NationStates Jolt Archive

Homophobia
Fear of sameness, monotony or of homosexuality or of becoming homosexual.

The term homophobia often seems to be misused. How scary is gayness? Ridiculous maybe but not scary.


I am not against people being gay (altho the act does seem a bit violent), go ahead if you must, but damn stop with slapping the old homophobe tag around as soon as there is even the slightest hint of anti-gayness.

:rolleyes:

I'm boycotting homophobia.

Homophobia
Fear of sameness, monotony or of homosexuality or of becoming homosexual.

The term homophobia often seems to be misused. How scary is gayness? Many homophobes are anti-gay because they think if they're anti-gay then they won't have to face their own homosexual tendencies.


I am not against people being gay (altho the act does seem a bit violent), Which act is this? Being gay isn't an action.

Arz,
Try looking up 'heterosexism'

Anal sex is violent?

Hakartopiaphobia:

The belief that Hakar should be slapped with a salted salmon.


Stop opressing me. What have I ever done to you? :(

Homophobia (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=homophobia)

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

See, it doesn't just mean "fear of". Any other definition you want me to look up?

go ahead if you must, but damn stop with slapping the old homophobe tag around as soon as there is even the slightest hint of anti-gayness.

No.

Anal sex is violent?

does seem = makes me cringe. I do understand other people might really enjoy it tho.

Homophobia (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=homophobia)

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

See, it doesn't just mean "fear of". Any other definition you want me to look up?

In it's most literal form it means 'fear of the same' (homo=same phobia=fear)

yes? no?

I love how people try to avoid this term so their bigotry doesn't sound as bad. Here. Look at another dictionary definition of the term, and you will find that indeed, the word homophobe is an accurate description after all.

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

No, it's not just fear of. It's aversion to or discrimination against. As in, a person who simply doesn't like homosexuals, and discriminates against them.

Edit: damn, Fass beat me to it...but maybe reading it twice will help it sink in? Yeah, I doubt it too.

Homophobia (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=homophobia)

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

See, it doesn't just mean "fear of". Any other definition you want me to look up?
Thank ya ... was going to do the same lol glad I read before posting lol

In it's most literal form it means 'fear of the same' (homo=same phobia=fear)

In its most literal form "sandwich" would have something to do with sand, or the Swedish word "smörgåsbord" would mean "table of butter geese" and not "buffet," but it just so happens that etymology does not necessarily dictate the meanings of words. Language is not that poor a construction, fortunately.

In its most literal form "sandwich" would have something to do with sand, or the Swedish word "smörgåsbord" would mean "table of butter geese" and not "buffet," but it just so happens that etymology does not necessarily dictate the meanings of words. Language is not that poor a construction, fortunately.

Sandwich is named after Sandwich, England, sir.

Sandwich is named after Sandwich, England, sir.

Kinda like homophobia is named after people who don't like homosexuals?

Sandwich is named after Sandwich, England, sir.
Well it was named after the earl not the town

Fourth Earl of Sandwich (1718-1792)

:p :fluffle:

(his title might have been derived from the town but the sandwitch was named after him the person)

yeah, The word 'sandwich' for an item of food was possibly named after John Montagu who was the 4th Earl of Sandwich. It is said that in approx.1762, he asked for meat to be served between slices of bread, to avoid interrupting a gambling game.

(... I wonder if the Earl of sandwich was homosexual?)

Kinda like homophobia is named after people who don't like homosexuals?

yes but Homosexuals seem to label people THEY don't like homophobes.

yes but Homosexuals seem to label people THEY don't like homophobes.

Really? And all they did was try and prevent them from marrying right?

does seem = makes me cringe. I do understand other people might really enjoy it tho.

Does heterosexual vaginal penetration seem as violent to you? Does it also make you cringe?

Sandwich is named after Sandwich, England, sir.

And what is Sandwich (I thought it was a Count or Earl or whatever, by the by) itself named after? Think about it.

Homophobia (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=homophobia)

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

See, it doesn't just mean "fear of". Any other definition you want me to look up?



in "homophobia", (placing the comma outside the quotation because the comma is not part of the word homophobia... MLA/NY Times/AP Style are all wrong. hehe) the "phobia" portion of the word is a suffix.

So here's a definition for phobia when used as a suffix:

-phobia
suff.

An intense, abnormal, or illogical fear of a specified thing: claustrophobia.

So homophobia is an intense, abnormal, or illogical fear of homosexuality.

I keep telling people, I am NOT homophobic, I am NOT scared of them, disgusted and sickened and knowing that is is very very wrong yes, bur scared, no.

yes but Homosexuals seem to label people THEY don't like homophobes.

Imagine that! Next thing you're gonna tell me is that Jews don't like anti-Semites, or that black people don't like racists... :rolleyes:

No, it's not just fear of. It's aversion to or discrimination against. As in, a person who simply doesn't like homosexuals, and discriminates against them.

Erm. Actually, it's doesn't like OR discriminates (the two aren't mutally inclusive) and it's aversion / discrimination towards homosexuality (the... er... act? sexual preference? can't find the right word here) OR homosexuals (the person). And it's a different thing to have an aversion to an attribute than to discriminate against a person.

Seems there are degrees of homophobia to me.

I keep telling people, I am NOT homophobic, I am NOT scared of them, disgusted and sickened and knowing that is is very very wrong yes, bur scared, no.

Qualifying as aversion. You, sir, are homophobic.

And what is Sandwich (I thought it was a Count or Earl or whatever, by the by) itself named after? Think about it.

From homophobia to sandwich origins in only two pages. This is why I love NS :p

You'll also find that most times someone genuinely finds something to be "very, very wrong", those feelings usually stem from fear, eithe direct or indirect, of that thing.

I think the issue is with people's interpretation of homophobic as always implying discriminatory. Yes, according to the dictionary definition, Manstrom is homophobic (because of the aversion thing). Does that make him discriminatory? Not necessarily. Again, the definition and the perception of a word can be different.

You'll also find that most times someone genuinely finds something to be "very, very wrong", those feelings usually stem from fear, eithe direct or indirect, of that thing.

Not necessarily. Belief systems come from all sorts of places, not just fear.

Imagine that! Next thing you're gonna tell me is that Jews don't like anti-Semites, or that black people don't like racists... :rolleyes:
Actually, the white-supremist argument about the word 'anti-semite' is that the Jews and the Arabs are actually both considered Semites, and since "we only hate Jews, not Arabs" they can't be called that :rolleyes: That's another gem.

Homophobia (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=homophobia)

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

See, it doesn't just mean "fear of". Any other definition you want me to look up?
Hmm. That's a lot broader definition than I would have thought. Does the term "irrational" apply to all three subordinate terms ( fear, aversion , discrimination )? If so, what would "rational fear, aversion, or discrimination" be?? Weird.

So would you call someone who has ( so far as he knows ) no prejudice against homosexuals, but who isn't "bi-curious," a homophobe?

It seems to me as if labelling someone a "homophobe" is tatamount to an insult, and that insulting someone who is favorably inclined toward you wouldn't be the best idea.

Not necessarily. Belief systems come from all sorts of places, not just fear.

I would dispute that.

Erm. Actually, it's doesn't like OR discriminates (the two aren't mutally inclusive) and it's aversion / discrimination towards homosexuality (the... er... act? sexual preference? can't find the right word here) OR homosexuals (the person). And it's a different thing to have an aversion to an attribute than to discriminate against a person.

Seems there are degrees of homophobia to me.
I said "Doesn't like AND discriminates against" for a reason. There are people out there who are deeply uncomfortable with homosexuality, but who nonetheless do not discriminate against homosexuals. These people overcome their aversion, and I would not consider them to be homophobic.

And what is Sandwich (I thought it was a Count or Earl or whatever, by the by) itself named after? Think about it.

Not the place, if that is what you are driving at. The seat of the Earl is in Dorset, and Dorset contains no place called Sandwich. There is a place called Sandwich in Kent, but that is about 150 miles away.

It seems to me as if labelling someone a "homophobe" is tatamount to an insult, and that insulting someone who is favorably inclined toward you wouldn't be the best idea.
Oh I don't know, I've always assumed calling a bigot a bigot isn't an insult, it's a warning lable.

