The Dictionary of Homophobia: A Global History of Gay & Lesbian Experience

By Louis-Georges Tin

--The original French publication, Dictionnaire de L’Homophobie, was published by the Presses Universitaires de France (University Press of France) in 2003 to wide acclaim; the introduction, by the (gay) mayor of Paris, offers a comprehensive global context for the work. --The original French edition was the work of 70 researchers in 15 countries. --The book includes over 175 essays on various aspects of gay rights and homophobia as experienced throughout history in all regions in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, and the South Pacific.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Arsenal Pulp Press
• Release date: Nov 1, 2008
• ISBN: 9781551523149

Book preview

THE DICTIONARY OF

HOMOPHOBIA

interiorDictionary_0002_002

THE DICTIONARY OF

HOMOPHOBIA

A GLOBAL HISTORY OF GAY & LESBIAN EXPERIENCE

Edited by LOUIS-GEORGES TIN

Translated by Marek Redburn

with Alice Michaud and Kyle Mathers

THE DICTIONARY OF HOMOPHOBIA

Translation copyright © 2008 by the translators

Original edition © 2003 by Presses universitaires de France

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any form by any means—graphic, electronic or mechanical—without the prior written permission of the publisher, except by a reviewer, who may use brief excerpts in a review, or in the case of photocopying in Canada, a license from Access Copyright.

ARSENAL PULP PRESS

Suite 101-211 East Georgia Street,

Vancouver, BC V6A 1Z6

arsenalpulp.com

This book was published with the support of the French Ministry of Culture— National Book Center. Ouvrage publié avec le concours du Ministère français chargé de la culture—Centre national du livre.

The publisher gratefully acknowledges the support of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program and the Government of British Columbia through the Book Publishing Tax Credit Program for its publishing activities.

Efforts have been made to locate copyright holders of source material wherever possible. The publisher welcomes hearing from any copyright holders of material used in this book who have not been contacted.

Book design by Shyla Seller

Editing by Brian Lam, Robert Ballantyne, and Bethanne Grabham. Editorial assistance by Suzanne Hawkins, Shirarose Wilensky, Jon Fleming, and Richard Swain

Printed and bound in Canada

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication:

    The dictionary of homophobia : a global history of gay & lesbian experience / edited by Louis-Georges Tin, editor ; translated by Marek Redburn.

Translation of: Dictionnaire de l’homophobie.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-1-55152-229-6

    1. Homophobia—Dictionaries. 2. Homosexuality—Dictionaries. I. Tin, Louis-Georges II. Redburn, Marek, 1968-

HQ76.4.D5313 2007       306.76’603       C2007-906136-2

CONTENTS

Publisher’s Note

Preface to the Original Edition

Editor’s Preface to the English-Language Edition

Introduction

The Anti-Anthology

Table of Entries

Contributors

Entries

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

R

S

T

U

V

W

Photo Credits

Acknowledgments

PUBLISHER’S NOTE

When Dictionnaire de l’homophobie was first published by Presses universitaires de France in 2003, it was hailed as a groundbreaking achievement: the work of seventy-six esteemed researchers in fifteen countries, the goal of which was to document the social, political, medical, legal, and criminal treatment of homosexuals throughout history to present-day. Arsenal Pulp Press is very pleased to bring the English translation of this important book, The Dictionary of Homophobia, to a global English-speaking audience.

In the time since the Dictionnaire was originally published, history has moved along. So while we wished to maintain the integrity of the original text, we have updated certain entries where new information became available, and where circumstances had changed, particularly with regard to legal and criminal codes in various countries. The status of the LGBT community within mainstream society is changing on a daily basis, for the most part (but not always) in positive ways; in short, the Dictionary will never be absolutely up-to-date.

It should also be noted that because the book was originally written for a French audience, some essays focus on events, personalities, and circumstances in France. We have kept this in mind while editing this translation and, where useful, added material which speaks to homophobic experience elsewhere in the world; the essays in which this new material appears are noted as such. At the same time, the essays on France offer illuminating evidence of one particular country’s experience with the phenomenon of homophobia which informs our own response to it no matter where we live.

Also, a few words of explanation: quotations that appear in this book are mainly direct translations of the text that appears in the original Dictionnaire; if an English edition of the book or other source material being quoted from is available, the quotations may appear slightly different. Further, the bibliographies list the sources as they appear in the original Dictionnaire; as much as possible, we included an English translation for readers’ reference. Finally, we embellished the Further Reading lists where it was felt there were not enough English-language translations in the bibliography.

A last word: we would like to note the remarkable efforts of Louis-Georges Tin, editor of the original Dictionnaire, in founding the annual International Day Against Homophobia, and hope that it will take hold as a beacon of courage and global change for all members of the LGBT community, as well as those who support it, in all parts of the world.

—Robert Ballantyne, Associate Publisher;

Brian Lam, Publisher

Arsenal Pulp Press

PREFACE TO THE ORIGINAL EDITION

Everyday, France’s Republican tradition is assaulted by racist, sexist, and homophobic discrimination; each of these are an insult to democracy. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, how can we tolerate someone being assaulted—whether verbally or physically—simply due to their real or perceived identity?

In terms of the specific issue of homophobia, this complex book has the immense merit of clarifying the debate and opening opportunities for advancement, by simply revealing the stakes at issue. Linguistic representations, be they the usual insults or the usual jokes, can be traumatic, especially given the lack of response or solidarity demonstrated by those in authority.

Certainly, homosexuality is more socially acceptable and less of a taboo than it once was. But how can we deny the fact that a demonstration by tens of thousands of people can still be used as a platform for abject slogans that convey utter hatred (Burn the fags)?

Each act of discrimination is an act of violence: real violence, when we are denied a place to live or a job because of our identity; and symbolic violence, when homophobia is integrated into behavior and becomes a reflex, a gratuitous and cruel game, a part of everyday language that is equally present in certain media. This violence also takes the form of personal tragedies— educational, professional, or family rejection; emotional wounds and feelings of despair—that still continue to destroy lives.

That is why every tangible act of progress is a reason for hope, as the establishment of the French law Pacte civil de solidarité (PaCS; Civil solidarity pact) in 1999 clearly illustrates. It is important to thank the French government under Lionel Jospin for having put an end to old injustices, for having advanced the equality of individual rights, and for having contributed to an evolution of thinking on this issue. For the first time, thanks to these reforms, France has recognized the existence and the legitimacy of both heterosexual and homosexual couples outside of marriage.

