

    Comment by rusty — April 9, 2012 @ 4:45 pm - April 9, 2012

  17. Don’t buy it, unless a Shiite atheist like Levi secretly longs to be a Christian. I think this is just one of those comforting myths insecure homosexuals buy into to feel better about themselves.

    Comment by V the K — April 9, 2012 @ 6:46 pm - April 9, 2012

  18. And when you think about it, there’s a certain degree of self-loathing tied up in that myth. “Those big mean jocks who used to bully me, they’re secretly fags.” I mean, if you thought being gay was a good thing, you wouldn’t wish it on people you don’t like.

    Comment by V the K — April 9, 2012 @ 6:51 pm - April 9, 2012

  19. Could some people hate drunk drivers because they secretly want to drive drunk?

    Could some people hate Catholics because they secretly believe in the tenets of Catholicism?

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — April 9, 2012 @ 7:30 pm - April 9, 2012

  20. Of course, it is not the case that all anti-gay persons are closet cases. In fact, most are not. Perhaps the article should have made that point more clearly.

    I’ve noticed the following tends to happen to those who are gay, but were taught by their family, friends, peers, and schools that homosexuality is a sin, and further not accepted:

    1. Becomes anti-gay, sometimes virulently so, and join in on the anti-gay crusade. Some will do this to convince themselves they are not gay. Some may accept the attraction, but become celibate or have secret trysts.

    2. Accept their homosexuality, but will still disparage homosexuality whether warranted or not, and excuse the behavior of anti-gay persons, warranted or not.

    3. Accept their homosexuality, but will still disparage religious persons whether warranted or not, and excuse the behavior of homosexuals, warranted or not.

    And of course, some will immediately or eventually become

    4. Well-adjusted individuals.

    Michael, I don’t know about the former. If someone was brought up believing Catholics were an abomination (and my understanding, this is not limited to non-Christians), the latter is possible.

    Comment by Pat — April 9, 2012 @ 8:22 pm - April 9, 2012

  21. Pat,

    Kids who are “taught” that homosexuality is a sin are not permanently “taught.” Almost all religious teaching undergoes scrutiny and denial by kids in their late teens. Even the Amish have “rebellious” youth.

    Consider this: your sense that kids are fundamentally transformed by religion is not really the case. They test it, reject it, find it, fall in love with it, can take it or leave it and go hostile. Human nature.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 9, 2012 @ 9:10 pm - April 9, 2012

  22. Heliotrope.

    Let me know what you think

    Comment by rusty — April 9, 2012 @ 9:22 pm - April 9, 2012

  23. If you’re “anti gay”–whatever the heck that means–it’s because you’re secretly gay. Yep, that silly notion has been around for decades. I remember it being bandied about when I was a young adult in the ’80′s. And Lori La La has used it to try and discredit me here. And that’s the real use to which this canard is being put: as a way to discredit socially conservative views on homosexuality. It’s one of the social liberals’ weapons in their war on traditional values, a war which Dan seems to be joining more and more each day.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — April 9, 2012 @ 10:53 pm - April 9, 2012

  24. Heliotrope, I agree with your points. However, it is not just religion. If a gay teen’s family’s religion regards homosexuality as a sin, but he finds that there will be sufficient family and peer support when he comes out, then religion will not become the problem. The teen can also through the religious questioning cycle as you state. It’s when the teen believes there will be animus towards him (evidenced by animus towards gay people by family and peers) that the problem occurs.

    Comment by Pat — April 9, 2012 @ 11:29 pm - April 9, 2012

  25. Heliotrope.

    Let me know what you think

    Comment by rusty — April 9, 2012 @ 9:22 pm – April 9, 2012

    And here’s your answer, rusty.

    As well as this one.

    When one sees what the gay and lesbian community embraces and supports as truth, all the little sob stories they air look exactly like what they are — attempts to exploit and manipulate the decency of others by invoking standards and ethics that they do not and would never presume to apply to themselves.

    I have never been told by a person of any religious faith whatsoever to kill myself. I am regularly told it by gay and lesbian liberals, despite all their whining about suicides and bullying. That demonstrates quite nicely who values life regardless of whether they agree with it or not, and who only believes those who agree with them are worthy to live.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 10, 2012 @ 2:13 am - April 10, 2012

  26. Rusty, thank you for sharing the link from SDL. I’m glad to have read it.

    Comment by David in N.O. — April 10, 2012 @ 2:41 am - April 10, 2012

  27. I read that link a while ago rusty,

    I think most tellingly he forgot “I’m tolerant, unless you disagree with me.”