I said "Doesn't like AND discriminates against" for a reason. There are people out there who are deeply uncomfortable with homosexuality, but who nonetheless do not discriminate against homosexuals. These people overcome their aversion, and I would not consider them to be homophobic.

Fair point.

What if a person has a standard outside of what they "feel"? What if they try to live their entire life under this standard? What if their standard is the Bible, not just a feeling. The Bible says that homosexual acts are wrong. The Bible never says that being a homosexual is wrong, just that same sex intercourse is wrong. This is similar to alcoholism. Getting drunk is wrong, not being a sober alcoholic. Someone might say that a person who tries to follow the Word of God is homophobic. There is no fear of homosexuals in following the Bible! There is only a standard. Is having a standard homophobic?

Hmm. That's a lot broader definition than I would have thought. Does the term "irrational" apply to all three subordinate terms ( fear, aversion , discrimination )? If so, what would "rational fear, aversion, or discrimination" be?? Weird.

So would you call someone who has ( so far as he knows ) no prejudice against homosexuals, but who isn't "bi-curious," a homophobe?

It seems to me as if labelling someone a "homophobe" is tatamount to an insult, and that insulting someone who is favorably inclined toward you wouldn't be the best idea.
I don't think someone has to be an out and out supporter of homosexuals to avoid this label. Just like someone may be a bit uncomfortable around black people, and not be a racist, just underexposed, or a bit ignorant (not in a perjorative sense) about blacks.

What I find interesting is that the only thing that really defines homosexuals is who they have sex with. Homosexuality crosses all other boundaries of ethnicity, gender, age, nationality and so on. If we didn't make such a big deal about sex, and who has sex with who, homosexuals would cease to be a 'group' apart from the 'rest of us'. And don't compare that to ethnicity or nationality. It's not quite the same.

Oh I don't know, I've always assumed calling a bigot a bigot isn't an insult, it's a warning lable.

big·ot

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

But the broader definition of Homophobe which Eutrusca was referring to doesn't fit under this category, because it doesn't imply intolerance.

Anyway - I think we're getting lost in semantics. And you can get into trouble for being anti-semantic these days... :p

the Swedish word "smörgåsbord" would mean "table of butter geese"
Please don't make me laugh at work. It's naughty. They whip us if we laugh :(

What if a person has a standard outside of what they "feel"? What if they try to live their entire life under this standard? What if their standard is the Bible, not just a feeling. The Bible says that homosexual acts are wrong. The Bible never says that being a homosexual is wrong, just that same sex intercourse is wrong. This is similar to alcoholism. Getting drunk is wrong, not being a sober alcoholic. Someone might say that a person who tries to follow the Word of God is homophobic. There is no fear of homosexuals in following the Bible! There is only a standard. Is having a standard homophobic?
Not really, because there are many interpretations of how to 'deal' with homosexuals according to the Christian faith. Some people use the Bible to justify blind hatred. Others 'hate the sin but love the sinner', and others 'judge not lest [they] be judged'. There is a wide range, not a single 'standard'. There may be ONE word of God...but there is no one interpretation of how to follow that God.

As long as you do not persecute, in speech or action, you can believe what you like about homosexuals or any other group, and not really be acting out bigotry.

Well, it seems lots of people are just looking for a target so that they can place their stereotyping label on them...

Since I have lots of aversions to various things, I suppose that means you can all place your name calling on me, I'm a pedophobe, terrorphobe, scumbagphobe, jackassaphobe, homophobe, bigotaphobe, depravaphobe, corruptaphobe, rapeaphobe and decadentaphobe as well as many other phobias of things that allude me presently…

Oh I don't know, I've always assumed calling a bigot a bigot isn't an insult, it's a warning lable.

Indeed. If a person is truly proud of their beliefs, they should wear the label like a badge of pride.

I'm a pedophobe,

Aversion to children?

Indeed. If a person is truly proud of their beliefs, they should wear the label like a badge of pride.

Unless the belief is in modesty, I presume.

I'm a pedophobe

Or aversion to feet?

Aversion to children?

Aversion to Pedophiles :p

....decadentaphobe…

Aversion to 10 teeth? :p

Aversion to 10 teeth? :p


Aversion to Decadents :D

What if a person has a standard outside of what they "feel"? What if they try to live their entire life under this standard? What if their standard is the Bible, not just a feeling. The Bible says that homosexual acts are wrong. The Bible never says that being a homosexual is wrong, just that same sex intercourse is wrong. This is similar to alcoholism. Getting drunk is wrong, not being a sober alcoholic. Someone might say that a person who tries to follow the Word of God is homophobic. There is no fear of homosexuals in following the Bible! There is only a standard. Is having a standard homophobic?

Everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs of course, which means that they are free to have no religious beliefs. From a non-religious perspective there is nothing whatsoever immoral about homosexuality, so discrimination is still homophobia. The main difference is in whether you act on your beliefs. Not liking something is perfectly fine but discrimination isn't.

Aversion to Decadents :D

Sadly then, we're not destined to be friends

Aversion to children?
Hmm, that would make me a pedophobe.
They're all icky, and noisy, and... Ugh.
*shudders

Aversion to 10 teeth?
More whipping :(

Sadly then, we're not destined to be friends

lol :D

But the broader definition of Homophobe which Eutrusca was referring to doesn't fit under this category, because it doesn't imply intolerance. In includes discrimination, which is a part of intolerance.

In any case, I'm more concerned with attempts to try and change the use of homophobia as homophobes dislike being called it as it exposses them for what they are (and no, Eutrusca, I do not mean you at all, I'm expanding upon your excellent point though).

Anyway - I think we're getting lost in semantics. And you can get into trouble for being anti-semantic these days... :p
*groans* 10 points from Gryffindor for THAT pun!

I am intrested to know why people are homophobic, whatever the definiton in our nemerous online/paper based dictionary refrences. Just saying "because I know it is wrong" is really not good enough! Why are you homophobic, where does it come from and what are you so scared of?

With regards to the post saying that male & male sex (anal) is vilolent - I'm not sure where that comes (so 2 speak) from? A number of hetro couples enjoy anal sex - in addition to that medically (for want of a better word) Males have a lot of nerves/sexual responses (and so on - not sure of the right term!) in the anus, and but plugs and so on bring a lot of sexual enjoyment (so I have heard!)

My last question is - it seems that a number of homophobic "people" seem 2 have the most problem with Gay males - and do not seem to have such "angry/phobic" thoughts/ideal/ideas towards gay females? Why is this? I'm intrested in this and any answers as a Lez female.

So I guess I'm really asking why, for thoes out there that are homophobic, you think/belive as you do?

I look forward to your responses.

Sarah

Well, it seems lots of people are just looking for a target so that they can place their stereotyping label on them...

Since I have lots of aversions to various things, I suppose that means you can all place your name calling on me, I'm a pedophobe, terrorphobe, scumbagphobe, jackassaphobe, homophobe, bigotaphobe, depravaphobe, corruptaphobe, rapeaphobe and decadentaphobe as well as many other phobias of things that allude me presently…
Here is truly the pot calling the kettle black.

You might not like being called a racist, a homophobe, a xenophobe, or what not...but if you are truly NOT, these labels should not bruise your conscience. If however, upon reflection, you find that your actions are hateful, and your words are intolerant, hopefully these labels will sting you.

People often compare homosexuals to other groups that society at large consider to be 'bad'. Such as pedophiles, rapists, theives and so on. The argument is often that we are bigoted against these groups, we don't give them a chance either to 'get to know them' and learn about them, and tolerate them. But the important difference between these groups and people who are homosexual is this: consenting adults who harm no one else versus people who are harming others. The sex that certain people have does not in any way impact or harm you, unless you make it your business to snoop, and be shocked by what you see. Now, you may argue....homosexual marriage and open homosexual relationships are wrong, and harm the rest of us, blah blah blah. But we live in diverse times. Once mixed marriages were seen as harmful while old men marrying girls was not. Adults, consenting adults, and what they do can not 'harm' you simply by being in existence. Your irrational fear, or aversion to them CAN.

Hmm, that would make me a pedophobe.
They're all icky, and noisy, and... Ugh.
*shudders


More whipping :(

Sorry, sweetie :(

I would say that homophobia applies to the people who think that gay people are going to rip the fabric of society apart. Or people who think being around gay people will make them gay. I suppose it doesn't apply to everyone who hates gays though.

