Homophobia: How Prejudice Is Built and Persists

Homophobia is not limited to insults, physical attacks, or laws that punish relationships between people of the same sex. It can also take ordinary forms: a repeated joke, a comment about a voice or appearance deemed “not masculine enough,” or the idea that a family can only fit one single model.

These reflexes are not necessarily conscious. They are rooted in social norms learned very early on, then reinforced by one’s social circle, culture, school, media, and certain religious or political representations. Identifying them does not mean denying the seriousness of homophobic violence; on the contrary, it is a step toward understanding how such violence becomes possible.

Heteronormativity: an often invisible norm

Philosopher Cynthia Fleury refers to “normalized ways of thinking”: stereotypes absorbed without always being questioned. In many societies, heterosexuality is presented as self-evident and as the expected framework for emotional life. The union of a man and a woman is then wrongly treated as the only model considered normal.

This norm is spread through seemingly harmless details. Children’s stories have traditionally featured a prince and a princess. Certain toys, clothes, or activities remain associated with a specific gender. Common expressions and mockery constantly reinforce what is supposedly acceptable for boys and girls.

Social psychology professor Annalisa Casini links this mechanism to an ideology of social dominance. It is based in particular on patriarchy, gender binarism, and heteronormativity. In this logic, people who depart from the expectations assigned to their gender or sexual orientation may be devalued, called to order, or exposed to violence.

The term homonegativity is used to refer to negative attitudes toward homosexual people, including when they are not expressed through explicit aggression. A joke, a humiliating label, or a normalized remark can help create a climate in which exclusion appears normal.

A history of successive condemnations

The idea that homosexuality has been naturally and universally condemned does not withstand historical scrutiny. In ancient Greek, Roman, and Egyptian societies, sexual and social realities were diverse. This does not mean those societies reflected a contemporary vision of equality, but homosexuality was not always understood through the moral categories that became dominant later on.

A major turning point came with the establishment of religious norms making procreation the legitimate purpose of sexuality. In the Christian tradition, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was long used against homosexuality. Yet the interpretation referred to here emphasizes that the Book of Genesis first condemns violence, the attempted rape of strangers, and the refusal of hospitality.

In the 4th century, Augustine of Hippo helped associate Sodom with homosexuality. This interpretation durably reinforced the idea that sexual relations not directed toward procreation constituted an offense against divine order. During the Middle Ages, religious condemnation gradually turned into legal repression.

In 1532, the legal code promulgated under Charles V in the Holy Roman Empire classified sodomy and lesbianism among serious spiritual crimes punishable by burning at the stake. In France, Jean Diot and Bruno Lenoir were executed in Paris in 1750; they are described as the last men burned alive in the country for homosexuality. The French Revolution subsequently decriminalized sodomy in 1791.

When medicine and the state took over

Decriminalization did not end discrimination. In the 19th century, the rise of modern psychiatry shifted homosexuality from the category of sin to that of illness. Practices claiming to “cure” homosexual people developed. The vocabulary changed, but the aim remained to bring individuals back into an imposed norm.

Homosexuality remained classified as a mental illness in the American diagnostic manual until 1980, and in the World Health Organization’s classifications until 1990. These dates are a reminder of how recent certain institutional advances are.

In the 20th century, several states pursued policies of persecution. In Nazi Germany, homosexuality was portrayed by those in power as a danger to a nation imagined as virile and reproductive. Between 10,000 and 15,000 homosexual people were deported to concentration camps, where they were subjected to torture and medical experiments.

In the USSR, Stalin recriminalized homosexuality in 1934, associating it with bourgeois decadence or an alleged fascist perversion. In the United States, during McCarthyism, the “Lavender Scare” led to the dismissal of thousands of homosexual civil servants and military personnel, or people suspected of being homosexual, who were considered vulnerable to blackmail.

The Stonewall riots in New York in 1969 subsequently became a symbol of modern mobilization for LGBT+ rights. They belong to a broader history of struggles against discrimination, which can also be considered alongside, without conflating them, campaigns such as Martin Luther King Jr.’s fight against segregation and for civil rights.

