There have been more than a few studies that have shown that homophobia is often the result of one's own self-hatred, stemming from the fears of one's own repressed homosexuality.

This is a longer and more elaborate version of exactly what I think is going on. I posted about it a while back--

--the argument "Marriage between a man and a woman must be protected" carries the subtext "because if marriage between people of the same gender carries no social stigma, the human race will die out because Gay Sex Is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Much BETTER!"

And, you know. Girls kiss better, generally speaking, and boys have protruding parts that have interesting uses, and other than that, I gotta say, they're both about equally likely to be good or bad in bed. *g* From my admittedly limited experience.

"Marriage between a man and a woman must be protected"

What really kills me about this argument is the fact that marriage is no longer a life time commitment for so many...a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman is the unraveling of the fabric of society, but Britney Spears getting married and divorced in less than 48 hours in what was basically a publicity stunt is ok. If they were really so concerned about putting high value on marriage, we all would've heard a much bigger stink about it.
There's a time and place where divorces are needed; but Americans get far too many of them.

P.S. May I link this?

Yes, of course. That's basically why Lis wanted me to post it -- so that people (her particularly, but others also) could reference it, link to it, and so forth.

Whereas my personal opinion of having sex with women is something along the lines of "eww", so what do I care what other people do, since I know I'm not interested. Interesting.

Actually, I believe a lot of homophobia where males are concerned comes from sexual aggression issues. This is putting it crudely, but on a very basic level in our culture, men are the sexual aggressors and women are receptive and passive (Before anyone flames me over that, please remember I said I was putting it crudely, and I'm talking about cultural programming at a very basic level, not behavior). I think for many men, the idea of being on the other end of someone else's sexual aggression is extremely threatening, because they just don't have the internal tools to deal with it.

I sort of developed the theory after trying to explain to a few different men the concept of how women view men, on a subconscious level, as a potential threat, and then behave accordingly. It's always there, like background noise. Graham Masterton wrote a story called "Changeling" about a man suddenly transformed into a woman, and there's an excellent scene where s/he "gets it", that men "use" the threat of their greater physical strength against women all the time. Again, I'm speaking on a subconscious level here, but it's almost always present.

On the other hand, many years ago I heard a man say he was gay because women weren't worthy of him. He expressed this unworthiness in pretty ugly terms. It's the only time I would have supported gay-bashing. Whole heartedly, especially if I could have done the bashing personally.

I think for many men, the idea of being on the other end of someone else's sexual aggression is extremely threatening, because they just don't have the internal tools to deal with it.

that men "use" the threat of their greater physical strength against women all the time. Again, I'm speaking on a subconscious level here, but it's almost always present.

This is absolutely true.

My girlfriend is transgendered, and she has had the experience the character you describe had as well. When she is taking female hormones regularly and/or dressing female, men try to body-check her all the time--they'll keep walking right where she's going to be, assuming they can force her to step aside for them. It's a mostly-subconscious dominance thing. She likes to mess with their heads by staying put and watching them bounce off of her. They get really, really flustered and confused. :)

So, yeah, many men do have dominance issues. I think it is because the culture we live in bases masculinity on this type of battle for dominance on a daily basis in all interactions. Again, mostly subconscious, but deeply pervasive.

Homosexuality has become folded into this larger issue, definitely, and therefore men who are particularly insecure on some level with their own place in the hierarchy of maleness will be especially homophobic.

So I agree with both you and xiphias, because I've seen evidence that both forces are clearly at work, and also very much intertwined in our culture's concept of what it is to be masculine or feminine.

This complex is at the root of the prejudice my girlfriend experiences as well. Her very existence is a threat to that social order that separates the genders rigidly and applies separate behaviors, looks, dress, and signals to each. A lot of men seem to find the idea that someone apparently male would willingly cross that line very disturbing to their sense of identity. And yeah, the kind of men who do mostly have issues of their own in that area somewhere. See the above post; it's the same mechanism.

Like most analogies, it works in some ways but not in others. Since bacon isn't banned and isn't going to be, it's a bit difficult to figure out exactly how you'd feel if it were.

Better might be to look at the temperance movement, which grew into Prohibition.