I love how people try to avoid this term so their bigotry doesn't sound as bad. Here. Look at another dictionary definition of the term, and you will find that indeed, the word homophobe is an accurate description after all.



No, it's not just fear of. It's aversion to or discrimination against. As in, a person who simply doesn't like homosexuals, and discriminates against them.

Edit: damn, Fass beat me to it...but maybe reading it twice will help it sink in? Yeah, I doubt it too.

This definition, although legitimate perhaps, is a load of crap. It makes it sound as though if you even have a thought against homosexuality, you're a homophobe and that's just bullshit. A phobia isn't just a fear, its an irrational fear, usually one that the owner of the fear cannot cope with. To use this term to describe an aversion is simplistic and excessively liberal in its use. I don't care for the TV show Fear Factor, this doesn't make me phobic of it. You can disagree and even dislike something without the term phobia applying to you.

This definition, although legitimate perhaps, is a load of crap. It makes it sound as though if you even have a thought against homosexuality, you're a homophobe and that's just bullshit. A phobia isn't just a fear, its an irrational fear, usually one that the owner of the fear cannot cope with. To use this term to describe an aversion is simplistic and excessively liberal in its use. I don't care for the TV show Fear Factor, this doesn't make me phobic of it. You can disagree and even dislike something without the term phobia applying to you.

And again you make the false assumption that any use of the root phobia must refer to the psychological use of the word.

Some materials are hydrophobic. These materials do not have an irrational fear of water - they can't even feel fear. They simply repel and are repelled by water. Thus, they are hydrophobic.

Human language isn't as grade-school mentality as you may think.

This definition, although legitimate perhaps, is a load of crap. It makes it sound as though if you even have a thought against homosexuality, you're a homophobe and that's just bullshit. A phobia isn't just a fear, its an irrational fear, usually one that the owner of the fear cannot cope with. To use this term to describe an aversion is simplistic and excessively liberal in its use. I don't care for the TV show Fear Factor, this doesn't make me phobic of it. You can disagree and even dislike something without the term phobia applying to you.

I'd agree that the word 'phobia' is inaccurate since the important thing is discrimination or abuse, not your personal thoughts about homosexuals, and because the term is used refer to attitudes other than fear. Unfortunately there's no good alternative, "sexual orientationism" isn't exactly catchy.

Oh I don't know, I've always assumed calling a bigot a bigot isn't an insult, it's a warning lable.
That's not what I said and you know it.

Let's personalize it: I'm hetero. I have no problem with gays. None. But I'm not at all attracted to gay men. I have no curiosity about gay sex. It doesn't disgust me, but neither does it attract me.

Am I homophobic?

In any case, I'm more concerned with attempts to try and change the use of homophobia as homophobes dislike being called it as it exposses them for what they are (and no, Eutrusca, I do not mean you at all, I'm expanding upon your excellent point though).

Yes homophobes dislike being called that because it exposes them for what they are. BUT there are others who dislike being called that BESIDES the actual homophobes. The term is used FAR too liberally these days, just like nazi and facist.

I'd agree that the word 'phobia' is inaccurate since the important thing is discrimination or abuse, not your personal thoughts about homosexuals, and because the term is used refer to attitudes other than fear. Unfortunately there's no good alternative, "sexual orientationism" isn't exactly catchy.

No one is using the "word" phobia. They are using the root -phobia.

The root is defined as the following:

Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavonic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

The root is being used exactly by definition here. The fact that a few people can't separate a root from a word is irrelevant.

That's not what I said and you know it.

Let's personalize it: I'm hetero. I have no problem with gays. None. But I'm not at all attracted to gay men. I have no curiosity about gay sex. It doesn't disgust me, but neither does it attract me.

Am I homophobic?

Of course not, based on the bolded part above. You don't have to be gay to avoid being homophobic, any more than a material has to be water to avoid being hydrophobic. You simply can't have an irrational aversion to homosexuals or irrationally discriminate against them.

Homophobia is not a real word. Neither is heterosexism. Homophobia would only mean fear of sameness as you said, not of homosexuality. Heterosexism would mean you're sexist towards the opposite sex. Both are just dumb terms made up by morons who talk out their assholes.

Of course not, based on the bolded part above. You don't have to be gay to avoid being homophobic, any more than a material has to be water to avoid being hydrophobic. You simply can't have an irrational aversion to homosexuals or irrationally discriminate against them.
Yayyy! [ does a lil dance ] I'm not homophobic ... according to your understanding of the term.

However ... I would like to hear from others here, particularly gay males.

This definition, although legitimate perhaps, is a load of crap. It makes it sound as though if you even have a thought against homosexuality, you're a homophobe and that's just bullshit. A phobia isn't just a fear, its an irrational fear, usually one that the owner of the fear cannot cope with. To use this term to describe an aversion is simplistic and excessively liberal in its use. I don't care for the TV show Fear Factor, this doesn't make me phobic of it. You can disagree and even dislike something without the term phobia applying to you.
I believe 'irrational' is meant to modify fear AND aversion in that definition.

Yayyy! [ does a lil dance ] I'm not homophobic ... according to your understanding of the term.

However ... I would like to hear from others here, particularly gay males.
Right. Because it is gay males who make the final judgment as to whether one is homophobic or not. Just like blacks must decide who is truly racist.

That's silly. If you discriminate against gays, say hateful things to them, and are generally an ass towards them, then yeah, you're a homophobe. Why this need to know what others think of you, by the way? You know what you are.

Homophobia is not a real word. Neither is heterosexism. Homophobia would only mean fear of sameness as you said, not of homosexuality. Heterosexism would mean you're sexist towards the opposite sex. Both are just dumb terms made up by morons who talk out their assholes.
Things mean what people use them to mean, not what their component parts MIGHT combine to mean. So you are basically talking out your asshole.

Homophobia is not a real word. Neither is heterosexism.

Any word with a definition and usage in human language is a "real word."

Homophobia would only mean fear of sameness as you said, not of homosexuality. Heterosexism would mean you're sexist towards the opposite sex.

Words are defined by their definitions, not what they would mean if they meant something different.

Both are just dumb terms made up by morons who talk out their assholes.

In that case, all of language consists of "dumb terms made up by morons who talk out of their assholes."

Imagine that! Next thing you're gonna tell me is that Jews don't like anti-Semites, or that black people don't like racists... :rolleyes:

you're assuming that the targets of the homesexuals' wrath are deserving of it.

so if a homesexual walks down the street with you and says, "I hate that guy. Just look at him!" you would assume that the person deserved such praise?

If a person dislikes a homosexual, it may not be because the person is a homosexual... it might be that the person's hair is unattractive (to the hater) or that his breath stinks.

disliking a homesexual does not automatically qualify one for "homophobe" status. The term is wildly misused and abused.

phobia = fear

the other two words added to "fear" were likely done so to appease the swarms of PC fanatics who wanted to expand the definition of "phobia" so that people like me, who know that phobia means fear, could no longer make that argument.

And again you make the false assumption that any use of the root phobia must refer to the psychological use of the word.

Some materials are hydrophobic. These materials do not have an irrational fear of water - they can't even feel fear. They simply repel and are repelled by water. Thus, they are hydrophobic.

Human language isn't as grade-school mentality as you may think.

This is true, but when discussing the phobia of a human being you're discussing the psychological use. To sling this word around casually to everyone who doesn't praise and worship a gay person diminishes the importance of the word, trivializes the definition, and lessens the impact it has on actual homophobes. Its like calling everyone who disagrees with you politcially a Nazi. This trivializes the impact of the word on REAL nazis or REAL nazi mentality.

Right. Because it is gay males who make the final judgment as to whether one is homophobic or not. Just like blacks must decide who is truly racist.

That's silly. If you discriminate against gays, say hateful things to them, and are generally an ass towards them, then yeah, you're a homophobe. Why this need to know what others think of you, by the way? You know what you are.
It's not a "need to know what others think of" me, just a need to know what the label "homophobe" means and whether it can legitimately be applied to me. :)

If a person dislikes a homosexual, it may not be because the person is a homosexual... it might be that the person's hair is unattractive (to the hater) or that his breath stinks.

disliking a homesexual does not automatically qualify one for "homophobe" status. The term is wildly misused and abused.


We're not talking about not like A homosexual (with the suggestion that you would then 'like' all the rest of them). We're talking about not liking, and discriminating against homosexuals. As a group.

