On Heterophobia

In America today, a powerful case can, and will, be made that heterosexuals all too readily defer to homosexuals regarding claims of oppression or that we suffer some kind of psychological malady due to our refusal to celebrate them to the full extent they desire. Most "straights" seem to silently accept the validity of bogus concepts like "homophobia" which maintains that many of us harbor hate for those who happen to be physically attracted to members of the same sex. I hold that the concept of homophobia is fallacious, and that, in fact, the opposite of homophobia, "heterophobia" is a more pressing concern.

I first encountered the phrase Heterophobia as the title of a book, but only its title, and not its contents, is what will be explored in the paragraphs below. Before beginning, it is readily conceded that many homosexuals are little different from the rest of us in the way in which they work hard, wish to be left alone, and desire quiet and peaceful lives. Yet, unfortunately, those are rarely the individuals who act as spokesmen for the rest. My arguments are chiefly directed to the gay activist's views of the straight population.

We have all heard it used countless times but does this word, homophobia, have any actual meaning? I believe that it does not; at least in the sense in which it is commonly used. It is rarely applied to those who actually fears homosexuals. Most often it is administered as an epithet to anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda or finds humor in their disposition and lifestyle.

One can be called a homophobe nowadays due to asking questions like, "So what exactly is the point of this parade?" or "What are you guys proud of here?" Just by asking a few questions (of which there are no easy answers) one can receive the same generic label that was applied to the vile murderers of Matthew Shepard. It has been my personal experience that merely disagreeing with some of the more vehement gay activists results in one quickly being grouped into an axis of hate. It doesn't seem to matter what the specifics of the argument happen to be as, regardless of what you say, they'll trolley out the same stale, cookie-cutter, accusation of homophobia. Perhaps if they changed the name of their insult to "gaytotalitarianaphobe" there might be some merit to their claims.

Actually, there is more strategy in the labeling of straights as haters than one might presume. It appears to be a deliberate tactic as a means in which to get the straight population to cower before the demands of the gay agenda. Anne Hendershott explained this angle in The Politics of Deviance:

"Desensitization techniques are even more powerful when combined with jamming, defined by Kirk and Madsen as moving people to a different opinion about homosexuality through a form of operant conditioning. The 'trick' of jamming, according to Kirk and Madsen, is to make the homophobe feel a sense of shame 'whenever his homohatred surfaces.' They wrote that 'propagandistic advertisement can depict homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and a**holes---people who say not only faggot, but n***er, kike and other shameful epithets. In the redefinition of defiance, then, anyone who dares to question the morality of gay sexual behavior is labeled a 'homophobe.'"

There is great truth in her analysis. Disagreement is not indicative of mental illness or suggestive of one being a well-spring of endless hate. To deter questioning, activists accuse inquisitive straights of being monsters. Jamming is a mechanism for disabling free inquiry and thereby closing the marketplace of ideas.

This is the crux of the homophobia position. Often when one is called a homophobe it is due to finding humor in gay behavior. Yet such a presumption rings false. One almost never derives laughter from what is hated or feared. I fear great white sharks and do not consider them to be a particularly interesting topic for jokes. The same could be said of piranhas or global warming. It is also true regarding nazism and communism as I hate them both and find no levity in discussing them. With gays it is entirely a different matter.

The titles of various gay bars and restaurants can be absolutely hilarious. In my old neighborhood there were taverns called "The Man Hole" and "The Cellblock." Now that is funny stuff indeed. A few months back, my friend Yakov told me about a new bar by him called "The Piledriver." How can one not see the humor in such a name? Isn't that why they decided to name it as they did?

Clearly, Nazis marching through Nuremberg with torches in their hands evoke few giggles, but the sight of a grown man walking down the road in a pair of black combat books and a G-string is another matter. Why shouldn't we laugh? It's hysterical. Really, the real burden falls on those who dress in such a manner. If one doesn't want to be satirized then they shouldn't wear thongs in public. If you do, it's your business, but there's nothing wrong with the rest of us cracking up.

"We're everywhere" is on t-shirts across the land and it's supposed to imply that gays can be found in every cranny of our nation. Well, they certainly are everywhere, at least in the Chicago neighborhood that many call a "gay ghetto," but, as for everywhere else, I'm rather skeptical. What would be more accurate would be if I got some financial backing and sold t-shirts embossed with, "Heterosexuals: We're Everywhere!" and had written on the back, "Ask your mom and dad." There seems to be a rabid thirst for gays to be considered normal and this has caused the prevalence of male homosexuality within the general population to be rounded up from two or three percent to ten percent. In a few years it could well become twenty or thirty percent. Should anybody question these statistical assumptions they will undoubtedly be labeled...you guessed it, homophobes.

