>I wonder if I were in another country, how would they feel?
Our politicians have been telling us for decades a moral story that goes like this:
-The world is divided between oppressors (evil people) and the oppressed (victims).
-Oppressors exploit the oppressed for personal (usually financial) gain.
-Even if you don't know it, you are either a victim or an oppressor.
Gays are considered oppressed, so if you don't like gays you are on the side of oppressors. Although it is supposed you would benefit from not liking gays, it is not clearly explained how.
Politicians (but also activists, academics, social workers etc.) inflate this problem to incredible proportions and then try to convince you that they are the solution. This is how they are able to secure influence, funding, votes and so on.
This story is very popular in western society, especially among gullible people with high empathy. For example, women.
This is why this poster
>>135112 told you to ask your girlfriend. He (or she) thought your gf might already have a strong opinion on homophobia, just like many western women do.
She probably hoped to use your girlfriend's opinion to make an argument on how homophobia is bad because it makes your girlfriend sad. You can see how dismissive she becomes here
>>135117 when she realizes your gf doesn't care about it, but still tries to make you feel bad ("nobody cares what you think, so don't even bring this up again").
Finally, because some people benefit from making the problem bigger and bigger, the definition of homophobia keeps expanding. First it was about beating gays and criminalizing their personal choices, now it's also simply about not liking gays, to the point some people think you're a monster if you merely dislike them.
I personally think you should try to treat everyone with respect, but also don't worry too much about buzzwords and propaganda.
I hope this has been useful in understanding the topic of "homophobia" in the west.