Study: Homophobes are pretty gay

posted at 6:51 pm on April 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

Interesting, but follow the link and read the fine print and you’ll see that it’s really more a study of the effect of authoritarian parenting on sexuality than some sort of unified field theory about “homophobia.” In fact, it’s not fully clear to me from the news summary what would qualify as “homophobia” for purposes of the research. Sounds like they’re chiefly concerned with visceral dislike for gays, but I’m not sure; maybe, given the obvious political uses to which these results will be put, polite opposition to gay marriage also qualifies.

In which case, it’s a shame that we have a homophobic president, huh?

To explore participants’ explicit and implicit sexual attraction, the researchers measured the discrepancies between what people say about their sexual orientation and how they react during a split-second timed task. Students were shown words and pictures on a computer screen and asked to put these in “gay” or “straight” categories. Before each of the 50 trials, participants were subliminally primed with either the word “me” or “others” flashed on the screen for 35 milliseconds. They were then shown the words “gay,” “straight,” “homosexual,” and “heterosexual” as well as pictures of straight and gay couples, and the computer tracked precisely their response times. A faster association of “me” with “gay” and a slower association of “me” with “straight” indicated an implicit gay orientation.

A second experiment, in which subjects were free to browse same-sex or opposite-sex photos, provided an additional measure of implicit sexual attraction.

Through a series of questionnaires, participants also reported on the type of parenting they experienced growing up, from authoritarian to democratic. Students were asked to agree or disagree with statements like: “I felt controlled and pressured in certain ways,” and “I felt free to be who I am.” For gauging the level of homophobia in a household, subjects responded to items like: “It would be upsetting for my mom to find out she was alone with a lesbian” or “My dad avoids gay men whenever possible.”

Finally, the researcher measured participants’ level of homophobia — both overt, as expressed in questionnaires on social policy and beliefs, and implicit, as revealed in word-completion tasks. In the latter, students wrote down the first three words that came to mind, for example for the prompt “k i _ _.” The study tracked the increase in the amount of aggressive words elicited after subliminally priming subjects with the word “gay” for 35 milliseconds.

The theory is that kids with gay tendencies who grow up in very strict households may be so frightened of mom and dad’s disapproval that they compensate by developing a passionate aversion to gays themselves. Again: Interesting, but it’s a theory limited to a specific type of “homophobe,” not a universal explanation for why all critics of gays believe as they do. (As Live Science notes, “Ryan cautioned … that this link is only one source of anti-gay sentiments.”) Meanwhile, I’m curious why they didn’t use a more conclusive test of arousal, maybe involving, er, strategically placed sensors, to see which sex a given subject was most attracted to. Could be that that wasn’t possible with this test group simply because, if there were secretly gay members among them, they might have objected to a more invasive test for fear of being found out. But I don’t know. To the psychologists in our readership: How reliable are tests of “implicit” sexual attraction like this?

Exit question: Would the “authoritarian parent” explanation for vehement dislike of a particular group apply more broadly than just to sexuality? If, for instance, you’re raised in an authoritarian household that’s strictly religious, would a child who finds himself doubting his faith compensate with a powerful contempt for atheists/agnostics? If you don’t like that example, use a political scenario instead: In an authoritarian household that’s stridently liberal or conservative, would a kid who finds his sympathies trending the other way grow to hate that group to please his parents? (If so, does that mean some “true conservatives” have — gasp — latent liberal tendencies? And if so, doesn’t that mean the RINOs are the real conservatives? Good lord, suddenly I feel like the lost heir to Reagan.) I can think of reasons why sexuality might be unique — it forms earlier in most people than firm political/religious sympathies, it’s “felt” rather than thought through and therefore less amenable to being rationalized, and the social taboo against being gay is greater than the taboo against being liberal/conservative or atheist/agnostic (although maybe not dramatically so for nonbelievers in some communities). But I don’t know. This is why I ask.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

thuja on April 10, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Thanks thuja, I afraid I don’t know anything about that one either. I do however have very few problems with gays. I don’t care for the militant hostile type, but then I don’t care for that in anyone. ; )

Bmore on April 10, 2012 at 3:55 PM

I=I’m

Bmore on April 10, 2012 at 3:56 PM

The old saying is valid: Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Freelancer on April 10, 2012 at 11:04 AM

It’s not old. It’s a quote from Mahatma Gandhi.

Second, the phrase is literally found no where in the Scriptures. In addition it’s a completely unbiblical and un-Christian saying. It goes completely against Jesus’ teachings (Matthew 7) because it’s solely an attempt to self-rationalize hatred and disdain for others

Jesus called upon us to love one another as we love ourselves. Full stop. Matthew 22:36-40. There’s absolutely no conditions attached to that.