But it doesn't really matter. If you are a hateful person, you know it. Justify it all you want, avoid the terms for it all you want...that doesn't change your hateful nature. So why bother?

Of course not, based on the bolded part above. You don't have to be gay to avoid being homophobic, any more than a material has to be water to avoid being hydrophobic. You simply can't have an irrational aversion to homosexuals or irrationally discriminate against them.

Irrational being the key word here. I'm not gay, I have no problems with gay people. Never have. The idea of gay sex turns me off though. I dislike the idea of gay sex. Much like the idea of S&M might. I don't feel this makes me a homophobe. However, I've been called one in a few discussions (none that I started btw) when I've made any comment to that affect.

I am intrested to know why people are homophobic, whatever the definiton in our nemerous online/paper based dictionary refrences.

*snip*

I look forward to your responses.

Sarah

I’m called a Homophobe around here because I’ve said the homosexual lifestyle is bad for children, bad for society, bad for the community it openly exists in AND it is bad for the individuals that participate in it.

I’ve said these things because I believe that a good community and good society (self sustaining and healthier happier citizens etc.,) encourages and promotes more long term partnering and life-long commitments between individuals, both to each other and for their progeny, and a place that their children can be raised so that they are encouraged to participate in it as well when they grow older.

But the homosexual lifestyle in the west (America and Europe and elsewhere) does not encourage this behavior, it is tantamount to all out attack against not just those ideals, but the very right for non-homosexuals to choose their own community standards.

~ 70% of homosexuals admit to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners.

~ The average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. And this is encouraged by the fact that many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting .

~ Many homosexuals don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior".

~ Although homosexuals only account for 2-4% of the general population they represent a disproportionate percentage of the ailments in society that are brought about by their lifestyle choices, such as; Homosexuals account for 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States.

~ 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists.

~ 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs…


I ‘choose’ to not encourage such behaviors; I do so by not accepting the homosexual lifestyle as a responsible lifestyle ‘choice.’ I believe and suggest that society would be better off if they would keep their open promiscuity and non-monogamous coupling out of the public eye by their own choice, but if they do not, then via modesty and decency laws if as necessary (and that goes for, and is already in affect for, openly non-monogamous heterosexual lifestyle choices as well, sex-trade, strip joints, etc.,). It would better for everyone.

This is true, but when discussing the phobia of a human being you're discussing the psychological use. To sling this word around casually to everyone who doesn't praise and worship a gay person diminishes the importance of the word, trivializes the definition, and lessens the impact it has on actual homophobes. Its like calling everyone who disagrees with you politcially a Nazi. This trivializes the impact of the word on REAL nazis or REAL nazi mentality.
So your argument against the term is that people are being called it too much. Well tough. Some people toss around all sorts of names just to piss others off. If someone called me a homophobe, I'd just laugh. I know what I am, and what I am not. Just because someone makes a silly assumption, doesn't mean the word has less validity. If I truly was a homophobe, I'm sure I'd justify my discrimination against homosexuals in some way, and perhaps convince myself it wasn't a bad thing. Whatever. That doesn't mean the word has less validity.

Usually the people who want to get rid of these 'labels' are the ones who themselves LOVE to label. Fag. Dyke. Sinner. Labels are a fact of human life. And you can't have your pie (have no negative labels ever) and eat it too (attach negative labels to others).

I’m called a Homophobe around here because I’ve said the homosexual lifestyle is bad for children, bad for society, bad for the community it openly exists in AND it is bad for the individuals that participate in it.

I’ve said these things because I believe that a good community and good society (self sustaining and healthier happier citizens etc.,) encourages and promotes more long term partnering and life-long commitments between individuals, both to each other and for their progeny, and a place that their children can be raised so that they are encouraged to participate in it as well when they grow older.

But the homosexual lifestyle in the west (America and Europe and elsewhere) does not encourage this behavior, it is tantamount to all out attack against not just those ideals, but the very right for non-homosexuals to choose their own community standards.

~ 70% of homosexuals admit to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners.

~ The average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. And this is encouraged by the fact that many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting .

~ Many homosexuals don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior".

~ Although homosexuals only account for 2-4% of the general population they represent a disproportionate percentage of the ailments in society that are brought about by their lifestyle choices, such as; Homosexuals account for 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States.

~ 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists.

~ 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs…


I ‘choose’ to not encourage such behaviors; I do so by not accepting the homosexual lifestyle as a responsible lifestyle ‘choice.’ I believe and suggest that society would be better off if they would keep their open promiscuity and non-monogamous coupling out of the public eye by their own choice, but if they do not, then via modesty and decency laws if as necessary (and that goes for, and is already in affect of, openly non-monogamous heterosexual lifestyle choices as well, sex-trade strripe joints etc.,). It’s would better for everyone.

Mind giving us a source for these statistics?

Right. Because it is gay males who make the final judgment as to whether one is homophobic or not. Just like blacks must decide who is truly racist.

That's silly. If you discriminate against gays, say hateful things to them, and are generally an ass towards them, then yeah, you're a homophobe. Why this need to know what others think of you, by the way? You know what you are.

No I believe if you say hateful things to them, and are generally an ass towards them makes you an asshole and a bigot.

It's not a "need to know what others think of" me, just a need to know what the label "homophobe" means and whether it can legitimately be applied to me. :)
You know damn well what it means. We are not inventing a word here. The word exists, and the connotations are widely known. There is no need to 'reinvent' the term. And deep down, you are the one who knows whether it 'legitimately' applies to you or not.

If a person dislikes a homosexual, it may not be because the person is a homosexual... it might be that the person's hair is unattractive (to the hater) or that his breath stinks.

We aren't talking about a person who dislikes a homosexual. We are talking about someone who has an aversion to and discriminates against homosexuals, as a group.

phobia = fear

Incorrect. See above, where I posted the definition of phobia when used as a root, as it is used in this case.

This is true, but when discussing the phobia of a human being you're discussing the psychological use.

Says who? We aren't talking about the phobia of a human being. We are talking about homophobia. We are using the root -phobia, as is everyone who uses the word homophobe.

To sling this word around casually to everyone who doesn't praise and worship a gay person diminishes the importance of the word, trivializes the definition, and lessens the impact it has on actual homophobes.

Who said anything about sliging the word around casually "to everyone who doesn't praise and worship a gay person?"

Do you think that the term "racist" is casually thrown around to everyone who doesn't praise and worship minorities?

Usually the people who want to get rid of these 'labels' are the ones who themselves LOVE to label. Fag. Dyke. Sinner. Labels are a fact of human life. And you can't have your pie (have no negative labels ever) and eat it too (attach negative labels to others).
I know you, Sinuhue. You're just copulophobic! Hehehe! :D

Irrational being the key word here. I'm not gay, I have no problems with gay people. Never have. The idea of gay sex turns me off though. I dislike the idea of gay sex. Much like the idea of S&M might. I don't feel this makes me a homophobe. However, I've been called one in a few discussions (none that I started btw) when I've made any comment to that affect.
I don't like the thought of obese people having sex. That doesn't mean I discriminate against obese people in any other way than avoiding obese people porn.

You know damn well what it means. We are not inventing a word here. The word exists, and the connotations are widely known. There is no need to 'reinvent' the term. And deep down, you are the one who knows whether it 'legitimately' applies to you or not.
True. And as far as I know, it does not "legitimately" apply to me. :)

Any word with a definition and usage in human language is a "real word."



Words are defined by their definitions, not what they would mean if they meant something different.



In that case, all of language consists of "dumb terms made up by morons who talk out of their assholes."

there is a point there though

irregardless is a word that is completely unnecessary because it is used when the proper word to use -- one that exists in the english language and properly conveys what it is meant to convey -- is regardless.

irregardless is a moronic word when you consider that:

a)As a double-negative, its logical meaning is "with total regard to" or "totally dependant on" (ir- is negative ; -less is also negative). -1 * -1 = 1 -- two negatives equal a positive.

b)The person using it generally means to convey the meaning of the word "regardless" (rendering irregardless unnecessary, even if it did make sense)

Webster's is a mirror as much as it is a guide. If I were to invent a word to convey what the current word "leg" currently conveys... let's say I want this new word to be dempublicant... if enough people began using my new word to refer to their leg or legs, it would eventually end up in Webster's... even though it's a totally moronic/horseshit word.