Another tactic, along the lines of being everywhere is for the activists to accuse (once again) anybody who questions them as being closet homosexuals. What is the logical basis for such as a conclusion? There does not appear to be one. I believe that those who take this line of attack get shock value out of labeling their adversaries as gay like them, but after the first or second recital of this claim, such personalizations lose their power to shock. Certainly gay men would not appreciate being libeled with the identity of "closet heterosexual" so why do they brand straight men as homosexual? Probably the answer lies in the belief that such fireworks obfuscate the real issues and replace argumentation with name calling (which is definitely effective when one's positions are indefensible).

If everybody truly were homosexual in orientation then there'd be little reason for anyone to inhabit a closet. No, the belief that one's adversaries are secretly like you is little more than narcissism. I don't hold that liberals are secretly conservative or that gays are secretly heterosexual because they obviously are not.

I am opposed to gay marriage. It's my belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That being said, I do acknowledge that if homosexuals want to do something special for themselves for the sake of medical insurance, I think that's perfectly acceptable. I am tolerant of their diversity. I do admit that I differ from many conservatives on this subject and changed my mind on the issue over the last couple of years. I now regard civil unions as being fair and equitable.

There's no reason why we can't do our thing and they can't do theirs, but, in their opposition to this concept, we can see the old leftist canard being played out that equality has to mean sameness. Gay activists are no different from radical feminists in this respect (and their ranks frequently overlap). Sadly, compromise is not good enough for them as the law was made for the purposes of imploding our culture from within.

While at a convention in 2002, I noticed that there was a stand set up with a subgroup of our organization linked to "The Gay and Lesbian Alliance" or something to that effect. They were handing our rainbow pins and tons of students were wearing them at the convention. I was approached by a representative who attempted to give me a sticker but I told him I wasn't interested. The advocate gave me a strange look and moved on. Yet, the real question is why did others not respond as I did? It's because gay activists now own the debate concerning the sanctity of homosexuality. To not be supportive of them, in the minds of a contemporary college student, is to be on the side of dread and loathing. Their conditioning on this topic appears to be almost irreversible.

Last year, I was asked by a trainer I know if I was going to the gay pride parade. I told him, "Of course, I'm writing a column on the subject." He eyed me wearily and wondered if I was "with them or against them." I couldn't believe he said such a thing. I asked him, "What the hell does that mean? I don't care what they do. It makes a great story though as rural folk are amazed by what I see." Ginsberg well could have been right when he stated that the radicals would get us through our children.

The media treats gays as objects of heavy affection nowadays and takes a kindly view of their life and societal presence. In films like "American Beauty" we witnessed a gay couple being the only normal people in the movie. Furthermore, I have met countless women who love "Will and Grace" and appear to believe that most homosexuals act like the lovable characters they see onscreen. When I tell these women about some of the things I've seen and heard they are incredulous.

There is also a show called "Queer as Folk." It became all rage a few years back. In my old neighborhood, I saw many a t-shirt and bumper sticker bearing the name of the program. I myself never had any interest in watching it, but surprisingly two of my friends tuned in regularly. Eventually, I asked them as to why they would bother. As it turned out, they tuned in every week in order to make fun of the characters. They begged me to watch it in order to see for myself. One time I did and I still cannot believe that gays would support such a show. In this particular episode one of the fellows shopped all afternoon and eventually bought a scarf for the purposes of performing autoerotic-asphyxiation. It cost him $300.00. I shook my head and said, "What's totally believable is that this guy spent 300 bucks on a scarf when a simple towel would do." But behaviors like these are no different from those practiced by heterosexuals, right? Wrong. You don't have to believe me, but not once in my 34 years of heterosexuality have I have never met one straight man who expressed an interest in autoerotic-asphyxiation. Self-strangulation is beyond sexual gratification; it is utterly insane.

In fairness, I told a gay guy I know about the "Queer as Folk" episode and he shook his head in disgust. He said, "That show makes me so mad I cannot even tell you. I rented a DVD once and had to turn it off. They party all the time and go to strip bars. They don't care about work and they're complete stereotypes. It makes me sick that it's so popular."

