Straight Talking About Homophobia.
A couple of things have happened recently which remind me of how deep-rooted homophobia still is in our society. The first was a conference held in Belfast on 19 February called “Setting Love in Order”, staged by an evangelical Christian group called Core Issues. This organisation claims to have “saved” gay people and converted them, through psychotherapy and prayer, to becoming heterosexual. Not surprisingly, a number of people find this philosophy abhorrent (report here).
- Image via Wikipedia
Apparently 1 in 6 therapists, some of them funded by the NHS, believe that homosexuality is an illness which can be “cured” with so-called “conversion therapy” (see here). I find it amazing that there are still people around with such views – particularly professionally trained psychiatrists and psychologists. They may be in the minority (thankfully) and most professional therapists reject this view, but it’s hard to over-estimate the damage done by these outdated practices.
Being gay is just as natural to gay people as being straight is to straight people. It isn’t an illness or a mental health condition that needs to be “cured”. What it requires is a society that accepts there are many, equally legitimate, forms of love.
The second incident is related to my last blog freedom-of-the-press-v-incitement-to-hatred . The piece that Jan Moir of the Daily Mail wrote about the death of Stephen Gately, in which she made a big thing of what she considered to be his “unnatural” lifestyle, received 25,000 complaints. The Press Complaints Commission (which enforces the industry Code of Practice – written by the editors’ code of practice committee, chaired by – guess who – Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail) rejected the complaints. They admitted to finding the article “extremely distasteful” but said it “just failed to cross the line” in terms of breaching the PCC’s code of practice.
Actually, there is a third incident, which is more personal. I was talking to a friend who I consider to be pretty liberal generally, and he was saying that he thought gay people shouldn’t “push” their sexual preference. For example, gay comedians telling gay jokes. I did point out that society generally is choc-a-bloc full of heterosexual images – think of all the love songs in the charts, the films with boy/girl love themes, valentines cards, straight couples walking round holding hands etc. etc. Why should anyone object to the occasional gay joke, or a same sex couple holding hands?
What do you think?
About JaneHattonJane Hatton helps people with disabilities find a job through an Even Break. If you are an employer who is looking to recruit a talented individual from a Jane, then take a look at how you can here
View all posts by JaneHatton →
46 Responses to Straight Talking About Homophobia.
All that jazz – All in A Day
Review of: Cousin Alice Jazz Music by Cousin Alice: Elaine Sturgess Reviewed by: Elaine Sturgess Rating: 5 On January 21, 2012 Last modified: January 30, 2012 Summary: What makes Alice so distinctive is her wonderfully smokey voice, a quality that furniture designer William Yeoward found so arresting at a concert she was performing for the [...]
I’m shocked about those figures for conversion therapy, Jane. I was aware there was huge support for this nonsense in the USA, and that some of the key promoters of thsoe ideas were somehow involved with the new anti gay legislation that is being proposed in Uganda.
I do think that your third example may be an exception – in that it is possible that your friend doesn’t have any deep seated feelings against homosexuality. I know several people who would object to any couple, regardless of sexual orientation, making “a public display” or who would be offended by blue humour.
As for the Jan Moir article – I’m not sure where I stand. I thought it was beyond “extremely distasteful” and I did wonder at the Mail for publishing it – but I am not sure we should necessarily censor people from saying stupid and offensive things. OUt in the light of day, stupid and offensive things can be countered – and in that case they were, and very effectively.
Actually, I know that my friend doesn’t have any feelings against homosexuality at all. I just don’t think he’d thought through what he was saying, and he did change his stance after we’d talked about it. But the conversation was about homosexuality specifically, and his dislike of gay people “pushing” their sexual orientation. If the conversation had been about disabled comedians (and there are increasing numbers of those), I wonder if anyone would have objected to them “pushing” their disability. I’ve never heard anyone accusing a comedian making husband/wife jokes of “pushing” their straightness. Sexism, maybe, but never an objection to its allusion to being heterosexual.
