"homophobia" -- again

GwynApNudd

Regular Member
Apr 3, 2007
114
39
✟15,630.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I feel that the word "homophobia" is a poor choice. I know of no one who has a clinical fear of gay people, but there is a real phenomemnon that the word "homophobia" describes. The trouble is that "panic-stricken conspiracy-theory-like overreaction" is just too long to fit on the bumper stickers and placards. :p

Homosexual supporters will manipulate the system in order to get their agenda to the public. They are trying to get to our kids, screaming tolerance but are completely intollerant to any other view than of their own. This is where the title "homophobe" comes from. It's not a title given to others for hate but a title to manipulate people and confuse them that we cannot accept sin.

A belief that the Bible forbids a particular act, or even any act in a set of related acts, is one thing. A reaction like the one above is quite another.

New Guy is correct that people have been manipulated on this issue. But not by gays. Originally it was by "sporting gentlemen" trying to shift attention from their actions. But it grew to take on a life of its own. It almost destroyed the country in the Fifties under Senator McCarthy and others. Things settled down once people realized that, but now the pendulum is swinging again.

As I said, it began with the "sporting gentlemen." These were men of the leisure class in the early decades after the Civil War who had more money and time than morals and sense. One of their favorite "sports" was tomcatting with prostitutes.

But it was no sport with experienced tarts, so they began to prey on society. They would find young women (and even some girls) of the lower and working classes and seduce them if they could, or otherwise rape them. A bribe or the threat of jail (with the bribe money -- claimed to be their fee -- being evidence of their "professional" status) was usually enough to disassociate themselves from these girls afterward.

The growing womens' movement had many causes: sufferage, temperance, etc. One of these was the plight of these poor abandoned young women. Of all the the causes, this was one that good Christian men could understand and agree with.

This put a lot of pressure on the "sporting gentlemen" to regroup. Some of them owned newspapers. Others were infuential with the editors of other newspapers. Soon stories began appearing about a "long-hidden" threat. These newspapers "discovered" a plot by organized groups of "sodomites." The stories claimed they were going around targeting young gentlemen and often even schoolboys, seducing and even raping them.

Two things made the activities of these supposed gangs more horrible than those of the "sporting gentlemen" -- the fact that the activity was the crime whose name could not even be spoken in public, and the fact that they were preying not on the lower classes, but on men and boys of breeding.

There were arrests made, and most of the cases seemed to match the accusations of the rumors spread by the "sporting" newspapers. It wasn't hard to stretch the vague insinuations which was all that "decency" allowed in print to claim that they all matched point for point.

There were other factors over the years that moved the paranoia away from an outward-driven cover-up to a self-driven delusion, but basically that's where modern "homophobia" began.

As well as the lie about gays being seducers, recruiters, and pedophiles. It was the real seducers, recruiters and pedophiles trying to divert attention from their own activity. It worked all too well. There are still too many who buy into the panic, like NewGuy. There are even still some who believe the pedophile lie.
 
D

DMagoh

Guest
I feel that the word "homophobia" is a poor choice. I know of no one who has a clinical fear of gay people, but there is a real phenomemnon that the word "homophobia" describes. The trouble is that "panic-stricken conspiracy-theory-like overreaction" is just too long to fit on the bumper stickers and placards. :p



A belief that the Bible forbids a particular act, or even any act in a set of related acts, is one thing. A reaction like the one above is quite another.

New Guy is correct that people have been manipulated on this issue. But not by gays. Originally it was by "sporting gentlemen" trying to shift attention from their actions. But it grew to take on a life of its own. It almost destroyed the country in the Fifties under Senator McCarthy and others. Things settled down once people realized that, but now the pendulum is swinging again.

As I said, it began with the "sporting gentlemen." These were men of the leisure class in the early decades after the Civil War who had more money and time than morals and sense. One of their favorite "sports" was tomcatting with prostitutes.

But it was no sport with experienced tarts, so they began to prey on society. They would find young women (and even some girls) of the lower and working classes and seduce them if they could, or otherwise rape them. A bribe or the threat of jail (with the bribe money -- claimed to be their fee -- being evidence of their "professional" status) was usually enough to disassociate themselves from these girls afterward.