Nonetheless, the fight is far from over. It must be noted, for example, that French law still sanctions homophobia, however tacitly. The challenge is not only legal and political, but also cultural, pedagogical, and even philosophical.

How do we change our perception of the Other and make real the values of respect, generosity, and brotherhood? How do we deconstruct the social, psychological, and political mechanisms of rejection and intolerance? This book also has the merit of answering these very key questions. In order to go forward, it is first necessary to understand.

Undoubtedly, it is up to governments to act with determination, and in consultation with communities, to help to affect all future change.

We need to hammer home the idea that diversity is an inexhaustible source of collective wealth; and that our differences, be they cultural, generational, or identity-based, are an asset to our society. We need to assert that our everyday lives must be founded on respect for each and every person’s dignity.

With this approach, we can look to the remarkable work done, for example, by the government of South Africa in the elaboration of its new constitution, and also to the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, or even the addendum to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. All of these texts strive explicitly to prevent any stigmatization based on choices related to personal and intimate life.

—Bertrand Delanoë

Mayor of Paris

2003

EDITOR’S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH-

LANGUAGE EDITION

When The Dictionary of Homophobia first appeared in France in May of 2003, it was unanimously well-received; it was praised as a work without precedence, scientifically rigorous and politically sound. It was featured on the front page of Le Monde’s book review section, and, even though it was written in French, received positive reviews in Japan, Italy, Brazil, the United States, and beyond. However, as the book’s editor, my own career did not enjoy a similar fate. In the past, I had enjoyed great success in the academic milieu, but following the publication of the Dictionary, I discovered to my dismay that doors that had previously been open were now closed to me. The contract I had with the University of Paris, which was to be renewed, was abruptly terminated. The department chair and vice-chair confirmed that the scientific council’s decision was linked to the publication of the Dictionary. They sincerely regretted the decision, but admitted (without formal proof or written statements) that there was nothing that could be done. In short, the wide acclaim for the book would seem to suggest that homophobia is now generally condemned by French society, perhaps a thing of the past. However, my personal experience shows that the reality is slightly more complex.

This particular circumstance sheds light on the paradox that has characterized homophobia in the world since 2003, when the Dictionary was first published. The social, political, and cultural advances for LGBT people have been numerous, but there have been many setbacks as well. In the United States, for example, there have been several positive instances which gave many a sense of optimism. On June 26, 2003, in an historical decision, the federal supreme court struck down state sodomy laws that were still in existence: in Lawrence v. Texas, the court found in favor of two men who had been arrested after Houston police entered a man’s apartment and witnessed him and another adult man engaging in a private, consensual sexual act; the decision rendered the sodomy laws that still existed in twelve other US states null and void. Another encouraging sign occurred on May 17, 2004, when marriage between same-sex partners became legal in the state of Massachusetts (only the sixth jurisdiction in the world to do so, after the Netherlands, Belgium, and the Canadian provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia). As a result of these breakthroughs, it was rightly believed that the status of LGBT people in North America was moving forward. In fact, a little over a year after the decision by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, Canada’s House of Commons approved same-sex marriage for the entire country.

However, in November 2004, when Americans were asked to choose their new president, thirteen states also held referendums in which voters defined marriage as being limited to a union between a man and a woman, thus preventing the possibility of same-sex marriage. After the great strides made in the area of gay and lesbian rights, the referendum decisions were a crushing blow, and an enormous victory for the far right, demonstrating once again that progress for gays and lesbians was anything but linear.

In Europe, the situation since 2003 has also been mixed. There has been remarkable progress in the recognition of same-sex couples in the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, France, Belgium, Spain, Switzerland, Hungary, and Great Britain. Even where same-sex marriage is not yet legal, there are civil union contracts that grant same-sex couples certain rights, such as spousal benefits and (to varying degrees) the right to adopt children. Moreover, in 2004, the Buttiglione incident was proof that European authorities take the question of homophobia seriously. José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, had nominated Rocco Buttiglione for the position of the European Union’s commissioner for Justice, Freedom, and Security. During a three-hour hearing to confirm his position, he declared quite matter-of-factly that homosexuality is a sin and that the family exists in order to allow women to have children and have the protection of a male who takes care of them. These excessive comments led parliamentarians not only to refuse to approve him for the sensitive position, but also to refuse to reappoint him to another post within the commission. Until then, it was taken for granted that homophobia was the problem of a minority, and that, consequently, it was a minor problem. The European Parliament demonstrated that, as far as it was concerned, it is a question the affects the majority and, consequently, is a major issue.

However, many facts suggest that homophobic resistance remains extremely strong in Europe, particularly in Eastern Europe. Lech Kaczy 3 ski, who was elected president of Poland in 2005, has made some extremely offensive comments about homosexuals, including suggesting that the human race would disappear if homosexuality was freely promoted; he also banned Gay Pride parades in 2004 and 2005, stating that they would promote the homosexual lifestyle. Other Pride marches have been regularly attacked in many large cities, such as Krakow, Poland; Riga, Latvia; Moscow, Russia; and Vilnius, Lithuania. In Belgrade, Serbia in 2001, gay and lesbian demonstrators were attacked and beaten not only by skinheads and religious fundamentalists, but also by passersby who decided to join in, trampling the activists who were already lying in the street.

In Africa as well, the situation is extremely ambivalent. The recently launched Coalition of African Lesbians, which includes activists from fourteen countries, constitutes a very positive sign, and LGBT associations are popping up everywhere. However, homophobic beatings, arrests, and condemnations continue, and in some areas are on the rise. The majority of the continent’s countries condemn same-sex relations, and even though these laws are not regularly enforced, they help to maintain a climate of fear and concealment, to the social and political detriment of LGBT individuals and associations.