Another show, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," appears to be overtly constructed upon heterophobic principles. A gay team comes in and redecorates a clueless and unfashionable straight guy's home. Then he is immensely grateful as his life has been changed for the better. Yeah right. It is strangely reminiscent of that old joke: "Why worry about homosexuals? Do you think one of them is going to break into your apartment and redecorate?" Well, that's exactly what happens on the show. All the heterosexual guinea pigs appear to love the goofy cathouse accommodations they find themselves living in after the team leaves. Well, that's their choice I guess, but the seminal question is who cares about fashion sense? There are more important things in the world than clothes and fixtures. A Spartan existence allows one to dwell in a world of ideas and thought rather than waste the time given to you with knick-knacks and furniture. Rather than laugh at our lack of material interests, straight men should be congratulated on the ability to disregard the superficial.

For the sake of true diversity, it would be enlightening for someone to put on a "Straight Eye for the Gay Guy" episode wherein we modify some of their idiosyncrasies. It could begin with one of us lecturing, "No man, when you're measured size XL you should never purposely wear a Medium" or "gee, lavender and pink aren't suitable for these walls. You're going to have to live here. I just had an outrageous and creative idea; let's paint it eggshell white."

Ronald Reagan? The government? These are politically correct answers to be sure but totally fallacious. AIDS is a behavioral disease. If you engage in risky behaviors, your chances of getting HIV increase exponentially. It's pretty simple. We hear all the time that HIV doesn't care what a person's actual sexual orientation is as it infects both gays and straights indiscriminately. Well that's true on the surface as the virus will shack up with whatever human exposes himself or herself to it, but to make such an assertion is misleading as it takes out the behavioral factors behind the disease. It cannot be denied that an individual's actions have a direct bearing on whether or not they become infected. In this respect it is incontestable that gay men engage in far more risky behaviors than the rest of us. Here's Hendershott again:

"These data indicate that a growing number of gay men are infecting others knowingly, with full knowledge of their own HIV status. Researchers discovered that some recently infected study participants have a strain of HIV that is resistant to protease inhibitors. The authors of the study identified a new trend involving 'willful and purposeful infection by both partners---a complex pathology called bug chasing.' In fact, there are websites where uninfected people can solicit sex with those who are already infected. Called 'gift giving,' this practice adds to continuing perceptions of deviance within the gay community."

The word risky doesn't really do justice to the notion of deliberately killing oneself, but the suicidal inclinations may, in part, be due to perceptions on the part of many homosexuals that AIDS is a political affliction. Apparently, many novices want a share of the glory of the oppressed and are willing to sacrifice their lives in the name of what they misconstrue to be social justice.

Recently, I posted on my blog, and emailed to acquaintances, a few hate-filled letters I have received from gays due to my penning some innocuous pieces about them in the past. I do this to illustrate to others that it's not "Will and Grace" out there. Those of us who stand up to the activists are exposed to a rage that the media refuses to depict. They abhor everything we stand for and will not tolerate any criticism whatsoever. More so than any liberal group, I've found that the gay activists strike in force against whoever disputes their dogma. Such lashing out is counter-productive as all it accomplishes is the making of real enemies who are not so easily silenced.

This attacking of critics is chiefly the reason that I decided to write about this subject today. I want to bring to the reader's attention the fact that these activists have absolutely no tolerance for the diversity of others. My addressing of this topic will result in my being labeled a "hater" again but, in actuality, I don't hate them at all. I believe that most activists realize that heterosexuals don't hate them and that the real cause of their outrage derives from our refusal to celebrate their lifestyle and proclaim our admiration for them. In their eyes, being tolerated is not enough; they must have love as well. This rebellion is rather high in its maintenance needs to say the least. They want to be worshipped and when we refuse to pat them on the back we are met with their ire. Perhaps it is unavoidable that I am their enemy, but they certainly are not mine.

Ultimately, with homosexuals, I take a libertarian position. It's their lives, let them make their own choices but I, for one, will not take a seat on their bandwagon. The biggest problem with this topic and many others is that there are too many bystanders in the culture war. There's no reason why heterosexuals should not vehemently defend our own sexual orientation. After all, if it weren't for men finding women physically attractive there'd be no civilization or culture with which to battle over. Let's take a stand for our parents and ancestors, and announce to the world that, "we're here, we're straight, get used to it."

1. Only its title, and not its contents, will be explored here because the author referred specifically to the radical feminist movement in her work and not to the aversion for heterosexuals among gay activists of both sexes.

