Homophobia – the hitherto elusive “gay cure”

Star post

Sometimes hope *is* hate

One of the clichés often uttered or written in what nowadays passes for intelligent “debate” of contemporary social issues, is that those who are most vociferous against the evils of homosexuality (the behaviour, not the recently-postulated “orientation”), are often people who have experienced most strongly the temptation to engage in homosexual behaviour themselves.

In short, homophobes are often accused of being “gay people” themselves, and of “being in denial”.

That stereotyping cliché isn’t always well-received by those on the receiving end.  But I think there might well be an element of truth in this cliché.  I find it entirely plausible, based upon my own experiences, that there really could be a correlation – though how to measure it is another thing entirely – between homosexual child sex abuse victimisation, thoughts, feelings, impulses or deeds during one’s formative years, and so-called homophobia in one’s mature character.

Many homophobes accused of being “in denial” of their having a “sexual orientation” that is homosexual, tend to confirm the facile observation that they are indeed “in denial” (speaking literally), by promptly denying ever having been drawn towards homosexual practices.  Undeniably, denying something one hasn’t actually thought, said, felt or done in the first place, still surely amounts to “being in denial”.  The Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six were “in denial” from the moment they were accused of the crimes of which they were wrongly convicted, weren’t they?  What else is pleading “not guilty”, but “being in denial”?

I would never be so rude as to flatly contradict a homophobe who denied ever having experienced same sex attraction, by accusing him of lying.  I would certainly not insinuate that he was homophobic because he possessed a repressed homosexual “orientation”, but was in denial about that, a jibe often levelled against homophobic people.  However, were it to have been as he insists that it is not, this would be, to me, all the more reason to congratulate him for his wise choice to flee from homosexuality, not greater reason to condemn him for resorting to homophobia to help him to flee.

Homophobia is a jolly effective defence mechanism – a coping mechanism – which I am almost certain many homophobic people adopt, usually on purpose, as an exercise of their free will, and from which they benefit themselves and others enormously.  As the saying goes, “there’s none so pure as the purified.”

I would like to promote an increase in homophobia in society.

Homophobia isn’t a bigotry or a hatred.  It isn’t caused by wicked or unhealthy repression of one’s own homosexual inclinations.  Rather, it is a mechanism of healthy repression of one’s own homosexual inclinations – working up a righteous fear or hatred of those inclinations in oneself and others.  That, primarily, what so-called “homophobia” really is.

As such, homophobia meets a personal need of the homophobe himself.  It arguably meets a social need.  It often is perceived to meet a spiritual need.

In a society that permits individuals freedom of thought and conscience, homophobia is no more illegal than any other thought crime.  There is no Clause 28 provision prohibiting the promotion of homophobia, any more than there is a provision prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality that is rife nowadays.  Not even amongst youth, provided that this promotion of homophobia is done in a manner that is at least as age-appropriate as the manner in which the promotion of homosexuality to the young (even pre school children) it is nowadays proposed should be publicly funded.

Anybody who says that there is no such thing as a “gay cure”, cannot have given homophobia a serious try yet.

Choosing homophobia, working on one’s homophobia, and in time perfecting one’s homophobia, cures and prevents one from choosing homosexual behaviour for oneself very effectively indeed – either from choosing that behaviour for the first time, or from choosing it again, for example in a moment of drunken lust, just to get through one night, when it wasn’t what one chose when sober, in the cold light of day, when sitting down to plan one’s whole life, if not also one’s eternity.

Why do so many people nowadays consider that it is noble to choose homosexuality, but ignoble to choose to refrain from homosexuality, and therefore to cultivate homophobia in oneself instead, as a deliberate defence mechanism?  Homophobia is the defence against homosexuality that works.  It is OK to be fearful of homosexuality, lest one might lapse, or relapse, into a vice in which one has resolved never – or never again – to indulge, and which one recommends that others also eschew or forsake.

Why do those who have chosen homosexuality as a habitual way of life, and become set in their ways in that behaviour, get so angry with those of us who have chosen to run away from homosexuality instead, and have become just as set in our ways?  Why do they so hate those of us who use the only defence mechanism that works, to prevent or cure homosexual behaviour in ourselves, and to enable us to keep our resolutions and to resist any and all temptations towards homosexual behaviour that come our way, throughout our lives? Why shouldn’t we who have discovered the joys and liberation of homophobia encourage our young to make the same choice as we did for ourselves, their deliberate cultivation in themselves of homophobia like ours?

Why wouldn’t we fear the recruitment of our young into homosexuality, and fear this all the more when we happen to have been recruited into homosexuality ourselves during our own youths, and are so regretful of our pasts, and so glad that we escaped from that way of life?

Before I offer any answers of my own, to my own questions, please may I have some readers’ answers?

To summarise this post as an exam-style question:

“Homophobia – the fear of homosexuality – is a legitimate, effective and desirable defence mechanism against homosexuality in the individual and in society.”



Filed under Guest posts, Homophobic, Star post

12 responses to “Homophobia – the hitherto elusive “gay cure”

  1. Richard Morrison

    There is no such thing as homophobia. It’s a fake word invented by bizarre, abnormal people to insult sane, normal ones. Anyone who makes any fair, valid, rational criticism of the mad LGBT agenda is immediately labelled “homophobic” and that is supposed to be enough to prove they are wrong. Homosexuals eat each other’s shit – that is a fact, look on the website of the Terrence Higgins Trust. To find what they do disgusting is not a phobia, is is healthy and normal.