With regard to transnational relations, political recognition of LGBT people is, and remains, rare. Refugees who are threatened in their homeland because of their sexual orientation or gender identity and who wish to find sanctuary elsewhere are, more often than not, rejected by their prospective new country. Immigration agents often do not consider the laws that condemn LGBT people in their country of origin as sufficient argument for political asylum, even when such laws call for the death penalty. With their requests denied, and knowing the fate that awaits them at home, certain asylum seekers see no way out: In September 2003, after his refugee request was rejected by British authorities, Israfil Shiri walked into the offices of Refugee Action in Manchester, doused himself in gasoline, and burned himself alive rather than be deported back to Iran. In 2004, a transsexual who had been whipped in Iran because of her sexuality, and whose request for asylum had been rejected by Sweden, committed suicide in Stralsund, near Stockholm. In 2005, an Iranian man being held at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam was on the verge of being returned to his homeland. A few years earlier, he had been arrested in Iran; he managed to escape, but his partner was hanged. Recent death sentences carried out against homosexuals in Iran finally convinced Dutch authorities to stop the expulsion order.

Finally, at the international level, the situation is just as worrisome. In recent years, the Vatican has been working in concert not only with other Catholic nations but also with the United States and Protestant, Orthodox, and Muslim countries in order to promote its conservative, reactionary agenda that includes largely homophobic and sexist positions. Pope John Paul II understood that it was possible, and useful, to overcome theological differences with other nations and churches in order to affirm the moral affinities that they share. Using his charisma, he fostered agreements and alliances that were once unthinkable. This surprising coalition has already achieved some success, such as in 2003, when it effectively opposed a Brazilian resolution at the United Nations that aimed to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Moreover, Cardinal Ratzinger, who succeeded John Paul II as pope in 2005, and who had co-signed many Vatican documents opposing gay and lesbian rights, immediately made his position clear by forbidding gay men from becoming priests.

Following the publication of the original Dictionary of Homophobia, I launched and coordinated the first International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO). In my mind, it was an obvious extension of what I had hoped the Dictionary would achieve. At a time when the globalization of the world’s economy is on every national agenda, it is vital that we remain conscious of its political, ethical, and philosophical ramifications, which include equal rights for all. The first IDAHO was celebrated for the first time on May 17, 2005, fifteen years to the day after the World Health Organization decided to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses; it was launched simultaneously in over forty countries, from Brazil to Russia, by way of Kenya, Canada, Portugal, and Lebanon. It was an impetus for lively debates, film screenings, radio and television broadcasts, concerts, street festivals, and school events. As a result, China hosted public LGBT marches for the first time in its entire history. The day was officially recognized by European Parliament, by Belgium, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Costa Rica, France, and several regions or provinces in Canada, Spain, Brazil, Italy, and other countries. In 2006, the IDAHO committee launched a petition addressed to the United Nations for a universal decriminalization of homosexuality. We were fortunate enough to be supported by several Nobel Prize laureates (Dario Fo, Elfriede Jelinek, José Saramago, Amartya Sen, Desmond Tutu), many famous artists (Victoria Abril, David Bowie, Elton John, Tony Kushner, Cyndi Lauper, Meryl Streep), distinguished intellectuals (Judith Butler, Noam Chomsky, Taslima Nasrin, Salman Rushdie, Cornel West), political leaders (Jacques Delors, former president of the European Commission; Michel Rocard and Laurent Fabius, two former French prime ministers; Thomas Hammerberg, commissioner for human rights, Council of Europe; Bertrand Delanoë, mayor of Paris). On May 17, 2008, the French government responded favorably to the IDAHO committee: the secretary of state for human hights, Rama Yade, announced that May 17 would then become an official national day, and that France would support a UN declaration for a universal decriminalization of homosexuality. Of course, it is only the beginning of a long-term process, but I believe there is cause for hope.

—Louis-Georges Tin

2008

INTRODUCTION

The problem is not so much homosexual desire as the fear of homosexuality: why does the mere mention of the word trigger off reactions of hate? We must therefore question how the heterosexual world conceives and fantasizes about homosexuality.

—Guy Hocquenghem, Homosexual Desire, 1972

According to widespread opinion, homosexuality is more liberated today than it has ever been: it is present and visible everywhere, in the streets, in the newspapers, on televisions, in the movies. It is even completely accepted, as witnessed by recent legislative advances in North America and Europe regarding the recognition of same-sex couples (Vermont, Quebec, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, France, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Switzerland, England, etc.). Certainly, further adjustments remain necessary in order to eradicate sexuality-based discrimination, once and for all, but it would be nothing more than a simple question of time: time to bring to its conclusion a grassroots movement launched many decades ago.

But then again, perhaps not. Truth be told, the twentieth century was, without a doubt, the most violently homophobic period in history: deportations to concentration camps under the Nazi regime, gulags in the Soviet Union, and blackmail and persecution in the United States during the Joseph McCarthy anti-communist era. For some, particularly in the western world, much of this seems very much part of the past. But quite often, living conditions for gays, lesbians, and transgenders in today’s world remain very difficult. Homosexuality seems to be discriminated against everywhere: in at least seventy nations, homosexual acts are still illegal (e.g., Algeria, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Senegal) and in a good many of these, punishment can last more than ten years (India, Jamaica, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, and Syria). Sometimes the law dictates life imprisonment (Guyana and Uganda), and, in a dozen or so nations, the death penalty may be applied (Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan). In Africa, many nations’ leaders have brutally reaffirmed their will to personally fight against the scourge, which is, according to them, anti-African. Even in countries where homosexuality is not illegal, or explicitly named in the penal code, persecution is on the rise. In Brazil, for example, death squads and skin-heads spread terror: 1,900 homophobic murders have been officially reported during the last twenty years, without having prompted any real action from either police or legal authorities. In such conditions, it is difficult to imagine that the world’s tolerance of gays, lesbians, and transgenders has gained much ground, if at all. On the contrary, in the majority of these nations, homophobia appears to be more violent than ever.

This brief overview of the situation seems even more sinister as it belies the naïve impression of those who would believe that the overall acceptance of gays and lesbians in society is growing. But in reality, pessimism and blind optimism constitute two symmetric pitfalls for both thought and action, inasmuch as both of these attitudes rest upon completely illusory presuppositions: one, that homophobia has and always will exist, and is a constant in human society; the other, that homophobia is generally a thing of the past. In reality, homophobia as it exists today is neither a transhistorical inevitability, impossible to fight, nor an historical residue destined to disappear by itself over time. It constitutes a problem of humanity, serious and complex and with many ramifications.