Mind giving us a source for these statistics?

And, along with that (these statistics sound like something out of the '70's, especially considering that bathhouses practically don't exist anymore), I'd like to see matched statistics for heterosexuals of the same age and general peer group.

I’m called a Homophobe around here because I’ve said the homosexual lifestyle is bad for children, bad for society, bad for the community it openly exists in AND it is bad for the individuals that participate in it.

I ‘choose’ to not encourage such behaviors; I do so by not accepting the homosexual lifestyle as a responsible lifestyle ‘choice.’ I believe and suggest that society would be better off if they would keep their open promiscuity and non-monogamous coupling out of the public eye by their own choice, but if they do not, then via modesty and decency laws if as necessary (and that goes for, and is already in affect for, openly non-monogamous heterosexual lifestyle choices as well, sex-trade, strip joints, etc.,). It would better for everyone.
You are the textbook definition of a homophobe. You want laws, and society to control a particular group because you deem them harmful. Much as you want murders, rapists, and thieves dealt with, as though consensual, adult relationships could be compared to those people. You rationalise your homophobia, you give reasons for your lack of tolerance, but the fact remains. You dislike homosexuals to the point where you want them to no longer exist. You openly promote actions against them. You stereotype and villify them. So yes. You are a homophobe.

No I believe if you say hateful things to them, and are generally an ass towards them makes you an asshole and a bigot.
You CAN be both you know. One term does not cancel out the other. When you single out a certain group for your assholery, you are a bigot. If that group happens to be homosexuals, you are also a homophobe. Bigot alone does not describe WHO you are bigoted against. Bigots are not bigoted against EVERYONE. Hence, the need for further description.

I know you, Sinuhue. You're just copulophobic! Hehehe! :D...philic, I think...:p

True. And as far as I know, it does not "legitimately" apply to me. :)
And I would agree with you.

... I believe and suggest that society would be better off if they would keep their open promiscuity and non-monogamous coupling out of the public eye by their own choice, but if they do not, then via modesty and decency laws if as necessary (and that goes for, and is already in affect for, openly non-monogamous heterosexual lifestyle choices as well, sex-trade, strip joints, etc.,). It would better for everyone.
But ... but ... but, sex in public is fun! Not to mention a bit of a challenge. I mean, not every man can keep it up knowing that exposure could be imminent! :D

...philic, I think...:p
ROFLMAO! I tend to agree! Just one more reason to love Canada! Hehehe!

Webster's is a mirror as much as it is a guide. If I were to invent a word to convey what the current word "leg" currently conveys... let's say I want this new word to be dempublicant... if enough people began using my new word to refer to their leg or legs, it would eventually end up in Webster's... even though it's a totally moronic/horseshit word. :rolleyes:
Whatever. What are you trying to prove anyway? The word exists, is in use, and is fairly commonly agreed upon as to its meaning. Your semantical 'horseshit' is not going to change that. Language evolves. Live with it. You can always use your 'dempublicents' to walk away from that word with. :eek:

And I would agree with you.
Thank you, kind lady. [ takes your hand and kisses it ] :D

Hmm. That's a lot broader definition than I would have thought. Does the term "irrational" apply to all three subordinate terms ( fear, aversion , discrimination )? If so, what would "rational fear, aversion, or discrimination" be?? Weird.

So would you call someone who has ( so far as he knows ) no prejudice against homosexuals, but who isn't "bi-curious," a homophobe?

It seems to me as if labelling someone a "homophobe" is tatamount to an insult, and that insulting someone who is favorably inclined toward you wouldn't be the best idea.

Eutrusca, you know as well as I do that the portion of that definition which reads, "... aversion to, or discrimination against ..." was added so that people who dislike or disagree with homosexuals not because they are homosexual could also be branded with the "homophobe" label.


phobia = fear

that's it.

Thank you, kind lady. [ takes your hand and kisses it ] :D
EWW! Yucky old people who still have and think about sex! I have an irrational aversion to you, and think the state should bring in laws to prevent you from forming relationships or having sex! :D

ROFLMAO! I tend to agree! Just one more reason to love Canada! Hehehe!I'd disagree. It's a reason for me to hate Canada (it's too far away for me to exploit that!!! :( ) :p

phobia = fear

that's it.
You don't have the power to reinvent language. Sorry. Delusions of grandeur? There's treatment available for that.

phobia = fear

that's it.So the hydrophobe proteins in your cell membrane have the mental capacity to "fear water"?
phobia != fear

Anal sex is violent?

Depends on whether you're the pitcher or the catcher.

Irrational being the key word here. I'm not gay, I have no problems with gay people. Never have. The idea of gay sex turns me off though. I dislike the idea of gay sex. Much like the idea of S&M might. I don't feel this makes me a homophobe. However, I've been called one in a few discussions (none that I started btw) when I've made any comment to that affect.

If you have no problem with gay people, why do you keep commenting on issues that would cause people to apply the label "homophobe" to you? If you don't like gay sex, why do you keep talking about it?

Depends on whether you're the pitcher or the catcher.
No it doesn't. It matters whether it is done violently or not. Period. Sex is only violent if it is violent...otherwise it's not. :p

Eutrusca, you know as well as I do that the portion of that definition which reads, "... aversion to, or discrimination against ..." was added so that people who dislike or disagree with homosexuals not because they are homosexual could also be branded with the "homophobe" label.


phobia = fear

that's it.
I know no such thing. Sorry, but I'm just trying to find the limits of the definition, not reverse-label anyone or anything. :(

No it doesn't. It matters whether it is done violently or not. Period. Sex is only violent if it is violent...otherwise it's not. :p
How utterly ... um ... profound! :D

EWW! Yucky old people who still have and think about sex! I have an irrational aversion to you, and think the state should bring in laws to prevent you from forming relationships or having sex! :D

GERIATRIPHOBE!!!

EWW! Yucky old people who still have and think about sex! I have an irrational aversion to you, and think the state should bring in laws to prevent you from forming relationships or having sex! :D
LOL! Awww! Sorry you feel that way. You know what they say ...

... once you go old, you'll never be cold! :D

I love how people try to avoid this term so their bigotry doesn't sound as bad. Here. Look at another dictionary definition of the term, and you will find that indeed, the word homophobe is an accurate description after all.



No, it's not just fear of. It's aversion to or discrimination against. As in, a person who simply doesn't like homosexuals, and discriminates against them.

Edit: damn, Fass beat me to it...but maybe reading it twice will help it sink in? Yeah, I doubt it too.

Heh, while we are bringing up definitions...

4 entries found for bigot.

big·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

That... pretty much sums up everyone on Nation States.

GERIATRIPHOBE!!!
ROFLMFAO!!!

EXACTLY! [ makes up lots of gross-sounding lables to attach to those who refuse to have sex with me ] :D

I’m called a Homophobe around here because I’ve said the homosexual lifestyle is bad for children, bad for society, bad for the community it openly exists in AND it is bad for the individuals that participate in it.

I’ve said these things because I believe that a good community and good society (self sustaining and healthier happier citizens etc.,) encourages and promotes more long term partnering and life-long commitments between individuals, both to each other and for their progeny, and a place that their children can be raised so that they are encouraged to participate in it as well when they grow older.

But the homosexual lifestyle in the west (America and Europe and elsewhere) does not encourage this behavior, it is tantamount to all out attack against not just those ideals, but the very right for non-homosexuals to choose their own community standards.

~ 70% of homosexuals admit to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners.

~ The average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. And this is encouraged by the fact that many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting .

~ Many homosexuals don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior".

~ Although homosexuals only account for 2-4% of the general population they represent a disproportionate percentage of the ailments in society that are brought about by their lifestyle choices, such as; Homosexuals account for 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States.

~ 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists.

~ 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs…


I ‘choose’ to not encourage such behaviors; I do so by not accepting the homosexual lifestyle as a responsible lifestyle ‘choice.’ I believe and suggest that society would be better off if they would keep their open promiscuity and non-monogamous coupling out of the public eye by their own choice, but if they do not, then via modesty and decency laws if as necessary (and that goes for, and is already in affect for, openly non-monogamous heterosexual lifestyle choices as well, sex-trade, strip joints, etc.,). It would better for everyone.