Better might be to look at the temperance movement, which grew into Prohibition.

Can you elaborate on this?

I'll confess, I haven't read much about American Prohibition since I was in school, but last year I found a fascinating book on the London gin craze of the 1700s which had astonishingly close parallels to what I recall of Prohibition, as well as to the current drug war. [Here's my summary of it at the time]

In all these cases, it seemed far more a matter of class issues, where conservatives and moralizers and establishment feel threatened by some trend among the young and the poor and so demonize that.

That is *fascinating,* and I have to say, it resonates pretty strongly with me in terms of how particular people (Rick Santorum comes to mind, and I *will* name names, because he's well beyond the pale on the subject) seem to spend a lot of time.... dwelling on it. As if homosexuality was about nothing but male-on-male sex. I have yet to hear a gay man talk about male butts as much as Santorum does.

In fact, that seems to be true of the entire segment of homophobes you're discussing - gay marriage ought to be illegal, and ideally so should homosexuality, because men having sex with men is so unbelievably disgusting and so on and on. There's nothing more to it than sex for them; there's no conception of the fact that gay people might *love.* That degree of focus on sex betokens a rather unhealthy fascination with the idea.

As someone who *is* "queer" (bi), I'm inclined to say that this is accurate. I never really went through a "denial of the possibility" phase, but I watched as a lot of people at my women's college did, and it seemed as though a period of screeching "Ew, YUCK!!" featured into it.

Wandered over from matociquala....

I think that some people have the reactions you're describing; I think you're probably right.

But I think there's another really large group that's focused on the concept of sin and purity. And if they focused on, say, spreading lies and gossip as a major sin, they'd have to examine their own consciences and probably come up with some flaws. If they focused on coveting, they'd have to acknowledge that they themselves have wanted other people's traits or possessions or what have you.

But. If they decide that homosexuality is a sin, and the big bad sin at that, it's a lot more comfortable, because they can feel absolutely sure that they have not ****ed their same-sex neighbor in the ***. "Did I behave in a loving way?" is a very complex question. "Did I **** the **** of someone of the same sex?" Much more straightforward question.

So I think there's a fundy symbiosis between the group you've described and the group I've just described, where Person A can feel thoroughly righteous and Person B has to scramble to condemn like crazy to look as righteous as A.

So why don't they focus on, say, shellfish and pork? Those are no-nos in the bible. Or shatnes - the mixing of linen and wool in your clothing (in general)? Or, hey, "family purity" (i.e. not having sex with women during their period)? I never hear about fundies worrying about that...

I, personally, don't find myself particularly tempted by pork or men.

I might also suggest that men who fulminate against same-gender sex might also be (sneakily) worrying that if women are sexual with other women, then men just won't measure up. IOW, it isn't so much man-on-man sexuality that is so compelling that men won't want to be sexual with women; it is woman-on-woman sexuality that is so good that men won't even be wanted.

PS. Wandered over via jonsinger.

You might want to look at this Why some Christians hate gays but love bacon which is by Fred Clark, aka The slacktivist, and addresses the hypocrisies, in that point of view, and posits a very neat theologic argument against those who pick and choose the verses of the OT which they obey, and impose.

TK

slacktivist is tres cool. This link to that entry might work better: Abominable Shellfish.

A non-american homosexual man here.

You express very much my thinking on the subject. I've felt there has to be a reason for the obsession some people have on forbidding homosexuality.

Your phrasing of the underlying assumption "homosexuality is terribly attactive" is precisely how I see it. If one image, one mention of homosexuality in a positive way is enough to tempt everyone to that side, how weak has the cultural indoctrination been? After all, in daily media, advertising, soaps, fairy tales, everywhere we are presenting the children, youth, and adults with models of boy-meets-girl-and-happily-ever-after. One mention of homosexuality is too much and will break the balance? It would appear to this engineer that the original structure was not too close to a stable balance in the first place.

I love that analogy. (And bacon, for that matter. I even had a pulled pork sandwich for dinner tonight.)

It's interesting, because I've become more aware of my thoughts about homosexuality, and same-sex marriage, and the like lately (due to the obvious external factor of the SJC decision, with the added interest that in the past month and a half three pairs of friends have had weddings; one M-M, one F-F, and one M-F).