But what exactly is homophobia? Apparently, the term was first used in the 1960s, but it is credited to Kenneth Smith, author of a 1971 article entitled Homophobia: A Tentative Personality Profile. Although the word appeared later in other languages—particularly in French through the writing of Claude Courouve in the 1970s—it did not appear in dictionaries until 1994. It is, therefore, a recent term with a relatively rich history.

Over time, the word’s semantic spectrum has consistently broadened. In 1972, psychotherapist George Weinberg defined homophobia as the fear of being in a closed space with a homosexual. This very narrow definition quickly overflowed into common usage, as witnessed by the standard definition found in the Concise Oxford Dictionary: An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals. Didier Eribon proposed to extend the notion by introducing the idea of a homophobic continuum "which goes from those words shouted on the street, which every gay or lesbian has heard, ‘fuckin’ fag’ or ‘fucking dyke,’ to those words that are implicitly written on the archway of the city hall wedding hall: Homosexuals Not Admitted." From this perspective, the notion fully integrated into everyday homophobia the theoretic dialogue of judicial, psychoanalytical, or anthropological allegiance, thereby seeking to confirm or justify the established inequality between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Pushing the limits of analysis, Daniel Welzer-Lang suggested a new definition. For him, homophobia is, in a greater sense, the disparagement of those said feminine qualities in men and, to a certain extent, those said masculine qualities in women. As such, he sought to link specific homophobia, which is practiced against gays and lesbians, and generalized homophobia, which takes root in the construction of the hierarchical organization of gender. The phenomenon can affect any individual, which explains why the insult fag can be applied to those who are clearly heterosexual, in the sense that, beyond sexual orientation, it condemns a deficiency in the perfect virility that society expects and demands in men.

Evidently, the notion of homophobia has progressively broadened as research has allowed us to understand that acts, words, and attitudes that are clearly perceived as homophobic are nothing more than the by-product of a more general cultural construction representative of violence throughout society as a whole. As a result, the semantic extension of the word has obeyed a metonymic logic that has permitted the linking of the act of homophobia to its ideological and institutional foundations, which are also denounced under this term.

However, parallel to this semantic broadening, there has been an inverse movement of lexical differentiation operating at the heart of the concept of homophobia. Because of the specificity of attitudes towards lesbianism, the term lesbophobia has been introduced into theoretic discourses, a term which brings to light particular mechanisms that the generic concept of homophobia tends to overshadow. With one stroke, this distinction justifies the term gayphobia, since much homophobic discourse, in reality, pertains only to male homosexuality. Similarly, the concept of biphobia has also been proposed in order to highlight the singular situation of bisexuals, often stigmatized by both heterosexual and homosexual communities. Moreover, we need to take into consideration the very different issues linked to transsexual, transvestite, and transgendered persons, which brings to mind the notion of transphobia.

Another distinction has been proposed in order to clarify the political uses of the notion of homophobia. According to sociologist Eric Fassin,

The actual use hesitates between two very different definitions. The first emphasizes the phobia in homophobia: it is the rejection of homosexuals and of homosexuality. We are at the level of an individual psychology. The second sees a certain heterosexism in homophobia. It is the inequality between sexualities. The hierarchy between heterosexuality and homosexuality returns us to the collective level of ideology.

To this, he adds, perhaps in this case, using the distinction between misogyny and sexism as an example, it would be clearer to distinguish between ‘homophobia’ and ‘heterosexism’ in order to avoid the confusion between the psychological and ideological meanings. That, for my part, is what I propose and practice. In these terms, regarding subjects such as same-sex marriage or adoption rights, those who do not believe themselves to be the slightest bit homophobic, while refusing equal rights to others in the name of some religious, moral, anthropological, or psychoanalytical privilege reserved for heterosexuals, will have to at least recognize that this is, technically speaking, a heterosexist attitude; such a recognition could constitute a first step.

That being the case, these semantic evolutions, extensions, or distinctions enrich, albeit considerably complicate, the debate. And the political stakes are quite real, since more and more citizens, associations, and politicians have become conscious, notably in France during the battle for PaCS (Pacte civil de solidarité; Civil solidarity pact), of the necessity to resist and even penalize homophobia in the same manner as racism or anti-Semitism. In effect, after the passing of homosexuality from the criminal law code to the civil law code, homophobia could, contrarily, pass from civil society, where is still remains, to criminal law, where it is not yet contained. Shifting the focus from homosexuality to homophobia constitutes, as correctly noted by Daniel Borrillo, a change that is not only epistemological, but political as well. But for the time being, in the fight against homophobia much remains to be done.

In order to fight homophobia, it is necessary to determine its real causes. Homophobia’s deep origin is, without a doubt, to be found in heterosexism, that compulsory rule of heterosexuality that feminist writer and poet Adrienne Rich criticized. This regime tends to construe heterosexuality as the only legitimate sexual experience possible, or even thinkable, which explains why so many people go through life without ever having considered the homosexual reality. Better than a norm—which would require explication—heterosexuality becomes, for those it has conditioned, the non thought of their particular psychic makeup and the apriorism of all human sexuality in general. Far from being self-evident, this transparency of self, which is a forced exclusion of the other, constitutes one of the fundamentals of social learning. In its rigidity, it ends up as, and not only for heterosexuals, a model by which to perceive the world, individuals, and gender. In these conditions, it becomes difficult to imagine not only homosexuality, whose simple existence risks shaking the foundations of universal beliefs, and consequently values, but also heterosexuality, which, being the usual point of view on the world, is nonetheless that point of view’s blind spot.

In fact, by not evaluating all the horror that homosexuality can represent, we expose ourselves to not understanding homophobia—as much as we can understand it—in its more radical form. The general and convulsive feeling of hatred that Copernicus aroused when he dared knock the Earth off its epistemological pedestal might give us an approximate idea. The concept of heterocentrism, fashioned after geocentrism, may be described as a world view circling a self-proclaimed center of reference, in this case heterosexuality. From this perspective, other sexualities may not be anything other than strange galaxies, obscure nebulae, or, at the very least, extraterrestrial life forms. Whether the earth was, or was not, at the center of the universe changed very little in everyday life; however, the necessity to objectively rethink God’s order, which was in fact Man’s order, aroused a veritable subjective fury whose reasoning went beyond strict religious belief, which was fundamentally never put into question by the theories of either Copernicus or Galileo.