    I try to seperate the sin and the sinner. G_d knows I’m not perfect, and fail to live up to His (and my) standards. I may think homosexuality is a sin (at least in ‘Vanilla’ Christianity it is, just for the ‘sex out of wedlock’ part), but I’m guilty of sin too. It doesn’t mean that I don’t want everyone to find Grace is His arms, because I do.* It also doesn’t mean that I’m getting the cat-o-nine tails ready for a good old fashioned scourging.

    *Well in the faith of their choice. I’d love for my friends to share in ‘my’ paradise, but I’m not going to drag the Wiccans to my heaven. :-)

    Comment by The Livewire — April 10, 2012 @ 7:53 am - April 10, 2012

  28. SDL. Come on. Don’t we understand? Don’t we get it? To put our arm around someone who is gay, someone who has an addiction, somebody who lives a different lifestyle, someone who is not what we think they should be… doing that has nothing to do with enabling them or accepting what they do as okay by us. It has nothing to do with encouraging them in their practice of what you or I might feel or believe is wrong vs right.

    Not sure if that covers your tolerance item. . .LW

    It has everything to do with being a good human being. A good person. A good friend.

    Comment by rusty — April 10, 2012 @ 8:42 am - April 10, 2012

  29. Glad you liked it David.

    Comment by rusty — April 10, 2012 @ 8:45 am - April 10, 2012

  30. LW, if you haven’t had the chance or patience. . . I do recommend the you tube vid I posted in 16. Really good vid from the gay folk and their straight allies at Brigham Young University

    Comment by rusty — April 10, 2012 @ 8:51 am - April 10, 2012

  31. Rusty,

    Christian love is not for sissies. Nor is it written than calling yourself Christian means your perfection is parallel with Christ.

    You posted a catharsis over a brother and it is thoughtful and moving. It is not particularly informative. Any Christian has likely had the same messages delivered time and again from the pulpit.

    Obama sat in Wright’s church and nothing took on him, according to Obama. So, since he is perfection incarnate, I would imagine that other people also hear the words and miss the message.

    For me, loving the sinner and hating the sin is a very real command for civility, being humane and striving for a better world for all.

    Premarital sex and homosexuality carried out are both sins. Pat Robertson married his pregnant lady. The sinner sinned and then did what Christ instructed him to do. Other evangelicals have sinned and gone back for seconds, thirds and a hundred more. They are hypocrites. They know what they are doing. Bill Clinton and his forty pound Bible doing an atonement tour with Juicy (Who’s your daddy) Jackson is another shot at blatant “Christian” hypocrisy. Nancy Pelosi giving the Pope a head’s up on government funded contraception and abortion is just as hypocritical.

    How many churches are there across this land? Who leads each one? Are all ministers and congregations on the same page at the same time? Are some better than others and are some charlatans and idiots?

    The first thing a homosexual has to do is to assess who he is and where he is going. Then he has to look around and find out what the local “rules” are and figure out how to navigate them. I am confident is saying this, because the exact same thing is true for heterosexuals.

    90% of life is showing up on time with a good attitude. Unfortunately, some folks focus 90% of their attention on themselves and defending their “unique” qualities and diversity. If you go looking for people not to like you, you won’t have to look far. Most people don’t give a damn until you make it an issue.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 10, 2012 @ 9:43 am - April 10, 2012

  32. TY heliotrope

    Comment by rusty — April 10, 2012 @ 9:54 am - April 10, 2012

  33. ” Homophobes could be attracted to people of the same sex but are not admitting it to themselves, a series of psychology studies has found.

    Researchers in New York, Essex and California say they’ve found evidence that gays and lesbians remind homophobes of themselves – which is why they develop an intense aversion and fear of them.

    They claim homophobic people tend to repress their true sexuality as they’ve often been brought up in families where being gay is not acceptable.”

    ROFLMAO uncontrollably…………………………….

    Comment by rjligier — April 10, 2012 @ 10:42 am - April 10, 2012

  34. 28.SDL. Come on. Don’t we understand? Don’t we get it? To put our arm around someone who is gay, someone who has an addiction, somebody who lives a different lifestyle, someone who is not what we think they should be… doing that has nothing to do with enabling them or accepting what they do as okay by us. It has nothing to do with encouraging them in their practice of what you or I might feel or believe is wrong vs right.

