“Endless analysis of the degree of homophobia or other motivations of distinguished commentators on this blog is not called for…”

I could not agree more, TS. That’s why I laid out a possible content analysis study, to show how it would be done, but did not do it. Dan seems to be confused about this. Since I did not execute the study discussed, because it would not have been appropriate here, he states that this means I am unable to do so and could not provide evidence of his, or of Andrew Sullivan’s homophobia. This is an incorrect assumption and needs to be corrected for the record. I could apply the analysis discussed to either our friend Dan, or to our enemy Andrew.

But the degree of homophobia is not as relevant as its continued presence amongst gay men, and they way it tends to distort their views — both of the gay community, and of society at large. For Sullivan, it rears its ugly head in his politics, for others, it rears its ugly head in reckless generalities that disallow for the obvious heterogeneity present in any human community. Internalized homophobia emerges in multiple ways, but it is always damaging to the person carrying it, and oftentimes, to those around them. It perhaps is the most relevant concept when discussing Sullivan’s work — a point on which it appears we agree.

Dear and most worthy NHM, discussion of Andrew Sullivan’s motives is relevant, agreed, since he is a public figure playing a role of influence in this affair and it can be argued that he should behave in a more intelligent and responsible fashion, and the question is, why he does not.

Endless analysis of the degree of homophobia or other motivations of distinguished commentators on this blog is not called for, however, since the topic is the science and the politics of the science, and not what distinctly smacks of navel examination camouflaged as projection.

Many people object to the incessant peddling of defensive narcissism by all too many gays with their ready accusations of homophobia at the drop of a hat even though it may well be only a natural outcome of the minority politics of bigotry suffered, and perfectly understandable. But the ironic result is often homophobia where it was initially absent.

That is why we have asked repeatedly that accusations of homophobia within this blog be curtailed, as distracting, unprovable, and alienating.

Externally directed, at far off targets, fine. Ricocheting off the walls of this refuge from insanity, endangering the peace of mind of other participants, risking boredom, not.

Let the finely wrought wheels of your mind turn on other ways to contribute the munificent benefits of your expertise and long acquaintance with the central problem addressed by this blog, if you will.

Dan: If you do decide to call anybody a homophobe, this thread shows that you’re unable to back up that accusation.

A little experiment. Let’s see how it goes. We’ll substitute “observation” in place of “accusation”.

If you do decide to call anybody a homophobe, this thread shows that you’re unable to back up that observation.

Yep. Still works.

And again — I have apologized for calling you a homophobe. I have said that you suffer from internalized homophobia, and that YOU, yourself, could scientifically investigate that, since you don’t believe me, and I showed you exactly how to do that.

Seems to me the hot air is blowing from your direction.

And, I would submit, that any discussion of Andrew Sullivan would necessarily include a discussion of internalized homophobia. After all, he is a Conservative Gay Republican. Internalized homophobia is very much topical in this thread.