Thus, for those individuals who are strongly conditioned by heterosexism, the simple existence of homosexuals—who, objectively speaking, pose no threat— subjectively constitutes a threat against a valued psychological construct built on exclusion. This allows us to understand how fear—and even more the resulting hate—can lead to the most brutal violence. Clearly, this fear could never constitute mitigating circumstances, even less justification, for homophobic murders. And when claims are made in American courts, sometimes successfully, by individuals who go to cruising areas, baseball bats in hand to bash some queers, the notion of sex panic appears to be the height of dishonesty and cynical cruelty. Nonetheless, it is the deep origin of extreme reactions, linked to heterosexist conditioning, that dictates the male identity as based on the more or less gentle control of women and the more or less harsh repression of homosexuality.

For theories—be they theological, moral, legal, medical, biological, psychoanalytical, anthropological, et cetera—are never more than concocted reasons to justify, after the fact, obviously unjustifiable personal convictions aligned with the status quo. Thus, during the fight for PaCS, arguments based on theology and religious morality were not well received, so the Catholic Church did not hesitate to resort to more fashionable psychoanalysis, whose theories the Church had not so long ago condemned as being obscene and permissive. Similarly, it is generally useless to explain to those who see homosexuality as a type of defect or pathology that their beliefs have long been invalidated by medical science itself. Far from being the cause of their homophobia, the obsolete medical argument is nothing more than the occasional manifestation of homophobia and, at most, its confirmation. Thus, belief can both precede and obstinately survive the theories upon which it is seemingly based, theories that were, in fact, nothing more than a contextual formulation and justification.

Truth be told, the theories themselves matter very little; they are often interchangeable. The divine, natural, moral, public, symbolic, or anthropological orders are nothing but the decline of the one and the same concept, though diversely constructed, invoked to legitimize a condition that is profoundly inegalitarian. We must use all means necessary to change this. From all evidence, the theories or arguments set forth are nothing more than a conjectural means set in motion by generic homophobia, whose conscious origin must be sought deep within this thought, or rather this heterosexist non thought, which contains the stigmatization of all homosexuals. However, this respectable heterosexism does not always lead, thankfully, to murderous violence. Therefore, it remains to be understood why homophobia arises or resurfaces more violently during certain periods, areas, and conditions.

Beyond everyday manifestations, it seems that large waves of homophobia generally obey opportunist motivations and history is rife with lessons. In the first years of the communist revolution, homosexuality was relatively tolerated. In the Soviet Union, after the abolition of the penal code of 1832, the crime of sodomy was not reintroduced in the codes of 1922 or 1926. And in its first edition in 1930, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia asserted quite clearly that homosexuality was neither a crime nor a sickness. Likewise, in Cuba, at the beginning of the New Revolution, homosexuals enjoyed a short-lived yet real liberty, as witnessed by writer Reinaldo Arenas, however, the instant political difficulties appeared, they were systematically hunted and locked away in camps. Similarly in the USSR, the difficulties in the regime and the ascension of Stalin contributed to a hardening of living conditions. Homosexuality was once again penalized in 1933, soon became a crime against the state, a sign of bourgeois decadence, and, even worse, a fascist perversion to be harshly condemned. But, as Daniel Borrillo notes, by a sad irony of history, at the same time, Nazi Germany put into place a plan to persecute and exterminate homosexuals by putting them in the same category as communists.

These examples clearly show that heterosexism’s latent and inherent homophobia can suddenly be reawakened by a serious crisis that justifies the search for a scapegoat. Accused of all evils, homosexuality can become sufficient reason for purges perceived as necessary. That is why, depending on the historical moment considered, it is adjusted to each particular situation and projected upon an adversary who is to be stigmatized or eliminated. Thus, likened to Bulgarian heresy during the Middle Ages, sodomy was regularly used as the main charge in the fight against religious deviancy, such as the charge against the Knights Templar. Similarly, during the French Religious Wars, homosexuality became a Catholic vice according to the Huguenots, and a Huguenot vice according to the Catholics. During the same period, it was ascribed to Italian morals, in the sense that the French Court seemed to be submerged by Italian culture; then to English morals, when the British Empire was at its pinnacle; to German morals, at the time when the Franco-German rivalry was at its peak; to Jewish cosmopolitanism, whose alleged aims were so worrisome to the nation; to American communitarianism, whose principles threatened, we are told, the French Republic. While a bourgeois vice to the proletariat of the nineteenth century, it was considered by the bourgeois to be a phenomenon of the immoral working classes, or of the necessarily decadent aristocracy. In the Near East, India, China, or Japan, it is perceived as a Western practice; in Black Africa, it is, of course, a white phenomenon.

In short, homosexuality constitutes a symbolic protean component, typically characteristic of an adversary or enemy, be it a rival nation, a particular social group, or an individual on the street. It is the simplest and most certain means to disqualify another, and it is why it finds such a favorable ground in areas where social, religious, racist, xenophobic, or anti-Semitic hate is already deeply rooted. It is the strange common denominator of various resentments that rally around the same cause. That is, in a heterosexist culture, crises and difficult circumstances favor the formation of homophobic sentiments and practices, which offer an opportunity for any charismatic leader in search of popular support. Under such conditions, it is not surprising that homosexuality is so often the designated target for regimes who, at least in appearance, are not only dissimilar, but in polar opposition. As soon as any cloud darkens the sky, the mobilization of homophobic discourse is a useful method to divert attention from real problems, while guaranteeing support of the moralists. And often, that which was nothing more than an opportunistic pretext becomes an end in itself, justified by sentiments most acceptable to the public. It is the end making a virtue out of necessity.

However, it remains necessary to examine the numerous methods used by homophobia. It is not so much a question of putting together a catalogue raisonné—a grim and fastidious task—as it is of analyzing its complex workings. Methods are often ambiguous and it is difficult to classify these diverse forms of violence, be they formal, i.e. practiced under government authority (death penalty, forced labor, whipping, chemical or physical castration, clitoridectomy, incarceration, internment), or informal (terrorism, assassination, punitive rape, beating, physical or verbal assault, harassment). Moreover, this distinction itself is subject to caution in the sense that, in certain countries, informal violence benefits largely from the approval—if not the outright complicity—of authorities who are supposed to condemn it. And even where homosexual practices are not penalized, legal detours may be used in order to incriminate these practices with other charges, as fantastic as they may appear to be: unlawful meeting, conspiracy, blasphemy, mutual assault and battery, even if it occurs in a private home. Since the roles played by authorities are rather ambiguous, the line between formal and informal violence is often difficult to trace.