When the first few gay kisses were seen in soap operas there was an outrage, whilst hetero kisses would pass unnoticed. It was clearly the fact that it was two men kissing, not that two people were kissing.
Twitter: evenbreak
Ann the debate about homosexuality in Uganda has gained momentum. It was interesting to note that most folk out there believe that being gay is something that can be cured through counseling.
There was an interesting take on the whole debate and why the law may never be passed the rest of it is at my blog http://ethnicsupplies.org/aid/being-gay-and-famous-in-the-uk-isnt-newsworthy
Twitter: ethnicsupplies
I’m shocked about those figures for conversion therapy, Jane. I was aware there was huge support for this nonsense in the USA, and that some of the key promoters of thsoe ideas were somehow involved with the new anti gay legislation that is being proposed in Uganda.
I do think that your third example may be an exception – in that it is possible that your friend doesn’t have any deep seated feelings against homosexuality. I know several people who would object to any couple, regardless of sexual orientation, making “a public display” or who would be offended by blue humour.
As for the Jan Moir article – I’m not sure where I stand. I thought it was beyond “extremely distasteful” and I did wonder at the Mail for publishing it – but I am not sure we should necessarily censor people from saying stupid and offensive things. OUt in the light of day, stupid and offensive things can be countered – and in that case they were, and very effectively.
Actually, I know that my friend doesn’t have any feelings against homosexuality at all. I just don’t think he’d thought through what he was saying, and he did change his stance after we’d talked about it. But the conversation was about homosexuality specifically, and his dislike of gay people “pushing” their sexual orientation. If the conversation had been about disabled comedians (and there are increasing numbers of those), I wonder if anyone would have objected to them “pushing” their disability. I’ve never heard anyone accusing a comedian making husband/wife jokes of “pushing” their straightness. Sexism, maybe, but never an objection to its allusion to being heterosexual.
When the first few gay kisses were seen in soap operas there was an outrage, whilst hetero kisses would pass unnoticed. It was clearly the fact that it was two men kissing, not that two people were kissing.
Twitter: evenbreak
Ann the debate about homosexuality in Uganda has gained momentum. It was interesting to note that most folk out there believe that being gay is something that can be cured through counseling.
There was an interesting take on the whole debate and why the law may never be passed the rest of it is at my blog http://ethnicsupplies.org/aid/being-gay-and-famous-in-the-uk-isnt-newsworthy
Twitter: ethnicsupplies
It always seems to be boy/boy stuff that gets everyone so outraged. Some seem to think that if a man likes men, he must like THEM – how egocentric can you get??!
I’ve mentioned before that I write erotic stories (sounds so much better than “porn”!), and I write all variations. Sometimes the boy/boy stuff gets a negative reaction, but I much prefer it when male readers especially say they didn’t expect to find it arousing, but did. It doesn’t mean they want to try it, but it enabled them to look at a different lifestyle through different eyes. And we can all do with that.
As for evangelical christians and their antics on sexuality, I agree entirely. When I was in such a church, I was always amazed at the “God loves everybody, but not you, you or you” attitude. Jesus would have been a lot more forgiving.
I struggle sometimes with the conflict between respect for equality and respect for religion. I remember a number of times when I was delivering training in equality and diversity issues being challenged by quite moderate Christians about the “evils of homosexuality” and hearing quotes from the bible to back up their claims.
I remember a number of managers saying they would refuse to employ someone they knew was gay. No wonder so few gay people feel able to be open about their sexual orientation in the workplace.
Twitter: evenbreak
I’ve been working recently with a friend who is a male-to-female transgender, trying to get a publisher for her biography which is an incredible, gripping story.
The main stumbling block is that she is and always has been a devoted Christian. Seems that despite the story being one that really must be told, the Christian press won’t touch it with a bargepole and even the secular press are twitchy about it.