ZachV on April 10, 2012 at 3:56 PM

You do that, but don’t whine if other people judge all Christians based on the Westboro Baptist Church.

thuja on April 10, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I can show you numerous examples of Christian leaders, pastors, laypeople, and the like condemning the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Show me where gay and lesbian community leaders and members condemn the behavior of gays and lesbians at the Folsom Street Fair in the same fashion.

northdallasthirty on April 10, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Second, the phrase is literally found no where in the Scriptures. In addition it’s a completely unbiblical and un-Christian saying. It goes completely against Jesus’ teachings (Matthew 7) because it’s solely an attempt to self-rationalize hatred and disdain for others

Jesus called upon us to love one another as we love ourselves. Full stop. Matthew 22:36-40. There’s absolutely no conditions attached to that.

ZachV on April 10, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Then yours and thuja’s hateful statements calling Christians and people with religious beliefs evil are judging and thus a violation of Scripture.

And since you have also counseled and support namecalling and attacks on Christians who disagree with you, you yourself are endorsing “conditional love”, in violation of the verses you quote.

This is the typical game of the hatemongering, bigoted gay left; they try to exploit other peoples’ morals, values, and principles for their own purposes, but have no intention of practicing them themselves.

Why should Christians care about your interpretation, ZachV, when it is clear that you yourself don’t believe it or follow it?

northdallasthirty on April 10, 2012 at 4:10 PM

To summarize, I love how ZachV and his friend thuja can sit here and quote “Judge not lest ye be judged” while screaming at the top of their lungs about how all Christians who disagree with them are hateful and evil people who need to change their behavior.

northdallasthirty on April 10, 2012 at 4:16 PM

It’s not old. It’s a quote from Mahatma Gandhi.

Second, the phrase is literally found no where in the Scriptures. In addition it’s a completely unbiblical and un-Christian saying. It goes completely against Jesus’ teachings (Matthew 7) because it’s solely an attempt to self-rationalize hatred and disdain for others

Jesus called upon us to love one another as we love ourselves. Full stop. Matthew 22:36-40. There’s absolutely no conditions attached to that.

ZachV on April 10, 2012 at 3:56 PM

No Jesus did not say that, but Jesus taught by example… See the women in the well.. He refused to condemn her, but told her to “sin no more.” It amounts to love the sinner, hate the sin..

melle1228 on April 10, 2012 at 4:17 PM

No Jesus did not say that, but Jesus taught by example… See the women in the well.. He refused to condemn her, but told her to “sin no more.” It amounts to love the sinner, hate the sin..

melle1228 on April 10, 2012 at 4:17 PM

And you also might point out, melle, that according to ZachV’s interpretation, Jesus Himself violated his own rules, since he CLEARLY judged people, commented on their sinfulness, and even resorted to violent attacks, i.e. moneychangers in the Temple and the Pharisees.

In other words, since Jesus engaged in these hateful acts, He clearly was violating His own rule to “love others as himself”. If He truly believed such things, He would never have confronted the sinners because it might make them feel bad, He would have never responded to the Pharisees because it might have been hurting their feelings, and He would certainly not have been overturning the tables of the moneychangers, because, after all, who was He to judge?

The “theology” of ZachV and his fellow gays and lesbians is very simple: anything that God, the Bible, or Jesus say is valid only if you say it is and if it in no way inconveniences you — and your interpretation of it is always right.

northdallasthirty on April 10, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Usurpers of the rainbow.

Sherman1864 on April 10, 2012 at 4:24 PM

The “theology” of ZachV and his fellow gays and lesbians is very simple: anything that God, the Bible, or Jesus say is valid only if you say it is and if it in no way inconveniences you — and your interpretation of it is always right.

northdallasthirty on April 10, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Yeah I think they twist scripture as bad as someone who uses it to justify hate.

melle1228 on April 10, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Hmm since ND30 is gay and condemns the Folsam Fair, how does he then say that no gay is willing to condemn what he sees as wrong? Why should non-christians be judged by christian morality in a pluralistic republic? I don’t have to live up to his religion, nor do I have to worry as an american that I am not living up to a churches teachings.

ND30 just face it, you still hate gays because you think that if gays were all perfect eagle scouts then your parents wouldn’t have treated you the way they did. Your internalized self hatred goes further then just trying to help people, you condemn them for the actions of others while demanding that christian’s that believe what you believe be treated as individuals and not judged in the same fashion you judge others. heck I’ve heard you defend the catholic church hiding child rapists from a “theological stand point”, you have a lot of nerve telling other people how they need religion and should respect it.

I know lots of porn producers that strongly backed the safe sex rules that were passed in California. How does that square with your sermons that all gays rush to have unsafe sex?

I’m an atheist I don’t have a theology, not do I need one to explain the world around me. Nor do I think that your religion is really that nice, but that doesn’t mean I’m trying to change you or your religion, but I don’t believe in it and I don’t have to live by it’s tenets. I’m gay, I don’t sleep around, I don’t have STI’s, I’m getting married, and I’m going to have kids. Guess what I don’t need you’re religion to do any of that, it only gets in the way.