Beyond this more or less state-sanctioned homophobia, the more widespread social homophobia is practiced everywhere: in families, school, army, workplace, politics, media, sport, prison, et cetera. These types of physical violence or moral coercion are often less understood, and those who suffer from them—sometimes simultaneously—often refuse to denounce them. The fear of having their homosexuality revealed and the fear of reprisals—especially when these acts are committed within a group setting, barracks, or team—compels to silence those victims who are the most vulnerable.

But it is in the symbolic order that everyday homophobia is best practiced. Beyond even the acts, attitudes, and discourses that are clearly homophobic, society’s framework constitutes a structure in which daily violence is, doubtless, difficult to imagine for those whose experience is organized in accordance with that framework. As Eribon notes, no matter how racist the area in which he is born, a black child has every chance to grow up in a family that will allow him to construct his identity with a sense of relative legitimacy. However, in heterosexual families in which the majority of gay youth grow up, the developing consciousness of their desire constitutes, generally, a trial that is even more difficult in the fact that it must remain secret. The shame, the solitude, the despair of never being loved, the pure panic of one day being discovered locks away the spirit in a sort of interior prison that pushes the individual to sometimes overestimate the negative attitudes expressed by his or her social circle. Thus, we see tearful parents who are incapable of comprehending their gay child’s suicide; of course they would have accepted his or her difference; moreover, they had never said anything against homosexuality. The problem is that they had never said anything in its favor, either. They cannot understand, but the general silence surrounding this taboo subject, the absence of images and dialogue were, for their son, for their daughter, the strongest condemnation.

It is in these extreme cases, more numerous than we would want to believe, that homophobia’s symbolic violence is best measured; it does not need to be expressed to be committed. Silence is its home. Cursing and condemnations are often useless. Parents, friends, neighbors, television shows, films, children’s books, and magazines, all repeatedly celebrate the heterosexual couple. As they grow up all children understand, said or unsaid, consciously or unconsciously, that the alternative is impossible—homosexuality is outside of language, if it isn’t against the law. It remains only in the basest of insults, fag, cocksucker, and other charming words, whose homophobic charge isn’t even understood by those who use them, thereby relegating male homosexuality to the level of ignominy and female homosexuality to being beyond thought.

Consequently, even in silence, this symbolic violence imposes itself upon the minds of its victims. Far from arousing their revolt, it often succeeds in ensuring their collaboration in exchange for some eventual tolerance. As Erving Goffman so rightly explained, We ask, therefore, the stigmatized to show some manners and not take too much advantage of their luck. It is unacceptable for them to test the limits of the acceptance they’ve been given, nor that they take advantage of it for new demands. Tolerance is almost always part of the bargain. Thus, the more a homosexual gives proof of proper conduct, the more a homosexual believes that he or she will receive acceptance by others. This type of condescending homophobia with its liberal, tolerant façade encourages gays and lesbians to multiply the pretences and honorable lies that, even when they deceive no one, appear to be the prerequisites for an always precarious recognition, whose limitations always surprise those who so naively believed in a definitive integration.

This logic of social acceptance at any cost drives those who submit to it to adopt, in their position of being dominated, the dominant point of view, which is a source of immeasurable heartbreak and psychological disorder. It creates within them a sense of internalized homophobia, a veritable self-loathing, which may be the cause of the greatest violence. The necessity to prove their perfect normalcy pushes certain individuals to assault or persecute those whom they perceive as homosexuals. Of this, contemporary history has offered a blatant example. It is unknown to many that the American witch hunts were largely aimed at homosexuals. But it is also believed that one of the primary players, J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI, was gay or bisexual and the purpose of his homophobic, patriotic, and strong-armed internal policies was to prove, especially to himself, his infallible virility. This mental disposition—a profound split between a desire for the other and the denial of self—may also lead to rape. Frequently in non-mixed environments, such as prisons, barracks, or boarding schools, where masculinity is exacerbated, the practice of rape—to the degree that it teaches a lesson to a victim who is perceived as less virile—offers a double advantage of satisfying a secretly homosexual libido while proving to others an incontestable sexual power that is, in this paradoxical logic, completely heterosexual.

Nonetheless, this internalized homophobia, whose violence is vented against other homosexuals or, more often, against the subject himself, is without a doubt one of the most appalling aspects of the symbolic order, since it acts without having been seen to do so. The shame that it arouses and fuels exempts it from visibility—so much so that many reasonable people do not believe that homophobia actually exists and suspect, rather, that those who complain about it suffer from some form of paranoia. By refusing to see precisely this characteristic of symbolic violence—that it can be committed without any apparent constraints— they become the allies of a system which they refuse to recognize. In this way, the relentless machine that is homophobia of the symbolic order, anonymous and collective, seems particularly formidable: those who submit to it, by internalizing its principles, contribute implicitly to its legitimization; those who denounce it, by questioning its violence, discredit themselves, especially since they appear, like Don Quixote, to be tilting at windmills.

That being the case, the fight against homophobia, whose causes are profound and whose methods so effective, appears to be a difficult venture. Inasmuch as laws that condemn or discriminate against homosexuality are the effect rather than the cause of rampant homophobia, the simple act of abolishing them appears to be a necessary, if not sufficient, measure. It would be necessary to go further in order to create the conditions that would permit a true evolution of thought. However, minds cannot be so easily changed, and the necessary work requires time, energy, and clear-headedness.

To contribute to this long-term project, it is useful to compile a summary as overview of the problematics associated with homophobia. In order to do that, it seems appropriate to revive the tradition of critical dictionaries of the Age of Enlightenment: long ago, philosophers Bayle, Diderot, d’Alembert, and Voltaire resorted to this format in order to fight prejudice and other forms of intolerance.

The dictionary format offers entries on every aspect of the subject matter. They are independent, detachable, reusable elements able to feed new development. Clearly displaying both a scientific and political vocation, this dictionary of homophobia is, as a result, a work of knowledge and of battle.