Then I look back ten years and I find some of my posts on Google Groups arguing for equal marriage rights--in 1994.

Maybe it's just because my reaction to the idea of sex with another guy is "no thanks" -- neither interest nor disgust, just "not interested", just as if the suggestion were for a game of tennis or Avalon Hill's Titan. When, in college, a gay friend told me that a friend of his saw me and asked "who's the cute guy?" I treated it as two compliments; one, the original compliment, and two, that he felt comfortable enough to tell me about it.

This analysis also sheds a new light on the question of why some people believe that allowing gays and lesbians to marry endangers their own marriages... because it creates a temptation that otherwise wouldn't exist.

My ex-wife has married another woman. Do I feel that gay marriage doomed my marriage? No, not really. It just didn't work out between the two of us; were gay marriage illegal, my ex wouldn't still be married to me, she would just be unhappy. (Actually, technically she's not "married" according to the state we both live in, she's just domestic partnered.) Now, a part of me wants to be petty, and that part wants gay marriage not to be recognized in this state until after I get married... but that's just me being petty, and I'd never do anything to make that so. And anyhow, I hope to get married within the next year or two...

i love this and agree whole-heartedly.
i'm pansexual - i love people for people, no matter what form or gender or race or whatever - that's just who i have figured out i am. i'm also vegetarian(heehee), and i'm not going to press other people into being like me.. you like what you like.
i think eating meat is disgusting and i can't and don't want to do it; but i have no qualms whatsoever with someone else eating meat. whatever floats their boat, let them do what they want.
i never want to be married because i think it's silly and just represents tying yourself down.. but if y wants to marry x or y or z... more power to them! i'm happy for them.
that's the view i take on sexuality; if a man wants to sleep with another man, or a stock broker likes to visit a dominatrix on weekends and have her tie him up and whip him, or a woman likes to exclusively date transgendered women.. whatever! as long as they're happy and not hurting anyone i think it's fine and dandy.
it's silly for *someone* to want to bar people from their opinion of happiness.

i saw this linked on my friends list and just had to have a say. ^_~

Have I told you lately that I love you? :)

A.
delighted with you. And agreeing.

I think that's a lot of it. Internalized self-hatred of people who do find same sex stuff tempting and are resisting temptation with everything that's in them. Or externalized hatred of people who are resisting some other temptation, on the grounds that why should WE get to do just FLOUT the law while THEY have to struggle every day against [fill in blank here]. To a certain extent, being tempted to eat shrimp can still land you in the anti-bacon lobby.

But I also think there are people who find the whole idea of deciding for yourself and not following the Way We Do It to be inherently scarybad. And yes, gayness is this generation's flashpoint, but in a previous generation it might have been Men With Long Hair or Free Love or Not Going To Church or Women Working or Showing Your Knees or Dating Outside your Race/Religion/Socioeconomic Grouping or Getting Divorced or Wearing Makeup. The idea is that Decent People Don't, and that being, and being thought of as, Decent is worth any amount of sacrifice of personal happiness.

It tends to cluster around sex, gender, tribe, age, and the underlying sentiment seems to be "After this, the deluge." It's like there's this fear that all that's holding society together is the social compact of rules of what's acceptable, and they're fraying, and this is one of the last threads that's holding the whole package together. So the objection is less to bacon than it is to a person who would put their own selfish desire for bacon above the Good of Society.

(Which I can sort of almost get, if I squint. I mean, if I really thought that eating bacon would end the Republic, I'd be fairly cranky about it myself.)

And there is, therefore, considerable tolerance for the furtive bacon-eating speakeasy on the outskirts of town, because committing a sin just reinforces its status as a sin. It may threaten the individual, but it doesn't threaten the social compact. It's only when you start maintaining that There's Nothing Wrong With It that these people get threatened.

This is very hard to argue with, because from the bacon-eater's point of view it seems obvious that my eating bacon does no harm to society, that my eating bacon takes nothing away from your choice not to eat bacon, that I don't particularly want to preserve a society that objects to something so harmless to others as my eating bacon, much less sacrifice my happiness to it, and that the alternative is not anarchy but a society that is still orderly and functional, and also allows BLTs.

