basically what it says:
Very few people are or historically have been actually homophobic.
That's not to say that gay people haven't been persecuted at times or that a lot of people don't think gay sodomy is morally wrong today. Obviously, both are true.
But homophobia as being afraid or put off by gay people isn't at all common, and I don't think it really ever has been. The source of the disgust doesn't come so much from the idea of two men being in love or the mechanics of gay sex (all sex is pretty disgusting when you get down to the mechanics, I mean), the disgust comes from passive, feminine homosexuals.
In prison, a guy who rapes another guy isn't really considered gay, and he's not looked down on except that he's raping another guy. If the recipient is willing in exchange for protection, then you think almost nothing at all about it. The active homosexual isn't a “fag”, he's a dude who has sex with men. The recipient is the one who turn your nose up at, especially if he goes along with it without compulsion.
Look back in history. For Greeks and Romans, gay relationships happened extremely commonly. But, there would be a scandal if it was found out the older partner was the one receiving the thrusts from the boy or younger man.
The reason is, homosexuality isn't despised because men are having sex, it's despised because it turns one man into a woman. The insult of “pussy” has existed in various forms probably as long as gender roles have existed. Militarily, you insult a warrior's honor by calling him weak like a woman. At least one of the Roman emperors had a habit of disgracing his soldiers by making them take off their belts and let their tunics fall to their ankles to look a dress.
From the wikipedia article on the Hittite military oath:
“On one occasion, for example, women's clothing, a spindle and an arrow is brought before those swearing their allegiance. The arrow is broken, and they are told that should they break their oath, their weapons should likewise be broken, and they should be made women and given women's tasks. Then, a blind and deaf woman is brought before them, and they are told that if they break their word, they will be made blind and deaf women like this one.”
The idea of Alexander the Great pounding young men in the ass doesn't diminish him as a masculine figure at all. You could even argue it enhances it. But for him to get rammed by his military officers? Suddenly, he's an effeminate weakling.
Almost no one likes men who are weepy, emotional, cum receptacles. If you talk about how bad you want a guy to stick it in your ass, you'll probably get punched in the face, or at least people will want to. A straight guy who is weepy and emotional is almost as distasteful, while a masculine homosexual (even if he talks about wanting to fuck someone) is nowhere near that.
But what is the stereotypical gay man in America? A hotpants wearing, lisp-speaking effeminate woman sans the tits and plus a cock. It is this that people hate, not the sexual habits of the person.
Summary: effeminate behavior is more of a sin than sexual behavior, in people's minds.
so what do you think?