What a ridiculously political “hot potato…”
Twitter: SuzeStMWrites
As a Christian, I have no trouble separating the Word of God from the word of Man. God has his commandments for us to live by, nothing about divorce, abortions or homosexuality in any of those
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
It’s all the interpretations that cause problems, but if you look at the original moral code, there is nothing at all about the things that are preached by the ill informed.
Edited to add: It seems like people with prejudices are hiding behind their religion, rather than addressing the roots of their problems
It always seems to be boy/boy stuff that gets everyone so outraged. Some seem to think that if a man likes men, he must like THEM – how egocentric can you get??!
I’ve mentioned before that I write erotic stories (sounds so much better than “porn”!), and I write all variations. Sometimes the boy/boy stuff gets a negative reaction, but I much prefer it when male readers especially say they didn’t expect to find it arousing, but did. It doesn’t mean they want to try it, but it enabled them to look at a different lifestyle through different eyes. And we can all do with that.
As for evangelical christians and their antics on sexuality, I agree entirely. When I was in such a church, I was always amazed at the “God loves everybody, but not you, you or you” attitude. Jesus would have been a lot more forgiving.
I struggle sometimes with the conflict between respect for equality and respect for religion. I remember a number of times when I was delivering training in equality and diversity issues being challenged by quite moderate Christians about the “evils of homosexuality” and hearing quotes from the bible to back up their claims.
I remember a number of managers saying they would refuse to employ someone they knew was gay. No wonder so few gay people feel able to be open about their sexual orientation in the workplace.
Twitter: evenbreak
I’ve been working recently with a friend who is a male-to-female transgender, trying to get a publisher for her biography which is an incredible, gripping story.
The main stumbling block is that she is and always has been a devoted Christian. Seems that despite the story being one that really must be told, the Christian press won’t touch it with a bargepole and even the secular press are twitchy about it.
What a ridiculously political “hot potato…”
Twitter: SuzeStMWrites
As a Christian, I have no trouble separating the Word of God from the word of Man. God has his commandments for us to live by, nothing about divorce, abortions or homosexuality in any of those
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
It’s all the interpretations that cause problems, but if you look at the original moral code, there is nothing at all about the things that are preached by the ill informed.
Edited to add: It seems like people with prejudices are hiding behind their religion, rather than addressing the roots of their problems
PS Love the fact that your first tag is Daily Mail. How apt!
PS Love the fact that your first tag is Daily Mail. How apt!
It’s all rather ridiculous isn’t it? I find it so flabbergasting that people really get upset about people being gay. why does it matter? what is the problem with it? and as for those that feel it is a disease or that gay people can be cured…well, they all need taking outside and being a good talking to in my opinion. Isn’t there enough hardship and worry in life without adding to it with homophobic rubbish?
Exactly, Heather. I don’t understand the strong reactions at all. No-one is suggesting anyone who isn’t gay should become so. Why should it matter to them who other people have as partners?
Twitter: evenbreak
It’s all rather ridiculous isn’t it? I find it so flabbergasting that people really get upset about people being gay. why does it matter? what is the problem with it? and as for those that feel it is a disease or that gay people can be cured…well, they all need taking outside and being a good talking to in my opinion. Isn’t there enough hardship and worry in life without adding to it with homophobic rubbish?
Exactly, Heather. I don’t understand the strong reactions at all. No-one is suggesting anyone who isn’t gay should become so. Why should it matter to them who other people have as partners?
Twitter: evenbreak
Like many of us, I know people who have been in single-sex relationships for many years, others who are just starting to discover what feels ‘right’ for them – and it’s scary – and others who are some way in between.
For any religion to say ‘we have a cure for this’ smacks as: “I’M okay – you’re NOT okay”. It scares me rigid in terms of that old big brother ‘we know what’s best for you’ and makes me wonder: Who is anybody to judge and say that?