The articles here, presented in the alphabetical order expected of any dictionary, can nonetheless be divided into five categories whose titles made up the generative principles for the definition of the various entries. Firstly, consideration was given to the theories that may have been used to justify homophobic acts, attitudes, or discourses—from theology to psychoanalysis by way of medicine, biology, or anthropology. Historical agents of homophobia, such as Joseph McCarthy and Anita Bryant, for example, were also included, as were the historical victims of homophobia, such as Radclyffe Hall or Oscar Wilde. Next, many articles focus on different countries (France, Germany, India, China, etc.) or regions (Maghreb or Central and Eastern Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Latin America, etc.) creating a panorama which, without being exhaustive, allows us to think about homophobia geographically and historically. Another group of articles concerns environments and institutions, such as family, school, the armed forces, or workplace, where social homophobia engenders very specific practices and thought that are of interest to study. And finally, the everyday themes of homophobic rhetoric—such as debauchery, sterility, proselytism, and AIDS—have also justified a group of articles.

In total, more than seventy people from over fifteen countries have worked on this book. It has many voices, not only for the sake of plurality, but also, and fundamentally, because homophobia is a collective violence. When it targets one individual, it always targets him as a supposed element of a group that it seeks to stigmatize. Consequently, faced with this collective violence, it is necessary to respond collectively. For all that, gathering these articles in one book does not suppose a unified thought; but if there is a lesson to be had, it can be none other than the need to fight against homophobia is essential.

Beyond this, the subject’s complexity and diversity do not permit us to draw any general conclusions. Furthermore, homophobia does not always present the same face. Indeed, it may seem problematic to use the term for cultures in which the concept of homosexuality does not exist per se. But in truth, it is not necessary to conceive of the existence of a social and sexual system, such as ours, in order to use the notion of homophobia. Whether homosexuality exists or not as a category in different societies, homophobia may be thought of as a tool for analysis and can be defined as the totality of physical, mental, or symbolic violence targeting sexual relations between persons of the same gender, regardless of the significance given to these relations. Each entry is composed by authors who, conscious of the term’s limits, attempt to highlight different details, while avoiding the dangers of anachronism or ethnocentrism.

However, though the authors worked alone, it is clear that the various articles blend with, complete, and respond to one other, inviting the reader to explore according to his or her whim. And in order to simplify the book’s use, keywords have been listed at the end of each article. Furthermore, the bolded words indicate words that have their own specific entry. These comments are sufficient operating instructions for any book whose goal is to clarify, in the general sense, an issue whose topicality reveals its crucial importance. Also, this dictionary should be considered a synthesis rather than a whole. It will seem incomplete to those who wish to go further into one aspect or another. For them, the bibliographical entries will suggest some additional avenues to explore. For all others, it will without a doubt constitute a true basis of reflection and, possibly, action.

—Louis-Georges Tin

2003

Borrillo, Daniel, and Pierre Lascoumes, eds. L’Homophobie: comment la définir, comment la combattre. Paris: Ed. Prochoix, 1999.

Eribon, Didier. Ce que l’injure me dit. Quelques remarques sur le racisme et la discrimination. In L’Homophobie, comment la définir, comment la combattre. Paris: Editions ProChoix, 1999.

Fassin, Eric. Le Outing de l’homophobie est-il de bonne politique?. In L’Homophobie, comment la définir, comment la combattre. Paris: Editions ProChoix, 1999.

Goffman, Erving. Stigma. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998.

Rich, Adrienne. La Contrainte à l’hétérosexualité et l’existence lesbienne. Nouvelles questions féministes, no. 1 (1981). [Published in the US as Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Experience, Signs 5, no. 4 (Summer 1980).]

Smith, Kenneth. Homophobia: A Tentative Personality Profile, Psychological Report, no. 29 (1971).

Weinberg, George. Society and the Healthy Homosexual. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1972.

Welzer-Lang, Daniel. La Face cachée du masculin. In La Peur de l’autre en soi. Edited by Michel Dorais, Pierre Dutcy, and Welzer-Lang. Montreal: VLB, 1994.

THE ANTI-ANTHOLOGY

An anthology? Not really. The term anthology, from the root word antho, which means flower, usually defines a collection of writing chosen for its beauty and grace. But here, we deal with homophobic discourse, which is ugly and spiteful. So it is perhaps more appropriate to call this book an anti-anthology. The objective of this selection, however, is not merely to produce a formal catalog of hatred, but rather to give voice to opinions and protests, as an illustration of homophobia, before proceeding with analysis, which is the core of this book. Here you will find people as sinister as Himmler and as honorable as Saint Paul. The inclusion of such different individuals is not to suggest that they are in any way equal, in a sort of shared and dark ignominy, but rather to show that homophobic discourses can be found in extremely varied contexts, crossing the ages and divides, each time taking on very different meanings that the dictionary entries examine.

However, this selection cannot hope to be a representative sample, for beyond open and public statements, homophobia is also expressed through silence: by night, in unreported physical aggression or police brutality; by day, in curt words and unspoken thoughts. And in most countries in the world, acts of physical, moral, or symbolic violence are the most prevalent expressions of homophobia, ones that words do not reveal…

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

—Lv 20:13

Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality; nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

—St Paul, I Cor 6:9–10

Truly, there is no way to compare this vice to any other vice, because it surpasses the scope of all vices. In effect, this vice means the death of the body, and the destruction of the soul. It pollutes the flesh; it extinguishes the light of the spirit, it opens the door to Hell, and closes the gates of Heaven.… This vice can tumble men from the heart of the ecclesiastical community, and forces them to pray alongside the possessed and those who work for the Devil.

—St Peter Damian, Liber Gomorrhianus (Book of Gomorrah), c. 1050

He who is a proven sodomite, must lose his balls, and if he does it a second time, he must lose his member; and if he does it a third time, he must be burned; The woman who does it must each time lose a member, and the third time must be burned. And all their belongings belong to the king.

—Justice et Plet, ancient customs of Orléans, c. 1260

Who errs against faith, as like heathenism, from which he does not want to come to the voice of truth, or if he commits sodomy, he must be burned.

—Philippe de Beaumanoir, Les Coutumes de Beauvaisis (The Costumes de Beauvaisis), c. 1285

In each temple or important place of worship, they have one or two men, if not more, dressed as women since childhood, and who speak like them and imitate their habits, their dress and all. The men—and the chiefs in particular—have immoral carnal relations with them on feast or holy days, as if it were a rite or a ceremony. I know because I punished two of them.