HIV, criminalization, and health consequences

In the early 1980s, the first identified HIV cases notably affected gay communities in the United States and Europe. Some media outlets then used expressions such as “gay cancer” or “gay plague.” Certain religious leaders publicly portrayed the epidemic as divine punishment. This stigmatization reinforced already entrenched prejudice, even though the virus affected the entire population.

According to the ILGA World report published in 2024 and cited in the available material, 64 UN member states still criminalize homosexual relationships; in seven of them, the death penalty may be imposed. In Africa, 31 out of 54 countries criminalize such relationships according to the data mentioned.

The argument that homosexuality is a Western import is challenged by Christian Romo, a human rights advocate at Amnesty International. He points out that homosexual practices existed in African societies before colonization. Conversely, many current repressive laws stem from British or French colonial codes.

This criminalization also complicates HIV prevention and care. Fear of being arrested, attacked, or exposed can keep those concerned away from testing and health centers. The issue is therefore not only legal: it also becomes a health and social issue.

Conversion therapy: violence based on a false promise

Conversion therapies are based on the mistaken idea that a sexual orientation could or should be changed. They are sometimes organized in religious settings. The practices referred to range from psychological pressure to severe forms of abuse, including electroshock treatment, deprivation, forced stays, or so-called “corrective” rape.

Belgium banned these practices in 2023, as did France, Cyprus, Germany, Malta, Portugal, Spain, and Greece. However, their prohibition is not clearly established in every European Union state. A European citizens’ initiative that collected more than one million signatures called for an EU-wide ban, but the European Commission stated that it did not have the legal authority to impose one on member states.

Why the “LGBT lobby” narrative is misleading

In the broad sense, the term “lobby” refers to a group seeking to influence public policy. Trade unions, employers’ organizations, environmental NGOs, industries, and advocacy groups all engage in influence activities to varying degrees. LGBT+ organizations can therefore advocate for rights before institutions, just as conservative or religious organizations defend their own positions.

The problem arises when the expression “LGBT lobby” suggests the existence of a secret, unified, all-powerful organization controlling the media, schools, or governments. This rhetoric turns people and organizations facing discrimination into a collective threat. Sociologist Sylvie Tissot describes a process that presents minority groups as dominant in order to justify hostility toward them.

ILGA-Europe, often cited in this type of discourse, uses its funding in particular to support local organizations, protect activists in danger, bring legal challenges against discriminatory laws, and publish the Rainbow Map, a ranking of LGBT+ rights in Europe. These activities fall under nonprofit advocacy and are presented as such.

Debates on relationship, emotional, and sex education also illustrate tensions surrounding these issues. In Belgium, the EVRAS program prompted opposition in 2023, even though its content notably addresses consent, tolerance, and emotional life. Confusing information with indoctrination fuels fear rather than discussion based on facts.

Questioning one’s prejudice without minimizing violence

Recognizing that a prejudice has been learned does not mean accepting it. Internalized norms can be questioned: why do a voice, a garment, a gender expression, or a couple sometimes provoke discomfort or rejection? What images of love and family have been passed on?

This vigilance is all the more important because stereotypes also affect other areas of relationship life. Relationships between people perceived as different are often reduced to fantasies or outside judgments, as this discussion of the distinction between attraction and fetishization in interracial couples shows.

Combating homophobia means rejecting overt violence, but also dismantling the more subtle mechanisms that prepare the ground for it: gender hierarchies, stereotypes, suspicion toward minorities, and conspiracy narratives. Equality does not mean imposing a sexual orientation or identity; it means allowing everyone to live without being humiliated, punished, or put in danger for who they are.

FAQ on homophobia

Is homophobia limited to physical attacks?

No. It can take the form of insults, jokes, stereotypes, exclusion, workplace or family discrimination, as well as laws that penalize relationships between people of the same sex.

Why was homosexuality long considered an illness?

In the 19th century, part of the psychiatric field classified homosexuality among mental illnesses. This classification was abandoned: it was removed from the American diagnostic manual in 1980 and from the World Health Organization’s classifications in 1990.

Do LGBT+ organizations form a single, secret “lobby”?

Organizations engage in public advocacy to defend LGBT+ rights, just as many other groups defend their interests or convictions. Portraying this diverse set of organizations as a secret body controlling society is a conspiracy narrative, not an evidence-based observation.