Is being homophobic a disease?

[iPapi]

I was recently reading an article about Grey's Anatomy star Isaiah Washington checking into a psychological therapy program because of his remarks about homosexuals on the show's set and it kind of got me thinking.

 

First of all, I'm sure Washington checked into this program to gain back a sense of public respect. I really don't believe he has changed his feelings in this short of a time period.

 

But what defines a person as being homophobic? Is it because he/she speaks out concerning their belief that homosexuality is wrong?

 

I guess my question is this. How is being homophobic defined?

 

Am I homophobic because I totally disagree with the concept of gay marriage and homosexuality?

 

Should I feel guilty because I do not feel guilty about my beliefs, which stem from my faith & Christianity?

 

Why or how can a person's beliefs about sexuality result in their feelings being called such an ugly word like "disease"?

[Ram]

Homophobia is a term coined by liberals who think you can do what ever you want and no one should dare say, "I disagree with you". So if you disagree with these people they are going to give you some kind of label.

 

No, you should not feel guilty because you think homosexuality is wrong.

 

Like I said the liberals coined this theology, so now they are calling it a disease, which implies that it can be cured. If this was call your opinion, they could not do anything about. So they call it a disease.

 

From one homophobe to another homophobe, you do not need any antibiotics for the sudo-disease, your opinion is correct in my book.

[iPapi]

Homophobia is a term coined by liberals who think you can do what ever you want and no one should dare say, "I disagree with you". So if you disagree with these people they are going to give you some kind of label.

 

No, you should not feel guilty because you think homosexuality is wrong.

 

Like I said the liberals coined this theology, so now they are calling it a disease, which implies that it can be cured. If this was call your opinion, they could not do anything about. So they call it a disease.

 

From one homophobe to another homophobe, you do not need any antibiotics for the sudo-disease, your opinion is correct in my book.

 

Glad we are on the same team.:thumb:

[Ram]

:thumb:

[Incognito]

I certainly don't believe there is a 'disease' called homophobia. I don't believe in it, but don't hold it against anyone either. Jesus loved everyone including the prostitutes, etc.

[Frances Bavier]

First off, a phobia (any phobia) is defined as an irrational fear of an object or class of objects.

 

The statement that it is a term coined by liberals is so far wrong it isn't even funny.

 

Homophobia, by definition is an irrational fear of homosexuals. In my opinion, it is not a disease, but a condition that reveals a persons frame of mind.

 

In the case of many people that are homophobic, their irrrational fear manifests itself by an extreme need to persecute people that are homosexuals (usually in an attempt to prove to themselves that they are "better" than the homosexuals). The best example of this would be Fred Phelps and his followers.

 

To your questions, iPapi -

Neither not accepting the homosexual lifestyle, or speaking out about your unacceptance of homosexuality would, in itself, make you homophobic.

On the other hand, if you feel the need to shout it from the rooftops, or have a yearning desire to hate people simply because they are homosexuals without first knowing them personally, then those are pretty good signs that you may well be homophobic. If you feel that the only way to deal with a homosexual is to beat the tar out of him/her, then you are definitely a homophobe.

 

There is no reason to feel guilty simply because you disagree with that lifestyle (whether you base those feelings on your belief system or something else). Of course, if you participate in the persecution of people, then your conscience would probably tell you that what you are doing is not the correct thing to do.

 

The use of the term "disease" in this instance stems from the psychologists that classify all phobias and manias as a disease of the mind. A mania is the opposite of a phobia (it is the irrational excitement caused by an object or class of objects).

 

If you dissaprove of (or reject) the homosexual lifestyle, I wouldn't worry about it. On the other hand, if you smile inside when you read the stories of people being dragged to death behind a truck because they were homosexuals, or people that pick homosexuals out of a crowd just to beat them, then you might consider yourself to be a candidate for some type of counseling.

 

 

Frances

[Frances Bavier]

I certainly don't believe there is a 'disease' called homophobia. I don't believe in it, but don't hold it against anyone either. Jesus loved everyone including the prostitutes, etc.

 

This is a classic example of a person that does not approve of the lifestyle, but is not homophobic. Incognito has no hatred in his/her heart, nor a latent fear of someone that is homosexual.

 

 

Frances

[shooter]

First off, a phobia (any phobia) is defined as an irrational fear of an object or class of objects.