The Catholic church hits the headlines regularly as an example that has seen its own bete noires that need to be sorted out – not denied and shoved under the carpet. Boarding schools? The armed forces? Other workplaces?
I’ll stop now…
Twitter: Linda_Mattacks
- For any religion to say ‘we have a cure for this’ smacks as: “I’M okay – you’re NOT okay”.
This is exactly my problem with established religion, Linda. And I really don’t think Jesus would have signed up to this attitude. Bloody Paul and his influence!!!
Like many of us, I know people who have been in single-sex relationships for many years, others who are just starting to discover what feels ‘right’ for them – and it’s scary – and others who are some way in between.
For any religion to say ‘we have a cure for this’ smacks as: “I’M okay – you’re NOT okay”. It scares me rigid in terms of that old big brother ‘we know what’s best for you’ and makes me wonder: Who is anybody to judge and say that?
The Catholic church hits the headlines regularly as an example that has seen its own bete noires that need to be sorted out – not denied and shoved under the carpet. Boarding schools? The armed forces? Other workplaces?
I’ll stop now…
Twitter: Linda_Mattacks
- For any religion to say ‘we have a cure for this’ smacks as: “I’M okay – you’re NOT okay”.
This is exactly my problem with established religion, Linda. And I really don’t think Jesus would have signed up to this attitude. Bloody Paul and his influence!!!
I find it somewhat disturbing that there is a trend among young people to decry something as “That’s so gay” meaning it’s rubbish. Whereas it’s often claimed not to be used homophobically in this way, the correlation between gay and rubbish must still be pretty harmful.
I find it somewhat disturbing that there is a trend among young people to decry something as “That’s so gay” meaning it’s rubbish. Whereas it’s often claimed not to be used homophobically in this way, the correlation between gay and rubbish must still be pretty harmful.
As usual a very thought provoking blog, the sentiments of which I thoroughly support in the main: however, I think the third example perhaps merits a bit of thought rather than simple acquiescence.
To start I would pose this question; what is the difference between the extreem left and extreem right?
By way of leading to my answer I am reminded of a situation that was not dissimilar to Jane’s and which happened to me recently. I was talking to a friend of mine whose opinions I respect intensely when I mentioned that, amongst other things, having seen John Barrowman in pantomime recently for the past two years I wondered why he felt it necessary to constantly ad lib about being gay. I was castigated for being intolerant when I suggested that that was neither necessary nor appropriate. To have it suggested to me that the pantomime was all about promoting heterosexuality (which was the gist of the arguement) was something I found difficult to accept without question – and not just because Don McLean in drag is not the world’s most alluring sex symbol, whatever your sexuality!
There IS a serious point to this little scenario. My point was valid – note that I don not say it was necessarily correct. It was valid because it was right that I should have the right to feel I could raise an issue – right OR wrong. To have my comment dismissed as being intolerant would itself have been an act of intolerance wrapped up in a veneer of tolerance. Thankfully it wasn’t but it came dangerously close to that. I say ‘dangerous’ because that does happen and when it does it stifles valid debate and in so doing actually belittles the very issue or cause it purports to defend.
We must fight against that as vigorously as we fight against bigotry. Here i will hold up my hand and say that I consider myself to be ‘liberal’ but prone, at times, to lapsing into sweeping and unjustified statements/views. HOWEVER, I am prepared to acknowledge that and want to learn from such mistakes. That is a huge plus compared to those so-called ‘liberals’ who won’t tolerate debate, accept that people amke mistakes (even them) or are prepared to consider that any other view has a right to be heard.
I believe that one is only a true liberal if one is capeable of an open mind. A closed mind is as harmful as bigotry or prejudice – which brings me back to my opening question: the difference between the extreem left and the extreem right is NOTHING – both abhor debate, different opinions and preach totalitarianism. Hoorah to those of us brave enough to think freely and express it – even if we are wrong at times for without us there will be no tolerance.
PS – mental block, I can spell ‘extreme’ – (Honest!).