2. This bar used to have a sign out front with sayings on it like: "It's cold outside but warm in my manhole," "women and children last," and "today's forcast- 8 inches."

3. This term "ghetto" is rather ridiculous in its application to gays as nobody chooses to live in a ghetto. The state makes the choice for them.

"Another tactic, along the lines of being everywhere is for the activists to accuse (once again) anybody who questions them as being closet homosexuals.

Based upon this eminently sound logic, Free Republic posters must be closet liberals!"

Such logic is fellatious.

Based upon this eminently sound logic, Free Republic posters must be closet liberals!

Poor Democrat Underground inhabitants (yes you DUers, we know you're watching). They're just closet conservatives.

Your post hits home with me. My best friend is a 30-ish, alarmingly attractive, lesbian. The thing is, to talk with her, to see her, to work with here - you'd never know she was gay.

I knew her for a few years before she told me - and this was after we'd become very close friends. She doesn't CARE if someone knows, she just doesn't flaunt it in any way - and she has little patience or tolerance for the radicals. She works as a GOP operative in politics and, in many ways, is one of the most modest and normal people I know.

"There was a place by the Hudson a few years back called the "Ram Rod."

There's a place in Minneapolis called, and I think this is perfect, "Odd Fellows."

"Also, by imagining that we 'fear' them, it may give them a sense that they are somehow superior. They can say to themselves, "Hey, we're feared. Man, we rock!"

The way I see it is, They are dishonest and manipulative, The term "homophobe" is a rhetorical weapon and they utilize this absurd label to villanize all opposers of their perverse way of life, IMO they are exploiting a tried and true psychological warfare tactic, Be advised they will indoctrinate children to believe that being a "homophobe" is akin to racial prejudice and bigotry, The truth of the matter is moral discrimination is justifiable, otherwise it would be a crime to come to a moral judgment, and there would cease to be any difference between right and wrong.

Your story reminds me of one of the most influential authors in my life: Allan Bloom. He wrote the Closing of the American Mind, which was a very socially conservative book. He bashed the flashy homosexual agenda in the book. People from Reagan to Tipper Gore praised his book.

However, for more than a decade, little did I know that Bloom himself was homosexual, and I believed he died from AIDS. At least that's the impression I got from a novella/biography about him by Saul Bellow, called Ravelstein.

...another good one by Bernard. His style and wit are great. His explanations of propaganda tactics, "bandwagon" approach and all, are a must-read.

All I've ever asked from gays, of which I know a few who are very nice people, and want nothing to do with the radicals, is to NOT have them push their sexual perversion on me like I should accept it as the norm.

I agree. They want nothing to do with the radicals, but the radicals want EVERYTHING to do with THEM. They have taken over and have maintained their stranglehold over the "moderates." They do this through a whole barrage of time-perfected techniques, including intimidation, propaganda, brainwashing, shakedown, appealing to "tolerance" and the "better instincts of better people everywhere," and shrewd use of words such as "enlightened" and "progressive." All the while they become more and more blatantly outrageous and disgusting in their public manifestations, pushing the limits of what they subsume under the umbrella of "free speech," and defy the body politic to "repress" them.

Be advised they will indoctrinate children to believe that being a "homophobe" is akin to racial prejudice and bigotry

So what exactly ARE we (in relation to them) if we neither hate them or fear them, but clearly see them as different and, to various degrees, what they do as disgusting and gross? A one-word label. What would it be?

"So what exactly ARE we (in relation to them) if we neither hate them or fear them, but clearly see them as different and, to various degrees, what they do as disgusting and gross? A one-word label. What would it be?"

Well, My choice would be "Moralistic" there are others: conscientious, decent, honorable, principled, scrupulous, respectable, virtuous, etc. etc.

I had no idea about Allan Bloom's manner of death. He was quite the social commentator in his day, to be sure. Not trying to be funny or flip, but do you think he was self-loathing? I've never read "Closing of the American Mind." Did Bloom just bash the radical gays, or did he bash homosexuality in general?

My friend has gay friends - and straight friends, male and female from both groups. A few of her gay friends are more "agenda" types - and she occasionally b*tches to me about them. She doesn't care who's straight, gay, or in-between - and has real trouble understanding why anyone else cares or insists on flashing "preference credentials."
She is truly one who believes in a live and let live philosophy - except when it comes to Democrats: Them, she bashes at every step.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.