    Not sure if that covers your tolerance item. . .LW

    It does perfectly well, rusty.

    As does your refusal to apply the same to your fellow gays and lesbians who say and do things like this and this.

    So you call for tolerance while encouraging and supporting blatant bullying, bigotry, and intolerance.


    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 10, 2012 @ 2:35 pm - April 10, 2012

  35. NDT, you might wanna check in with BDB. I admire Dan and compliment him quite regularly about GP.

    If memory serves me, you be the one that likes to bring up the image that was photoshopped. I loved that pic of BDB holding his nephew.

    So, back to that hands on hip pose, miss Rita. And slightly snap your neck when you finger point.


    Comment by rusty — March 20, 2012 @ 5:25 pm – March 20, 2012

    Wow, I get the 100th.

    Has been interesting watching GP the last two days, been in the middle of handling the details and family members because my dad died quietly an peacefully on Thurs morning around 2 am. Boy has this been an eye opening experience. But more on that later. . .

    Thought it would be nice to reflector this commentary from the Cameron post

    Thank you Dan for a reasoned position. As a straight married Christian, I think Kirk could have handled Curry better by explaining that we Christians are called not to judge, but to love one another. In fact, Paul slams those of us who do pronounce judgement on other’s for their sins. Cameron could have explained that there are many gays who are Christians. That many straights in the church are accepting of gays and don’t consider their actions as sinning. There are Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin because of Romans 1 and other scriptures, but they absolutely love the sinner…because they recognize they too are sinful, and it’s why Christ came to save us all from ourselves. And of course there are those who are not as generous and who give the faith a black eye. We religious after all are the ones who strung Christ on the cross because he didn’t fit our agenda. Scripture is pretty clear that we all are equally plagued by sin. Thank God, the scriptures say we will be judged by Christ and not by humans.

    Comment by Justasking — March 23, 2012 @ 1:36 pm – March 23, 2012

    Comment by rusty — March 23, 2012 @ 4:32 pm – March 23, 2012

    Comment by rusty — April 10, 2012 @ 2:56 pm - April 10, 2012

  36. Again, so what, rusty?

    Your quoting Justasking only demonstrates how you demand of Christians a standard to which you do not and will not hold your fellow gays and lesbians.

    If you truly believed and took to heart these posts you are quoting, rusty, you would speak out publicly against and condemn hate speech of the type your fellow gays and lesbians like Evan Hurst were pushing.

    But you don’t.

    You demonstrate quite nicely your point, which is that Christians should shut up while you and your fellow bigots like Evan Hurst and Little Kiwi belittle and attack people and tell them to kill themselves.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 10, 2012 @ 4:46 pm - April 10, 2012

  37. Bad Tintin,

    Bad Evan,

    Bad LK,

    No since I public ally condemned them and acknowledged they all crossed the line of civility, can we now look forward to fewer posts where you link the very dreadful photoshopped pic of BDB. Thank you very much.

    Let’s concentrate on this wonderful image of BDB

    Smooches! NDT

    Comment by rusty — April 10, 2012 @ 5:19 pm - April 10, 2012

  38. Should be

    Now since I pubicly condemned. . .oops

    Comment by rusty — April 10, 2012 @ 5:21 pm - April 10, 2012

  39. What about me? I’m a woman and I disagree with pre-marital sex, hook-up culture, homosexuality, transgenderism, pedophilia, adultery, bestiality and other stuff. Does that make me a secret lesbian who cannot accept my supposedly latent lesbian tendencies? Not really. “Homophobia” does not describe my values. I have no fear of homosexuals as people, only of homosexuality as an orientation. There seems to be this stereotype that all “homophobes” are males. While that is generally true, a few of us are women. I’m not a secret lesbian. I’m just scared at how the LGBT community opposes religious cultural conservatives and the idea that marriage is for reproduction. For me “same-sex” “marriage” is stupid and beyond ridiculous. Marriages aren’t based on the fickle modern love, autonomy and equality. It’s much more than that.

    Comment by Stacy — April 13, 2012 @ 5:33 pm - April 13, 2012

  40. Marriage are better if they’re practical (e.g. power, status), patriarchal and religious in nature. Homosexuals seem to want “same-sex marriage” because of godforsaken modern liberal ‘love’. Ha.

    Comment by Stacy — April 13, 2012 @ 5:36 pm - April 13, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**

Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.144 Powered by Wordpress