And there is, therefore, considerable tolerance for the furtive bacon-eating speakeasy on the outskirts of town, because committing a sin just reinforces its status as a sin. It may threaten the individual, but it doesn't threaten the social compact. It's only when you start maintaining that There's Nothing Wrong With It that these people get threatened.

This is an important point, I think, especially when "sanctity of marriage" is thrown around.

Whenever gay marriage is called a threat to the institution or sanctity of marriage, supporters of gay rights always cite divorce as evidence of hypocrisy and discrimination. Yet, consider the status of divorce today: divorcees are the butt of jokes ("A guy walks into a bar after divorcing his fourth wife...") and generally considered to be failures of some kind. A man who's wife has asked for a divorce is lower on the social totem-pole than a man in a "successful" marriage (scare-quotes because it's a good example of contemporary language-use supporting my point), and a woman who's been divorced is somehow considered damanged goods.

Divorce is tolerated on the outskirts of society, but it's still considered a "failure" of some sort, even if the marriage itself was terrible. This attitude is changing, and has been changing for a long time, but it will be a long time yet before divorce is considered a neutral event. Society maintains that There Is Something Wrong With It, and can therefore tolerate it.

The difference is that the current gay-rights push is demanding that people think of gay marriage that There's Nothing Wrong With It. With gay marriage, those who object might be just fine with the fact that homosexuals exist, but they'll be damned if they have to condone the fact.

(By the way, came here via a post in philosophy.)

i was going to write a long response here, but i decided to turn it into a post here

Great analogy. (Even though now you have me thinking about a BLT). Though I have to say, I've always assumed the really virulent homophobes were desperately drawing a closet around them.

I'm a vaguely straight guy, for demographic purposes.

I'm not sure if anyone else pointed out this fault yet, so bear with me if you've already heard it.

You stated:
It would be far, far worse for me if I really loved bacon. Or, even if I'd never HAD bacon, if I loved the IDEA of bacon -- had smelled it, heard people talking about it. . .

Because I would see that as a failing in myself. It would be a temptation, and might even represent the entire CONCEPT of "temptation."

The subject of sexual thoughts is generally regarded to be a priori (a philosophical term meaning that it comes without any previous experience). With the exception of child molestations, people don't have sex BEFORE they have sexual thoughts. In other words, you knew that touching your willy felt good before you even knew of masterbation. This is true even if you were not concious of that feeling of pleasure. The point is, you still had it. You may not have known that it was sexual pleasure, but nonetheless, you knew it felt good. I really stress this point because I know that I will hear objections along the lines of "Well, someone told Johnny that if he touched his penis enough, it would feel really good, so that's why he did it." Johnny already knew that it felt good, he just didn't know that it was a sexual feeling.

Anyway, on the other hand, opinions of bacon are a posteriori (a philosophical term meaning dependent on experience). You didn't have an opinion on bacon before you even knew what bacon was. The concept of having a opinion of something before you have any knowledge whatsoever of that something is absurd.

In conclusion, you can't easily make a comparision between sexual thoughts and opinions on bacon because knowledge of the two comes to people in entirely opposite ways. Bacon may be rightfully so called a temption, but sexual feelings are based on instinct, so it wouldn't be fair to say that a sexual feeling is a temption in the same way that you say bacon is a temptation.

(I'm not saying that sexual feeling aren't temptations. Only that you can't compare the temptation of bacon with the temptation of sex because they arise from different sources.)

A friend posted a link to this entry in his LJ. This was a very interesting take on the matter, but it seems incomplete.

If it's all right, I'm linking this to a comment at pandagon.net. If you want it removed, just let me know.

I think it's a brilliant essay, and the fact that I still remember it almost four months later should say something.

Heh. Please do. If I write something, and don't friends-lock it, I'm usually quite all right with it being linked to.

What comment on pandagon? I read pandagon only occasionally -- usually when Lis points me to something particularly interesting.

Long after -- I've always assumed that the most vitriolic homophobes hope that if they're loud enough and angry enough, their god will not hear their shameful thoughts and desires and those dreams about Jonh Barrowman would go away.

That is to say, gay homophobe Republicans are really stuck.