Quite a reasonable view IMO. There are reasons to disagree with the homosexual lifestyle that are not irrational or discriminatory. Yet with the current use of the word, any opining of these misgivings brands you a homophobe.

GERIATRIPHOBE!!!
No, that would mean I dislike all old people. I don't. Just the ones having sex. So I'm a GERIATRIF*CKINGPHOBE. [/jk]

No, that would mean I dislike all old people. I don't. Just the ones having sex. So I'm a GERIATRIF*CKINGPHOBE. [/jk]
LOL! No ... what you are is a nut! :D

Quite a reasonable view IMO. There are reasons to disagree with the homosexual lifestyle that are not irrational or discriminatory. Yet with the current use of the word, any opining of these misgivings brands you a homophobe.
Hey, racists rationalise their hatred of a particular ethnic group too. Doesn't mean they aren't racist.

phobia = fear

now the expanded definition of homophobe introduces terms not at all indicative of the original definition of phobia.

so while homophobia should be applied only to those who are actually afraid of homosexual folks ("Scooter, don't touch that gay man!"), how about two new definitions so that the term phobia is not misrepresented?:

Homobigot - one who is bigoted against homosexuals (but is not afraid of them, necessarily. Most people currently mislabeled as homophobes would probably fall under this new, accurate, logical term).

Non-homosexual - one who is not homosexual and has no intention of trying it out (or, one who feels a natural aversion to homosexuality). The non-homosexual is not afraid of homosexuals, necessarily... he simply is not one, and doesn't want to be one.

lol

Say hello to Monsieurs Homobigot and Non-homosexual!

Usually the people who want to get rid of these 'labels' are the ones who themselves LOVE to label. Fag. Dyke. Sinner. Labels are a fact of human life. And you can't have your pie (have no negative labels ever) and eat it too (attach negative labels to others).

NO sir. Sometimes people want to get rid of these labels, used far too liberally, to help stamp out the hatred they purport to "bring to light" but often times cause instead. Not everyone who would like to see labeling occur less often are chronic labelers. Some would just like to see a little less rudeness to others.

No, that would mean I dislike all old people. I don't. Just the ones having sex. So I'm a GERIATRIF*CKINGPHOBE. [/jk]

I'm the opposite... I love the fact that older people still engage in the most natural act known to man and I hope I'm humping till I die! :fluffle:

...and with age cums experience ** yep yep

*snip*
Give it up. Words only come into use when they become widely accepted. As I said before, you simply do not have the power to reinvent the language we use simply because you don't like a particular term. Nor do I see why you would exert so much energy over a simple word that we all understand. Unless you have been labelled such, actually are one, but don't want to be called something 'bad'. :rolleyes:

Do you think that the term "racist" is casually thrown around to everyone who doesn't praise and worship minorities?

yes, as a matter of fact, I do.

NO sir. Sometimes people want to get rid of these labels, used far too liberally, to help stamp out the hatred they purport to "bring to light" but often times cause instead. Not everyone who would like to see labeling occur less often are chronic labelers. Some would just like to see a little less rudeness to others.

...or simply are prisses and want the labels to be placed on those who fit the proper definition of the label...

phobia = fear ... not aversion, not bigotry

And besides, those yet-to-be-confirmed "statistics", may not be current, and you have to take into account the circumstances of a person...

I personally it's not being gay what makes such things happen, but what people do when they find out said person is gay.

EDIT: But this is probably a discussion for another thread.

Eutrusca, you know as well as I do that the portion of that definition which reads, "... aversion to, or discrimination against ..." was added so that people who dislike or disagree with homosexuals not because they are homosexual could also be branded with the "homophobe" label.

phobia = fear

that's it.

You have some serious conspiracy theory issues.

Once again:

Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavonic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

It seems that -phobia, as a root, had the intolerance and aversion definitions before homophobia was ever in use as a word. In fact, it looks like scientific uses have been some of the main places the second definition of the root has been used.

Hey, racists rationalise their hatred of a particular ethnic group too. Doesn't mean they aren't racist.

Exactly, most of those dodgy statistics could probably be used against many ethnic minorities, too.

Frankly, most of the differences in the "gay lifestyle" have been a result of discrimination, and especially the fact that homosexuality was illegal very recently. This is assuming you even believe that there's any justification in banning lifestyles you don't approve of when they don't directly harm anyone.

I don't like the thought of obese people having sex. That doesn't mean I discriminate against obese people in any other way than avoiding obese people porn.

so you have an aversion to it?

I'm the opposite... I love the fact that older people still engage in the most natural act known to man and I hope I'm humping till I die! :fluffle:

...and with age cums experience ** yep yep
Precisely! You are a woman of great perception and wisdom!

Let me know if you'd like to get some practice. :D

NO sir. Sometimes people want to get rid of these labels, used far too liberally, to help stamp out the hatred they purport to "bring to light" but often times cause instead. Not everyone who would like to see labeling occur less often are chronic labelers. Some would just like to see a little less rudeness to others.
That's give and take. Call someone a 'disgusting fag who should go to hell' and you deserve the term 'homophobe'. Mind your own damn business about who someone has sex with, whether you like that kind of sex or not, and you probably won't get a label attached to you.

Racists, bigots, misogynists, misandrists, homophobes, and so on...if you feel hard done by, and don't want the label...drop your discriminatory language and actions, and they will no longer apply. Trying to change the language to be more PC so you don't get offended by people identifying your hateful behaviours as 'x' is ridiculous.

Honestly...is there a reason to be homophobic? What are gays going to do to you? There is nothing wrong with being gay and nothing to be afraid of

yes, as a matter of fact, I do.
And 'dirty pinko commie' is thrown around a lot to describe people who are simply left-leaning. So? Terms get abused all the time. Live with it. Labels that don't apply, don't stick to you. Labels that do, irritate the conscience. As they should.

yes, as a matter of fact, I do.

yes, agreed... and there is a double-standard, at least in the US. Case in point:

Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen recently (within the past year) made questionable/derogatory statements about people from a certain central or south american country. While the media did not glorify him for these statements, guillen was not fired by his team's owner nor really villified by the media.

A week or two ago, a San Francisco baseball radio announcer made derogatory comments about caribbean (i think) baseball players. He also alluded to his belief that San Francisco's manager, Felipe Alou, has a certain popular hot breakfast cereal occupying the large cavity in his head instead of a brain. His remarks were lambasted by the media as being racist. This announcer was summarily fired.

Who can say what about whom is not constant.

Frang, your cellmembrane is made up of hydrophobic and hydrophilic proteins. Proteins do not "fear" water. Even if phobia means fear, word combinations with it don't.

Honestly...is there a reason to be homophobic? What are gays going to do to you? There is nothing wrong with being gay and nothing to be afraid of

People are also afraid of the dark without any reason. It's just one of many unjustified fears. Until a person has an experience does it become justified.

Heh, while we are bringing up definitions...

That... pretty much sums up everyone on Nation States.

Disagreement != intolerance.

Asking for the reasoning behind an opinion != intolerance.

phobia = fear

Of course, we aren't using the word phobia. We are using the root -phobia, and fear is only one of the definitions appropriate for that root.

so you have an aversion to it?
Yup. But my aversion stays in my mind, doesn't touch my tongue, or my actions, or the lives of obese people in a negative, discriminatory way.

You can be averse to homosexual sex, or homosexuals in general. As long as you don't try to make their lives hell, and spew your discriminatory thoughts out in irrational tirades against them (or even 'rational' ones), or go around acting on your disciminatino (overcoming your aversion it would seem), then you aren't a homophobe.

But only YOU know if you are a homophobe or not. The rest of us can only guess according to your words and actions.

[QUOTE=Eutrusca]Precisely! You are a woman of great perception and wisdom!

hehe, thank you... I know a lot for my ripe old age!

Frang, your cellmembrane is made up of hydrophobic and hydrophilic proteins. Proteins do not "fear" water. Even if phobia means fear, word combinations with it don't.

okay.

see my post above including the definition of phobia when used as a suffix. perhaps, based on the definition of phobia as suffix, the medical terms should be rethought.

If you have no problem with gay people, why do you keep commenting on issues that would cause people to apply the label "homophobe" to you? If you don't like gay sex, why do you keep talking about it?