I agree entirely, Charlie, on the subject of intolerance posing as tolerance. If we live in a democratic society, we do have to allow people to air their views, whether or not we agree with them.
I personally am enraged that it is impossible to say anything that is not politically correct, even if it is correct. The Met point out that they stop and search a lot more young black men than white because statistically the vast majority of knife crime is caused by young black men. But if you say that, you are howled down for being racist. Undoubtedly there IS a lot of racism in institutions like the Met, but as a potential victim of crime, I would rather the police work with the statistics than wasting their limited time on areas unlikely to prove helpful, just to appease the pc community.
It’s a very difficult conundrum.
I think we are all guilty of making sweeping generalisations (my most common one is “Daily Mail readers” – who will, in reality be a very diverse range of people, despite my prejudices). However, I do wonder why I hear people (very few in my circle, thankfully) commenting negatively about gay humour, when I have never heard anyone complain about humour pushing heterosexuality. If the same people were complaining about both, it may be that they dislike any humour on the subject of sex, but this doesn’t appear to be the case.
When men make jokes about their wives or girlfriends, or women make jokes about their husbands or boyfriends, I’ve heard that type of humour being criticised as sexist occasionally, but *never* criticised for pushing heterosexuality. Why then, is gay humour criticised by some for pushing homosexuality? It may not necessarily be intolerance, but it certainbly seems to be double standards.
I don’t think this has anything to do with political correctness – just about having a level playing field. If straight people can make jokes about their relationships, why can’t gay people?
Twitter: evenbreak
As usual a very thought provoking blog, the sentiments of which I thoroughly support in the main: however, I think the third example perhaps merits a bit of thought rather than simple acquiescence.
To start I would pose this question; what is the difference between the extreem left and extreem right?
By way of leading to my answer I am reminded of a situation that was not dissimilar to Jane’s and which happened to me recently. I was talking to a friend of mine whose opinions I respect intensely when I mentioned that, amongst other things, having seen John Barrowman in pantomime recently for the past two years I wondered why he felt it necessary to constantly ad lib about being gay. I was castigated for being intolerant when I suggested that that was neither necessary nor appropriate. To have it suggested to me that the pantomime was all about promoting heterosexuality (which was the gist of the arguement) was something I found difficult to accept without question – and not just because Don McLean in drag is not the world’s most alluring sex symbol, whatever your sexuality!
There IS a serious point to this little scenario. My point was valid – note that I don not say it was necessarily correct. It was valid because it was right that I should have the right to feel I could raise an issue – right OR wrong. To have my comment dismissed as being intolerant would itself have been an act of intolerance wrapped up in a veneer of tolerance. Thankfully it wasn’t but it came dangerously close to that. I say ‘dangerous’ because that does happen and when it does it stifles valid debate and in so doing actually belittles the very issue or cause it purports to defend.
We must fight against that as vigorously as we fight against bigotry. Here i will hold up my hand and say that I consider myself to be ‘liberal’ but prone, at times, to lapsing into sweeping and unjustified statements/views. HOWEVER, I am prepared to acknowledge that and want to learn from such mistakes. That is a huge plus compared to those so-called ‘liberals’ who won’t tolerate debate, accept that people amke mistakes (even them) or are prepared to consider that any other view has a right to be heard.
I believe that one is only a true liberal if one is capeable of an open mind. A closed mind is as harmful as bigotry or prejudice – which brings me back to my opening question: the difference between the extreem left and the extreem right is NOTHING – both abhor debate, different opinions and preach totalitarianism. Hoorah to those of us brave enough to think freely and express it – even if we are wrong at times for without us there will be no tolerance.
PS – mental block, I can spell ‘extreme’ – (Honest!).
I agree entirely, Charlie, on the subject of intolerance posing as tolerance. If we live in a democratic society, we do have to allow people to air their views, whether or not we agree with them.