Zekecorlain on April 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Oh, Lord we come to the end of another thread on homosexuality. I don’t think one darn person’s position has changed on the subject. Mine hasn’t.

SC.Charlie on April 10, 2012 at 5:06 PM

@melle1228 I think @ZachV makes a stronger case that it’s not a biblical principal, it’s just something added because it sounds good to christian’s who don’t have to debate philosophy.

Zekecorlain on April 10, 2012 at 5:18 PM

@melle1228 I think @ZachV makes a stronger case that it’s not a biblical principal, it’s just something added because it sounds good to christian’s who don’t have to debate philosophy.

Zekecorlain on April 10, 2012 at 5:18 PM

So you are saying we should discount how Jesus ACTED just because he didn’t say some inane phrase? I already gave one instance where Jesus lived up to that phraseology..

I find no pleasure arguing with people who really don’t know the Bible and knitpick it to conform to their view.

melle1228 on April 10, 2012 at 5:25 PM

@Blink why would you judge people on morality? I thought we only judged them on actions and if they were legal or illegal?

Zekecorlain on April 10, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Hmm since ND30 is gay and condemns the Folsam Fair, how does he then say that no gay is willing to condemn what he sees as wrong?

Zekecorlain on April 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM

One, you didn’t read my statement.

I can show you numerous examples of Christian leaders, pastors, laypeople, and the like condemning the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Show me where gay and lesbian community leaders and members condemn the behavior of gays and lesbians at the Folsom Street Fair in the same fashion.

northdallasthirty on April 10, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Two, given this rant…..

ND30 just face it, you still hate gays because you think that if gays were all perfect eagle scouts then your parents wouldn’t have treated you the way they did. Your internalized self hatred goes further then just trying to help people, you condemn them for the actions of others while demanding that christian’s that believe what you believe be treated as individuals and not judged in the same fashion you judge others.

we have the usual lovely variation on “you’re not gay if you ever in any way criticize the behavior of other gay people”.

And this was funny.

I know lots of porn producers that strongly backed the safe sex rules that were passed in California. How does that square with your sermons that all gays rush to have unsafe sex?

Pron producers don’t generally believe in killing off the merchandise.

Given the rates of HIV in the gay and lesbian community, though, clearly it disagrees with them.

And last, but not least:

heck I’ve heard you defend the catholic church hiding child rapists from a “theological stand point”, you have a lot of nerve telling other people how they need religion and should respect it.

Sure you have. Bet you can’t post it, though. :)

Meanwhile, I can show you where the International Gay and Lesbian Association not only hid child rapists, but passed numerous resolutions pushing for child rape and child sex to be decriminalized and accepted.

And I can also show you where you and your fellow liberal gays screamed that stopping them from molesting and raping children was “homophobic”.

So yeah, it seems you’re all about stopping child rape — unless it would involve you actually enforcing the rules against your fellow gays and lesbians and demanding that gay and lesbian leaders be prosecuted and punished for supporting child rape, at which point you start screaming “homophobia”.

northdallasthirty on April 10, 2012 at 5:51 PM

@melle1228 according to the christian and hebrew bible sin makes someone stink and ruins them, that’s why the act of sinning, regardless of the sin condemns everyone to their hell. Now you could argue that god still loves the sinner but that doesn’t change their fate. Only by covering the sinner in the purifying blood on an innocent sacrifice can they mask their evil and return to the fold. Interpreting an action of the Christian Messiah out of context of the rest of the New and Old Testament and ascribing canonical position would be reckless given that church dogma and philosophy is rather intertwined as a total reading rather then an individual scripture.

Philosophically the christian and hebrew god makes no difference between the sin and the sinner. Personally I think that the entire dogma has huge gaping holes when it comes to the reasons and motivations of sin and evil in the world and personally I can’t really say that I believe any of it. However from this biblical perspective @ZachV is correct. If you have a different perspective I’d be glad to hear it.

Zekecorlain on April 10, 2012 at 5:52 PM

@nd30 trolls only get one comment sorry.

Zekecorlain on April 10, 2012 at 5:53 PM

@Blink why would you judge people on morality? I thought we only judged them on actions and if they were legal or illegal?

Zekecorlain on April 10, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Good. Then, since gay-sex marriage is illegal, gay-sex marriage is also immoral.

Now watch as Zekecorlain turns himself inside out screaming that it’s immoral to ban gay-sex marriage and demonstrating that his own morality is based solely on personal convenience.

northdallasthirty on April 10, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Only by covering the sinner in the purifying blood on an innocent sacrifice can they mask their evil and return to the fold.

Zekecorlain on April 10, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Wrong.