I don't KEEP talking about it. I just happen to find myself in occasional conversations, such as this one, where opinions are discussed.

Who can say what about whom is not constant.Wow! You're finally getting it!

okay.

see my post above including the definition of phobia when used as a suffix. perhaps, based on the definition of phobia as suffix, the medical terms should be rethought.

Why should the medical terms be rethought? They meet the definition of -phobia as a suffix as well.

If we went through the entire English language trying to sort out inconsitancies, we'd be a lifetime at it, reinventing our language. It's not going to happen, Frang.

That's give and take. Call someone a 'disgusting fag who should go to hell' and you deserve the term 'homophobe'. Mind your own damn business about who someone has sex with, whether you like that kind of sex or not, and you probably won't get a label attached to you.

Racists, bigots, misogynists, misandrists, homophobes, and so on...if you feel hard done by, and don't want the label...drop your discriminatory language and actions, and they will no longer apply. Trying to change the language to be more PC so you don't get offended by people identifying your hateful behaviours as 'x' is ridiculous.

yes it is, IF it legitimately applies. The point of the conversation, however, is it is often used when it DOESN'T legitimately apply.

What's give and take? Who said anything about calling someone a disgusting fag who should go to hell? I'd really like to see less hatred and rudeness by ALL and I'd like to think there are others who feel the same way.

yes it is, IF it legitimately applies. The point of the conversation, however, is it is often used when it DOESN'T legitimately apply.

What's give and take? Who said anything about calling someone a disgusting fag who should go to hell? I'd really like to see less hatred and rudeness by ALL and I'd like to think there are others who feel the same way.
Again, your beef seems to be that the term is overused by certain people. Take it up with them. If you feel you have unfairly been called a homophobe, take it up with the person that calls you this. Trying to reinvent the term doesn't help.

You might like to see less rudeness and hatred. As do most of us. But this little semantical game you and Frang are playing will do absolutely nothing to achieve this goal. So perhaps, rather than wasting your time further, you could actually do something that matters?

I love how people try to avoid this term so their bigotry doesn't sound as bad. Here. Look at another dictionary definition of the term, and you will find that indeed, the word homophobe is an accurate description after all.

Yeah because they changed the definition to make it fit.

You'll notice "arachnophobia" does not at all mean discrimination against spiders. Why not? Because there was no political drive to change the definition.

Similarly, speaking of terms in pseudo-psychology, "homosexuality" used to be defined as a psychological and in some cases a physiological disorder. They changed that too.

So, with enough time and influence, any word can mean whatever it is most politically convinient to mean!

...but originally, "homophobia" meant just that - fear of teh gay.

Why should the medical terms be rethought? They meet the definition of -phobia as a suffix as well.

i'm too lazy to go back and copy/paste the post to which I was referring, but if memory serves (s)he (I'm a genderdefiningphobe) had mentioned that the (what i assume to be...) medical term hydrophobic does NOT, to a physician/scientist (or whomever else), mean "afraid of water"

so in that sense, it does not meet the definition i mentioned for phobia as suffix

Wow! You're finally getting it!

i've known for a long time that there is a racial double-standard in this country... in terms of who can say what to whom and be labeled a racist (or their speech be labeled racist, if not they themselves).

I’m called a Homophobe around here because I’ve said the homosexual lifestyle is bad for children, bad for society, bad for the community it openly exists in AND it is bad for the individuals that participate in it.

I’ve said these things because I believe that a good community and good society (self sustaining and healthier happier citizens etc.,) encourages and promotes more long term partnering and life-long commitments between individuals, both to each other and for their progeny, and a place that their children can be raised so that they are encouraged to participate in it as well when they grow older.

But the homosexual lifestyle in the west (America and Europe and elsewhere) does not encourage this behavior, it is tantamount to all out attack against not just those ideals, but the very right for non-homosexuals to choose their own community standards.

~ 70% of homosexuals admit to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners.

~ The average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. And this is encouraged by the fact that many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting .

~ Many homosexuals don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior".

~ Although homosexuals only account for 2-4% of the general population they represent a disproportionate percentage of the ailments in society that are brought about by their lifestyle choices, such as; Homosexuals account for 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States.

~ 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists.

~ 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs…


I ‘choose’ to not encourage such behaviors; I do so by not accepting the homosexual lifestyle as a responsible lifestyle ‘choice.’ I believe and suggest that society would be better off if they would keep their open promiscuity and non-monogamous coupling out of the public eye by their own choice, but if they do not, then via modesty and decency laws if as necessary (and that goes for, and is already in affect for, openly non-monogamous heterosexual lifestyle choices as well, sex-trade, strip joints, etc.,). It would better for everyone.


Wow! I don't know who is making up your numbers, but they are very creative!

The one I can immediately dispute is the 2 to 4% of the population... actually it is closer to 10% of the population who are homosexual.

I asked several of my homosexual friends about the number of anonymous sexual partners, and bathroom sex type encounters (having read about those ridiculous statistics before). None of them had ever had sex in a bathroom with a stranger. Some had had one nighters, but so had a number of my heterosexual friends. According to MY polls, which are just as accurate as the ones you quote, 0% of homosexuals claimed to have sex with a stranger in a bathroom, 50% claim to have had a one night stand, and 75% of heterosexuals claim to have had a one night stand. As to drug use, most of both group said they were not interested. Guess I just know a lot of clean living people.

Homosexuals were the first people (as a group) to actively advocate safe sex for the prevention of the spread of AIDS, and continue to be the strongest activists in this arena. So I am not sure where your STD figures are coming from, but I am fairly sure they are not accurate.

Homosexuals are not allowed to marry in many places. Yet homophobes continue to argue that this is because they are promiscuous and do not form long term relationships (which is also not true... even if not allowed to marry, many do form lifelong commitments). The obvious solution to this problem is LET them marry, and encourage marital monogamy.

Psychaitrists say homosexuals are unhappy? Well, with treatment like they get from people who post things like this, are you at all surprised by that?

I happen to know a number of very wonderful homosexual couples, even some who have children (both natural and adopted), and they have great family lives! They have all the same joys and heartaches that any family has, and the kids are loved and safe and healthy. Likewise, I know a few heterosexual couples who have children and are terrible parents, abusive, unable to deal with their children, and who should never have had them. The sexual orientation of the parents has NOTHING whatsoever to do with their abilities AS parents.

I guess I'm homophobic. I think there is a homo living in my closet waiting for me to turn the lights out at night so he can get me.
Is that the "Buggerman"?

I guess I'm homophobic. I think there is a homo living in my closet waiting for me to turn the lights out at night so he can get me.
Is that the "Buggerman"?
ROFLMAO!! Trust you to come up with something like that! :D

If we went through the entire English language trying to sort out inconsitancies, we'd be a lifetime at it, reinventing our language. It's not going to happen, Frang.

no, of course not. and i am not saying that language should not be allowed to change.

but i am saying that known definitions for words should not be changed by assigning meaning to a word that it does not, by original definition, carry.

(as in, adding aversion to the definition of phobia)

And I go back to my two suggestions for new words... words that mean what they are purported to mean:

Homobigot - One who is bigoted toward homosexuals (proably the vast majority of "homophobes" are really just homobigots... they are not afraid of homosexuals (which homophobe implies).

Non-Homosexual (or, better, Heterosexual) -- One who is not inclined to have homosexual sex and will likely decline an invitation to do so.

So, with enough time and influence, any word can mean whatever it is most politically convinient to mean!


Yeah, and my point is, Frang and his buddy are not powerful enough to change the term and the connotation all by their lonesome. Nor do I believe there is a lobby powerful enough to make this an issue anyone cares about enough to work on. The only reason I could think of for someone giving a rat's ass about this word is that they were called it, and somehow think it might actually apply to them. Because I could call you a homophobe Santa Barbara...but would you give a shit? Would you think that the label makes you one? It doesn't apply, so who cares what someone calls you? Nor is it a term that is as derogatory as, say, "Asshole, pedantic twit" or any other flames that get tossed around NS like confetti. As far as I know, 'homophobe' is not a flame. It's a (now) legitimate term for someone who discriminates against homosexuals. But once again...the individual knows if it really suits them or not.

I guess I'm homophobic. I think there is a homo living in my closet waiting for me to turn the lights out at night so he can get me.
Is that the "Buggerman"?