I personally am enraged that it is impossible to say anything that is not politically correct, even if it is correct. The Met point out that they stop and search a lot more young black men than white because statistically the vast majority of knife crime is caused by young black men. But if you say that, you are howled down for being racist. Undoubtedly there IS a lot of racism in institutions like the Met, but as a potential victim of crime, I would rather the police work with the statistics than wasting their limited time on areas unlikely to prove helpful, just to appease the pc community.
It’s a very difficult conundrum.
I think we are all guilty of making sweeping generalisations (my most common one is “Daily Mail readers” – who will, in reality be a very diverse range of people, despite my prejudices). However, I do wonder why I hear people (very few in my circle, thankfully) commenting negatively about gay humour, when I have never heard anyone complain about humour pushing heterosexuality. If the same people were complaining about both, it may be that they dislike any humour on the subject of sex, but this doesn’t appear to be the case.
When men make jokes about their wives or girlfriends, or women make jokes about their husbands or boyfriends, I’ve heard that type of humour being criticised as sexist occasionally, but *never* criticised for pushing heterosexuality. Why then, is gay humour criticised by some for pushing homosexuality? It may not necessarily be intolerance, but it certainbly seems to be double standards.
I don’t think this has anything to do with political correctness – just about having a level playing field. If straight people can make jokes about their relationships, why can’t gay people?
Twitter: evenbreak
Thanks for this post, I’m openly gay myself, and a fan of your work.
It’s interesting what people deem uncomfortable or pushing an agenda, such as holding hands, etc. We should all want happiness, peace and love for one another, if people who are homophobic or uncomfortable with gay relationships would realize that not even 150 years ago, people were uncomfortable with interracial relationships and women voting.
Thanks again for your support -
Sincerely,
Bambi Weavil
OutImpact.com – Making a positive impact in the gay community. Make yours.
Thank you Bambi – yes, I’d like to think that our minds will open in this area like they have in terms of women voting or interracial relationships (although I’m aware of a great deal of intolerance there as well).
I can see, back then, that men might have felt threatened about women voting, or that some ethnic groups might have felt concern about their race being “diluted” (neither of which concerns came to fruition, of course), but, like Elaine (below) I fail to comprehend why anyone would have a problem with same sex couples. How is that threatening anyone?
Twitter: evenbreak
Thanks for this post, I’m openly gay myself, and a fan of your work.
It’s interesting what people deem uncomfortable or pushing an agenda, such as holding hands, etc. We should all want happiness, peace and love for one another, if people who are homophobic or uncomfortable with gay relationships would realize that not even 150 years ago, people were uncomfortable with interracial relationships and women voting.
Thanks again for your support -
Sincerely,
Bambi Weavil
OutImpact.com – Making a positive impact in the gay community. Make yours.
Thank you Bambi – yes, I’d like to think that our minds will open in this area like they have in terms of women voting or interracial relationships (although I’m aware of a great deal of intolerance there as well).
I can see, back then, that men might have felt threatened about women voting, or that some ethnic groups might have felt concern about their race being “diluted” (neither of which concerns came to fruition, of course), but, like Elaine (below) I fail to comprehend why anyone would have a problem with same sex couples. How is that threatening anyone?
Twitter: evenbreak
I simply don’t understand homophobia – what is that people are so threatened by? It is only social and religious ‘rules’ that create these attitudes. If you take social rules than society could just as easily accept same sex relationships as reject them – I don’t understand on what basis they are rejected. It’s often a circular argument – the basis on which people reject it is because their society (i.e peers, family, media etc) says they should – but if those influencers accepted same sex relationships then so would they. Often if you ask people on what basis they think same sex relationships are unacceptable, they are unable to give any substantial or objective reason, other than to say it’s “not normal” – whatever normal is!
As for religion, I find it harder to deal with this as I am unfamiliar with the bible – but I do wander again why they are so concerned and threatened by it? There are so many serious issues in the world, why on earth are same sex relationship so high on their agenda?