    • I understand. However, I do not believe that there are any “homosexuals” in the world, in the sense of “homosexual” people who don’t have any choice whether or not to engage in homosexual acts.

      I do happen to know (because I am one of them myself) that there are people in the world who are “homophobic” (which I agree is a “fake word”), in the sense that they find – and choose to find – homosexual acts repulsive, when they are in their right minds, and aren’t shy about saying so.

      Now you might think (and I might) that it is silly to apply a -phobia word to such people. But that is what the pro-gay lobby have been doing, and I for one am not inclined to quibble with them about the proper meaning of a fake word that they made up in the first place. I am willing to own the label, and to confront their bigotry, saying, “Yes. I do happen to be a homophobic person. Have you got a problem with this?” I demand equality for people who happen to be homophobic.

      By the way, I blogged over a year ago against Terrence Higgins Trust, advertising a petition I had started myself, to end their public funding. I am aware of the unhygienic perversions of perversion itself that you mention. I wish I wasn’t.

    • It would be equally true to say that heterosexuals eat each others shit too. They do it in the same percentages as homosexuals (which would mean there are a lot more scatologically minded hetero people out there than homosexuals).

      Is it therefore healthy and normal to find what heterosexuals (like yourself I assume) do disgusting? or would it simply be healthy, normal and intelligent to understand that it is disingenuous to label a whole group based on the activities of a sub set (and even more so when you fail to acknowledge that the very same extrapolation can be applied to you)

      You will generally find that whatever practices you find disgusting or perverse amongst homosexuals are equally engaged in by heterosexuals.

      • @ golfieni

        Do you have any intelligent contribution to make, one that raises the tone of the debate out of the gutter? I am allowing you to comment on my blog, remember?

        I wouldn’t recommend the eating of one’s own or another’s shit, to any son of Adam or daughter of Eve, regardless of his or her delusions as to what his or her so-called “sexual orientation” might be. I don’t simplistically divide the world’s population into “homosexual people” and “heterosexual people” myself. Do you still? If so, is that not disrespectful of ordinary people like me, who claim that they weren’t born homosexual, heterosexual, or with any so-called “sexual orientation” at all for that matter?

        I imagine that Gagged Dad tried to start a serious debate. So far, all he has elicited is vulgar comments about eating shit.

  2. andromeda077342014

    Perhaps we should simply equate wanting to have homo sex with a desire to have hetero sex with someone who is not our spouse. That would solve a lot of problems.

  3. andromeda077342014

    Under Kant’s concept of universalisability, homo sex would be considered immoral because if everyone only had homo sex the human race would die out and that would be obviously a bad thing, would it not?

  4. andromeda077342014

    Perhaps we should deny the validity of the term “homophobia” on the Kantian ground of universalisaiblity that it is never irrational to hate and fear those who promote homosexuality.

  5. andromeda077342014

    The following should be noted:

    1. The Bible and the Koran are unashamedly and unambiguously “homophobic”.

    2. All strong and advanced civilisations are patriarchies.

    3. All weak, declining and primitive civilisations are matriarchies.

    4. The patriarchy relies on the institution of marriage to maintain and perpetuate itself.

    5. The practice of marriage must logically and necessarily mean the prohibition of extramarital sex of which homo sex is a species.

    6. A patriarchy is a society that condones male promiscuity.

    7. A matriarchy is a society that condones female promiscuity.

    9. If there are two evils, always choose the lesser evil: the patriarchy, if evil it be, is clearly the lesser evil.

    10. Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic.

    11. Feminism undermines marriage because it wishes to undermine the patriarchy and establish the matriarchy.

    12. Feminism conspires to lower the morals of society through bribing men with cheap sex provided by fornicatresses rather than wives and prostitutes.

    13. A patriarchy should consider a slut lower than a prostitute, because women who give sex to men for free corrupts their morals and by extension the morals of society.

    14. The purpose of morality is to obtain social cohesion so that a cohesive society has the means of protecting itself from its internal and external enemies.

    15. The internal enemies of a society are sluts and socialists.

    16. Feminists, being amoral and seeking only to privilege women for being women, will always see it as in their advantage to lower the standards of sexual morality because women are always the ones left holding the baby.

    17. Feminism demands that men and women be treated equally when they are clearly not equally good at performing a range of tasks.

    18. Feminism is the ridiculous idea that it is moral and sustainable to allow women to do men’s jobs badly while neglecting their own work.

    19. Feminism turns women into sluts, men to women, lowers the attractiveness of both men and women as marriage partners and causes degeneracy in subsequent generations.

    20. Man created God to protect him from the slut.

  6. Avi Barzel

    John, this is a brilliant thought and an incredible argument. I can’t believe you’re letting it stay buried here. Drag it out to the barricades, for Heaven’s sake!

    • Drag it out to the barricades how? It’s too long to print on a t-shirt!

      If you liked this, you may well find other posts you like here. You might even decide to “like” any you like.

      I don’t choose obscurity. I go on Newsnight if I was invited. 🙂

      It is disappointing that you praised one of Gagged Dad’s posts, rather than one of my own.

  7. Pingback: Je suis James. | JohnAllman.UK

  8. Anyone who has suffered repeatedly bad experiences from this group in society is likely to have extreme inbuilt wariness. If it is a 1% experience of all contacts it may be an unreasonable fear. If it is 60 to 70% of a large sample it is a very sane wariness; not a phobia but an astute observation.

    I have great inbuilt wariness myself, for entirely appropriate reasons.

Likes, follows and comments cheer me up!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s