—Pedro Cieza de Léon, Crónica del Peru, 1533

During the time I was among these people [Native Americans in what is now Florida], I saw a diabolical thing: a man married to another man.

—Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca, La Relacion o naufragios, 1542

If a man consents to being sodomized, the guilty will be condemned to wearing the cang for a month and to 100 strikes of the stick.

—Code of the Qing Dynasty (Da Qing Mi), 1734

The pederast contravenes to hygiene, to cleanliness and he is ignorant of the lustration that purifies. The state of the backside, the weakness of the sphincter, the funnel-shaped anus or the shape and dimension of the penis show the membership in this new race. Monster in the new gallery of monsters, the pederast is in part linked to the animal; in his coitus, he invokes the dog. His nature associates him to excrement.

—Ambroise Tardieu, Etude médico-légales sur les attentats aux moeurs (Medical-legal studies of assaults against decency), 1857

Without going all the way to death, I regret that this infamy that has begun to propagate itself amongst us, be treated with so much indulgence. I would like it to be, in all cases, associated to rape, and punished by twenty years of reclusion.

—Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Amour et marriage (Love and marriage), 1858

Homosexuality is a functional stigmatism of degeneracy and a nervous psychopathological defect.

—Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Psychopathia Sexualis, 1886

Homosexuality is the negation of human will in one of its weakest points, for human will has in it the living ideal of perpetuation. This simple fact suffices to impose heterosexuality as the standard and to place all perversions, including masturbation, at the level of crime, aberrations or sin.

—Dr Alfred Adler, Le Problème de l’homosexualité (published in English as On Homosexuality, 1917)

Imagine exactly what sexual practices between men are, and try not to vomit.

—Camille Mauclair, Les Marges, March 1926

I believe that this perversion of natural instinct, like many other perversions, is an indicator of the profound social and moral decadence of a certain part of current society.

—Henri Barbusse, Les Marges, March 1926

Homosexuality foils all productivity.… We must understand that if this vice continues to spread throughout Germany without our being able to fight it, it will be the end of Germany, the end of the Germanic world.

—Heinrich Himmler, speech of February 18, 1937

In Soviet society, homosexuality is repressed as a sexual depravation and punished by law, with the exception of mental disorders…. In the bourgeois countries, homosexuality, sign of the moral decomposition of the ruling classes, is an impossible fact to punish.

—Homosexuality, in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, vol. 12, 1952

In thirty-eight years, the school has produced no homosexuals. The reason is that freedom results in healthy children.

—Dr Alexander-Sutherland Neill, Libres enfants de Summerhill (Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing), 1960

Don’t come and tell us, under the pretense that it is an accepted—celebrated even—perversion, that it is not a perversion. Homosexuality remains what it is: a perversion.

—Jacques Lacan, Le Transfert, in Séminaire (Seminar of Jacques Lacan), vol. 8, 1960–6

The pure homosexual, unscathed of all neurotic potentiality, seems to me an exception; we do not see any in our offices.

—Dr Marcel Eck, Sodome, 1966

Homosexuality remains the dead-end of non-fraternity and of non-life.

—Dr Eliane Amado Lévy-Valensi, Le Grand désarroi, 1973

I respect homosexuals just as I respect the infirm. But if they wish to transform their infirmity into health, I must say that I do not agree.

—Monsignor Elchinger, bishop of Strasbourg, 1982

It is necessary to sanction homosexual proselytism. In fact, the greatest danger that threatens the world is the decrease in the birthrate in the West and the increase in the birthrate in the Third World. For this reason, I consider that it will lead, if it continues, to the end of the World.

—Jean-Marie Le Pen, president of the National Front Party of France, 1984

Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.

—Dr Paul Cameron, Conservative Political Action Conference, 1985

Heterosexuality is best.

—Edith Cresson, French prime minister, 1991

This virus [HIV] has had the genius to attack those who have transformed the physiology of reproduction into adulterated pleasure.… In these times when everything that is immoral, even unnatural, is admired, this virus knew where to strike.

—P. German, president of France’s Académie nationale de pharmacie, 1991

There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

—Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons, 1992

Homosexuals are worse than pigs and dogs.

—Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe, 1995

For those who have the responsibility to speak of and name regulations or the establishment of norms in a context of education, teaching, and support, it seems to me to be intellectually and morally honest to dare to insist on the non equivalence between homosexual and heterosexual forms of affection. Differently from other qualifications evoked above, expressions such as ‘abnormal form of sexuality’ or ‘objectively deficient conducts’ do not seem to me to be either insulting or humiliating. Who does not have deficiencies in certain aspects of their character, in their sexuality in particular? Sexuality is not only the area of our capacities and performances, it is also that of our vulnerabilities and weaknesses.

—Xavier Lacroix, L’Amour du semblable, questions sur l’homosexualité (Love of the same: questions on homosexuality), 1995

I admit that there must be some homosexuals in the National Front, but there are no queens. They are invited to go elsewhere.

—Jean-Marie Le Pen, National Front Party, 1995

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

—The Vocation to Chastity: Chastity and Homosexuality, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357–59, 1997

Some people are going to scream, but I am willing to say that you cannot be gay and happy.

—Sébastien, Ne deviens pas gay tu finiras triste, 1998

For homosexuals, Islam has prescribed the most severe punishments. After guilt has been established according to the dictates of sharia, the individual must be seized, be kept standing, and divided in two with a sword and either cut off his head, or split him completely in two. He (or she) will fall.… After his death, a pyre must be made, the body placed on it, fire set to it and burn it, or brought to the top of a mountain and thrown from a cliff. Then, the body parts must be assembled and burned. Or a hole must be dug, a fire started in it and he must be thrown in alive. We have no such punishments for other crimes.

—Ayatollah Musava Ardelsili, Tehran, 1998

Homosexuality is part of the first stages of human sexuality; it does not represent the final stage of sexuality, which, in the best of cases, progresses towards heterosexuality. Homosexuality is in no way a choice of one object among others, but a complex which indicates the failure of the internalization of the other.

—Tony Anatrella, priest and psychoanalyst, Le Monde, October 10, 1998

If you ask me if an avowed homosexual teacher can teach, my answer is no. It would be morally wrong that an avowed homosexual person or someone who, when all is said and done, considers pedophilia to be a form of love be