Personally I believe that labels are in themselves a bad thing and that we are all too concerned with defining sexuality. People are attracted to/fall in love with, other people. Who cares what sex they are as long as there is a loving, happy, personally fulfilling relationship involved? Love is love is love….
Yes, I agree Elaine. I actually believe that we’re all somewhere on a continuum between 100% straight and 100% gay – it isn’t as black and white as it seems. What matters is the quality of the relationship, not the respective genders.
Twitter: evenbreak
I agree as well – love is love is love. That’s the key thing and will overcome prejudice – be that bigotry or faux tolerance.
I simply don’t understand homophobia – what is that people are so threatened by? It is only social and religious ‘rules’ that create these attitudes. If you take social rules than society could just as easily accept same sex relationships as reject them – I don’t understand on what basis they are rejected. It’s often a circular argument – the basis on which people reject it is because their society (i.e peers, family, media etc) says they should – but if those influencers accepted same sex relationships then so would they. Often if you ask people on what basis they think same sex relationships are unacceptable, they are unable to give any substantial or objective reason, other than to say it’s “not normal” – whatever normal is!
As for religion, I find it harder to deal with this as I am unfamiliar with the bible – but I do wander again why they are so concerned and threatened by it? There are so many serious issues in the world, why on earth are same sex relationship so high on their agenda?
Personally I believe that labels are in themselves a bad thing and that we are all too concerned with defining sexuality. People are attracted to/fall in love with, other people. Who cares what sex they are as long as there is a loving, happy, personally fulfilling relationship involved? Love is love is love….
Yes, I agree Elaine. I actually believe that we’re all somewhere on a continuum between 100% straight and 100% gay – it isn’t as black and white as it seems. What matters is the quality of the relationship, not the respective genders.
Twitter: evenbreak
I agree as well – love is love is love. That’s the key thing and will overcome prejudice – be that bigotry or faux tolerance.
True about the therapy world Jane, it was an issue in my last training. I doubt very much whether you will find many holistic, or person centred therapists who hold the view that homosexuality can be 'fixed.' This is because the aforesaid kind of therapy is all about acceptance, celebration difference and diversity, not controlling others, not being judgmental and respecting the inherent organicity, or meaningfulness of Others. Psychologists, Psychiatrists, people who do CBT and a lot of other 'therapists' in the NHS are firmly there to Fix people. They don't have to work on themselves.This kind of arrogance is abhorrent, but sadly some people are better at passing exams than others and this is who the NHS is employing these days.
I have re read the other comments, I work with a lot of gay people of both genders and I think I have some insight. The problem is that gay people are People first, and they make mistakes.
It's no fun being in this kind of minority. I have no proof of this, but my experience of gay people, including the two in my family, by the way, is that the constant insecurity about their position and the inevitable bullying and crap they have to put up with creates a baseline hostility which comes to the surface pretty readily.
A major problem with homosexual men is that sexual preference, in the minds of ignorant people, gets mixed up with being a functional male. This is rarely true, but straight men have been brought up by ignorant fathers who define themselves through their ability to Be Men, whatever that means.
A lot of homophobia is about percieving homosexual men to be feminine: eg, less, unequal, weak, pansy etc etc.
This is very difficult for gay men, because people need to be educated. Gay men are just as physically strong, aggressive, instinctually 'men' and have just as much testosterone as straight me.
Unfortunately, again, gay people are People and make mistakes. Another mistake is to role play, this is still going on among younger male gay couples I see in couple therapy. I try to flag up that outsiders will be contemptuous when they notice that one of the couple is 'the man' and one is 'the woman.' It's not necessary to role play, I do not know the reason this happens but it does alter the perception of a gay man who is overly camp. My relative went on holiday with a very camp gay friend recently and said after a couple of days HE hated gays, as the behaviour was just too outrageous. This is often more a personality issue, not a sexual preference issue.