Zekecorlain forgets the most important part, which is of course admitting the sin, accepting the consequences, and asking for forgiveness.

This is really what Zekecorlain and ZachV have the most problem with doing. The objection the vast majority of gays and lesbians have to religious belief is that they are stripped of absolute moral authority and are judged at all. They want the right to be able to arbitrarily redefine right and wrong AND to force everyone else to play along.

northdallasthirty on April 10, 2012 at 6:01 PM

@melle1228 according to the christian and hebrew bible sin makes someone stink and ruins them, that’s why the act of sinning, regardless of the sin condemns everyone to their hell

Jesus told several parables about not losing one single soul. In Christian philosophy, EVERYONE is a sinner. If Jesus hated sinners, he would not have died for their souls. Christian are suppose to live by his example. So yes you are supposed to hate sin, but love sinners. All that is necessary for heaven is acceptance of Jesus as savior, and honest repentance.

melle1228 on April 10, 2012 at 6:07 PM

So, you want to deem everything ok as long as it’s legal?

Does this mean that you’re against business, medical, research, legal, etc. ethics seminars since they encourage the establishment of standards upon which to judge people?

blink on April 10, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Actually, blink, it’s closer to state that ZachV and Zekecorlain are not against ethics, standards, or anything of the sort per se; most accurately, they oppose ethics, standards, or anything of the sort that are not purely arbitrary and imposed at their discretion.

I mean, clearly ZachV and Zekecorlain, who are running around here calling people homophobes, saying they’re evil, and telling them they need to change, have zero problem with “judging”, “imposing morality”, or the like; they simply are upset with anyone who would presume to judge them.

Once you realize that ZachV and Zekecorlain are really nothing more than the lavender equivalents of Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, it becomes much simpler to evaluate them. When they say “homophobe”, or call you “evil”, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you are either; it simply means that they don’t like what you are doing, for whatever arbitrary reason, and want you to shut up. It’s the same as their fellow Obama supporters using “racist”.

northdallasthirty on April 10, 2012 at 6:08 PM

People can pretend that this isn’t the truth all they want, but inside themselves they know.

Freelancer on April 10, 2012 at 11:18 AM

My major point is getting diluted with various comments…I brought this up because people keep saying that being homosexual is a sin…and no where in the bible is that taught, it’s the act is a sin.
We all have “lust” of some sort, when we act it out, we are than judged by others…the “heart” is left up to God to judge.
So that biblicaly takes away the argument of being a “homophobic”, and replaces it with what is proper…the act is sinful and not acceptable.
I have no idea if the person next to me in church has “feelings” for the same sex, but if they are making out in the pews, I don’t dig it…

This is an educational discourse for “Christians”, being homosexual is not a sin, but acting on it is…at least as far as earthly judgement is concerned.

Jesus hung around past sinners, because they were no longer acting out their impulses…but he never said to Mary, “don’t think what you are thinking”, but instead he asks us replace our sinful thoughts with thoughts of purity, Godliness, righteousness.
And when you have that purity of thought, the “Light”; darkness cannot reign.

right2bright on April 10, 2012 at 6:13 PM

dBear:

Now it’s all starting to make sense. Just relax, sweetheart. The world doesn’t hate you, or even really care about you at all.

teacherman on April 10, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Also, Jesus does talk about modern-day gay people.

It’s just that tradition keeps it hidden.

Jesus said this:

“For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. To him who can comprehend, that is enough.” The “born eunuchs” in the above verse from Matthew are referring to homosexual men.

And as Jesus said,

THOSE WHO CAN COMPREHEND THIS, THEN THAT IS ENOUGH.

Some of you won’t be able to comprehend it. lol

But I can, will and have. :)

fatlibertarianinokc on April 10, 2012 at 4:16 AM

That’s a nice attempt at a justification, but it puts you in the category Paul warned about:

“Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God”

Sorry, but homosexuality is no more acceptable to God than is adultery or theft. Any interpretation of scripture which contradicts that is a misinterpretation.

Neither, for that matter, is it a special category of sin that cannot be overcome.

Instead, we’re just seeing people who want to excuse the particular sin they are guilty of, and trying to reinterpret their faith to allow it.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 11, 2012 at 1:20 AM

“Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” – There Goes The Neighborhood on April 11, 2012 at 1:20 AM. Nice quote from the Bible.

A nice quote from the Bible by Paul. I am a gay male and but I am not effeminate. Am I excluded? But then I just guess you will go back to Leviticus and choose that verse that condemns homosexuality, but then nearly ignore all the rest of laws of Leviticus. I can’t walk away from my sexual orientation than you can from yours. I can say that my life would have lot easier to live if I had been heterosexual than homosexual. In my teenage years, I had to fear even my friends finding out that that my sexual orientation was homosexual. I just pray that the homosexual teens don’t have to go through what I went through.

SC.Charlie on April 11, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5