The growing womens' movement had many causes: sufferage, temperance, etc. One of these was the plight of these poor abandoned young women. Of all the the causes, this was one that good Christian men could understand and agree with.

This put a lot of pressure on the "sporting gentlemen" to regroup. Some of them owned newspapers. Others were infuential with the editors of other newspapers. Soon stories began appearing about a "long-hidden" threat. These newspapers "discovered" a plot by organized groups of "sodomites." The stories claimed they were going around targeting young gentlemen and often even schoolboys, seducing and even raping them.

Two things made the activities of these supposed gangs more horrible than those of the "sporting gentlemen" -- the fact that the activity was the crime whose name could not even be spoken in public, and the fact that they were preying not on the lower classes, but on men and boys of breeding.

There were arrests made, and most of the cases seemed to match the accusations of the rumors spread by the "sporting" newspapers. It wasn't hard to stretch the vague insinuations which was all that "decency" allowed in print to claim that they all matched point for point.

There were other factors over the years that moved the paranoia away from an outward-driven cover-up to a self-driven delusion, but basically that's where modern "homophobia" began.

As well as the lie about gays being seducers, recruiters, and pedophiles. It was the real seducers, recruiters and pedophiles trying to divert attention from their own activity. It worked all too well. There are still too many who buy into the panic, like NewGuy. There are even still some who believe the pedophile lie.

Not that I'm doubting you, but do you have any documentation to back up this conspiracy theory?
 
Upvote 0

GwynApNudd

Regular Member
Apr 3, 2007
114
39
✟15,630.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Not that I'm doubting you, but do you have any documentation to back up this conspiracy theory?

I did the research several years ago. I may have some of the books in storage, but I'm pretty sure that at least a few were borrowed and have since been returned, and few were loaned out and may or may not have been returned. If I can find corroborating evidence, I'll post it.

[sign]Watch This Space[/sign]
 
Upvote 0

GwynApNudd

Regular Member
Apr 3, 2007
114
39
✟15,630.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I am a proud homophob.

Actually, I have never seen evidence in your posts (beyond the occassional reference to "the gay lifestyle")that you buy into the lie that defines "homophobia."

I don't recall you denouncing "the gay agenda." Or worried about gays "attacking" you or "recruiting" your sons. Or selling state secrets to the Commies, etc.

Or even the somewhat more moderate reactions that some of the other posters here show.

Oh, I know that some "pro-gay" agitators use the word in a blanket condemnation of all who disagree with them, but I don't.

As far as I am concerned, as long as you follow Matt 5:22 and Matt 7:3-5, honest disagreement is not hatred.

You do review your words in light of these warnings before you post them, don't you?
 
Upvote 0

ReformedChapin

Chapin = Guatemalan
Apr 29, 2005
7,087
357
✟18,338.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Actually, I have never seen evidence in your posts (beyond the occassional reference to "the gay lifestyle")that you buy into the lie that defines "homophobia."

I don't recall you denouncing "the gay agenda." Or worried about gays "attacking" you or "recruiting" your sons. Or selling state secrets to the Commies, etc.

Or even the somewhat more moderate reactions that some of the other posters here show.

Oh, I know that some "pro-gay" agitators use the word in a blanket condemnation of all who disagree with them, but I don't.

As far as I am concerned, as long as you follow Matt 5:22 and Matt 7:3-5, honest disagreement is not hatred.

You do review your words in light of these warnings before you post them, don't you?
Unfortunately pro-gay agitators define anyone who doesn't accept their sinful lifestyle as a homophobe.
 
Upvote 0
S

ServantofShangDi

Guest
I think there are quite a few people who have a strongly-held fear of homosexuality and homophobia usually applies where it's used, though not always.

However, there's nothing wrong with being afraid of homosexuality. I'm afraid of rampant sexual behavior in all forms.

The problem is homophobe has come to be another label that people can use to project hatred on another. I'm not saying attacking or insulting homosexuals is a good thing, but going and labeling them for it does nothing to help the situation.
 
Upvote 0