 

The statement that it is a term coined by liberals is so far wrong it isn't even funny.

 

Homophobia, by definition is an irrational fear of homosexuals. In my opinion, it is not a disease, but a condition that reveals a persons frame of mind.

 

According to wikipedia, the term first appeared in print with it's present-day connotation in 1969 in an article written by George Weinberg who is described by wikipedia as "an American clinical psychologist who has long been a friend of the LGBT community, regularly attended meetings of a group in New York City called the Gay Activists Alliance (GAA)."

 

It is also noteworthy that per the wikipedia definition, anybody who descriminates against gays, (which presumably would include someone who would be against gay marriage) is homophobic.

 

Francis, I prefer your definition but it's not ridiculous to state that the term with it's present connotation was coined by liberals.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Etymology_and_usage

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Etymology_and_usage

[ladiesbballcoach]

Homophobia is a term coined by liberals who think you can do what ever you want and no one should dare say, "I disagree with you". So if you disagree with these people they are going to give you some kind of label.

 

No, you should not feel guilty because you think homosexuality is wrong.

 

Like I said the liberals coined this theology, so now they are calling it a disease, which implies that it can be cured. If this was call your opinion, they could not do anything about. So they call it a disease.

 

From one homophobe to another homophobe, you do not need any antibiotics for the sudo-disease, your opinion is correct in my book.

On the bolded, unless you are a Christian and then you are NOT TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT and it is very politically CORRECT to tell Christians they are wrong.

[Sting]

It looks like this actor has ran afoul of the Hollywood mafia and he's paying the price. He's lucky that this is a high profile incident and his show is a really big hit. Otherwise, he'd probably be fired and never land another acting job again.

[Ram]

On the bolded, unless you are a Christian and then you are NOT TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT and it is very politically CORRECT to tell Christians they are wrong.

 

What?

[02Ram54]

On the bolded, unless you are a Christian and then you are NOT TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT and it is very politically CORRECT to tell Christians they are wrong.

As a Christian, I would say one of the things my faith forbids is hate in your heart.

 

It's one thing to have a moral difference with homosexuality. That's not what prompted the outrage in this instance, it was the deliberate use of a slur on several occasions.

 

I mean, saying things like 'remarks he made' and 'speaking out against homosexuality' (implying that this was all the poor guy was doing) is a delicate way of talking about a remark made that would have been deleted from this forum.

[Ram]

According to wikipedia, the term first appeared in print with it's present-day connotation in 1969 in an article written by George Weinberg who is described by wikipedia as "an American clinical psychologist who has long been a friend of the LGBT community, regularly attended meetings of a group in New York City called the Gay Activists Alliance (GAA)."

 

It is also noteworthy that per the wikipedia definition, anybody who descriminates against gays, (which presumably would include someone who would be against gay marriage) is homophobic.

 

Francis, I prefer your definition but it's not ridiculous to state that the term with it's present connotation was coined by liberals.

 

Good posts Shooter. Liberals.

[Trinity alum]

On the bolded, unless you are a Christian and then you are NOT TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT and it is very politically CORRECT to tell Christians they are wrong.

As a proud liberal and Christian, I find that statement flat out wrong. It is a well worn and false indictment of liberals. The fact is that there are religious liberals and religious conservatives. There are also liberals that attack religion as well as conservatives that attack religion. It is not politically correct to tell Christians they are wrong. There is, however, a strong element in our society that believes it is wrong for any religion to attempt to impose its beliefs on the rest of society. As an example, my religion teaches that it is wrong to miss attendance at mass on Sunday. I do not favor a law to make attendance at mass a legal requirement. My religion teaches that it is a sin to eat meat on Fridays during lent. I don't favor a law to prevent serving meat on Fridays.

[ladiesbballcoach]

As a Christian, I would say one of the things my faith forbids is hate in your heart.

 

It's one thing to have a moral difference with homosexuality. That's not what prompted the outrage in this instance, it was the deliberate use of a slur on several occasions.

I agree 100% with that and I did not mean to imply that Mr. Washington was representing Christians. If I did, I was mistaken.

 

On the "what" question, Christians are not allowed to be who they are in public. We are told over and over and over to keep our witnessing and our worship in our churches and our houses. So the comment that liberals feel that people should be able to do whatever they wish is inaccurate in that liberals do not generally feel that Christians should be able to do what they wish.