I'd take that over the alien grasshopper people weaving baskets. They give the weirdest looks. I think the one likes me, but I had always assumed he was the alpha male. Maybe I should watch out too!!!

Homophobia (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=homophobia)

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

See, it doesn't just mean "fear of". Any other definition you want me to look up?

That's what it's come to mean in popular parlance, and so the dictionary is merely mirroring modern usage, even though its meaning is technically incorrect.

Literally, homophobia means "fear of sameness." Leave it to Americans to misuse and abuse the Queen's English. (Actually, the Queen's Greek. Both "homo" and "phobia" are Greek words.)

no, of course not. and i am not saying that language should not be allowed to change.
but i am saying that known definitions for words should not be changed by assigning meaning to a word that it does not, by original definition, carry.

(as in, adding aversion to the definition of phobia)
So then you are in fact saying that language should not be allowed to change.

Should we get rid of the names for the days of the week? Because they CERTAINLY don't mean what the original definition meant.

I don't know what you think you can accomplish here. The word means what people generally take it to mean. Eventually, it might mean somthing else. Welcome to language.

ROFLMAO!! Trust you to come up with something like that! :D

IRL, when I'm serious, people that know better run and hide. Its in my nature though to often be humorously innapropriate.

That's what it's come to mean in popular parlance, and so the dictionary is merely mirroring modern usage, even though its meaning is technically incorrect.

Literally, homophobia means "fear of sameness." Leave it to Americans to misuse and abuse the Queen's English. (Actually, the Queen's Greek. Both "homo" and "phobia" are Greek words.)
Yes. Because everyone but Americans use 'homophobe' to mean someone who is afraid of 'sameness'. :rolleyes:

A more useless conversation I've not seen in some time...yet oddly titilating...like watching people rationalise why our planet is incorrectly named "Earth" when it is more water than earth... :eek:

So then you are in fact saying that language should not be allowed to change.

Should we get rid of the names for the days of the week? Because they CERTAINLY don't mean what the original definition meant.

I don't know what you think you can accomplish here. The word means what people generally take it to mean. Eventually, it might mean somthing else. Welcome to language.

Actually, words that bother me even more are "prioritizing" and "networking." Since when did "priority" and "network" become verbs?

Yeah, and my point is, Frang and his buddy are not powerful enough to change the term and the connotation all by their lonesome. Nor do I believe there is a lobby powerful enough to make this an issue anyone cares about enough to work on. The only reason I could think of for someone giving a rat's ass about this word is that they were called it, and somehow think it might actually apply to them. Because I could call you a homophobe Santa Barbara...but would you give a shit? Would you think that the label makes you one? It doesn't apply, so who cares what someone calls you? Nor is it a term that is as derogatory as, say, "Asshole, pedantic twit" or any other flames that get tossed around NS like confetti. As far as I know, 'homophobe' is not a flame. It's a (now) legitimate term for someone who discriminates against homosexuals. But once again...the individual knows if it really suits them or not.

the aim was to convey that

a)phobia = fear, and nothing else

b)homophobia is misused to refer to people without fear for homosexuals

and, finally

c)to correctly label most people currently misrepresented by the term homophobe, words like homobigot (if anyone asks, I invented it!) and heterosexual should be used instead.

hehe

this is fun. i hope nobody is taking me too seriously.

IRL, when I'm serious, people that know better run and hide. Its in my nature though to often be humorously innapropriate.
I simply don't believe that about you! :p

Imagine that! Next thing you're gonna tell me is that Jews don't like anti-Semites, or that black people don't like racists... :rolleyes:

I don't like anti-Semites or racists, however, racists does cover both.

Yeah, and my point is, Frang and his buddy are not powerful enough to change the term and the connotation all by their lonesome. Nor do I believe there is a lobby powerful enough to make this an issue anyone cares about enough to work on. The only reason I could think of for someone giving a rat's ass about this word is that they were called it, and somehow think it might actually apply to them. Because I could call you a homophobe Santa Barbara...but would you give a shit? Would you think that the label makes you one? It doesn't apply, so who cares what someone calls you? Nor is it a term that is as derogatory as, say, "Asshole, pedantic twit" or any other flames that get tossed around NS like confetti. As far as I know, 'homophobe' is not a flame. It's a (now) legitimate term for someone who discriminates against homosexuals. But once again...the individual knows if it really suits them or not.

Yeah, well thats the thing. Now you can call someone a homophobe, but you don't have to defend the accusation that the homophobe has any sort of fear of homosexuality. The implication is there... the connotation. It gets to stick, subconsciously, so now we have this funny social 'norm' developing where anyone who has an aversion to homosexuality is thought to also have an abnormal fear of it. Because we're using "phobia" as the base, the connotation is now inherent whenever the word is used. And its no surprise that the word is used a lot.

The fact that it doesn't apply doesn't bother me or anyone, it's the 'correctness' of being able to dismiss anyone like that, a sort of veiled ad hominem argument inherent that's become implicitly 'okay.' That bothers.

Anyway... I may be an asshole pedant, not a twit! :p

Yes. Because everyone but Americans use 'homophobe' to mean someone who is afraid of 'sameness'. :rolleyes:

:

Just because everyone does a certain thing doesn't mean it's right.

Okay, debating shit on here is going to have no effect on the real world. That's pretty much what I'm getting from the above posts. However, the people making the posts are the same ones that might argue for days or hours about other topics.

Why don't we just DISCUSS these things, rather than pointing out that this is making no difference?

"...but originally, "homophobia" meant just that - fear of teh gay. "

Fear, scared - but why? If someone is afraid/scared there is usually a reason for it ...... Usually deeply routed in the psychie.

I don't like anti-Semites or racists, however, racists does cover both.

Actually, the "Semites" are the descendents of Shem, son of Noah, and include Arabs as well as Jews. Therefore, a true anti-semite hates Jews AND Arabs!

Actually, words that bother me even more are "prioritizing" and "networking." Since when did "priority" and "network" become verbs?

To prioritise would be the infinitive from which "prioritising" stems, not priority.
Network has probably been a verb for a few decades.

I'd take that over the alien grasshopper people weaving baskets. They give the weirdest looks. I think the one likes me, but I had always assumed he was the alpha male. Maybe I should watch out too!!!


And just what is the purpose of those baskets? Random weavers are cause for concern as well.

Actually, the "Semites" are the descendents of Shem, son of Noah, and include Arabs as well as Jews. Therefore, a true anti-semite hates Jews AND Arabs!

I didn't actually mention Jews, except in my quote. I know who the Semites are.

Actually, words that bother me even more are "prioritizing" and "networking." Since when did "priority" and "network" become verbs?
Since the language evolved to make such terms necessary.

Such as the verb form of 'disappear'. To 'disappear' someone was not a word that was needed, nor one that would have made sense until (mostly) Latin American dictatorships started doing this to people. Now it's a verb that is used for a specific situation. Language changes, and wow has it ever in the past decade...just look at all the technical jargon...the phrases and cliches that have been added to our lexicon...and the words that no longer hold meaning that have been discarded. It's really quite fascinating.

i'm too lazy to go back and copy/paste the post to which I was referring, but if memory serves (s)he (I'm a genderdefiningphobe) had mentioned that the (what i assume to be...) medical term hydrophobic does NOT, to a physician/scientist (or whomever else), mean "afraid of water"

so in that sense, it does not meet the definition i mentioned for phobia as suffix

You haven't posted a definition of the suffix, -phobia. You have posted a definition of the word, phobia.

The definition of the suffix is as follows (for the third time):

Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavonic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

Meanwhile, hydrophobic, photophobic, etc. are not really medical terms, they are scientific and chemical terms - often having nothing to do with medicine. Medical terms would include things like agoraphobia.

the aim was to convey that a)phobia = fear, and nothing else

When using phobia as its own word, you are correct. When using it as a suffix, you are patently incorrect.

Yes. Because everyone but Americans use 'homophobe' to mean someone who is afraid of 'sameness'. :rolleyes:

A more useless conversation I've not seen in some time...yet oddly titilating...like watching people rationalise why our planet is incorrectly named "Earth" when it is more water than earth... :eek:It was just a matter of time before it degenerated into a purely semantic discussion..:p

However, my dictionary is stupid and seems to think it is only people who speak Semitic languages, which would therefore mean that if I spoke Hebrew, I would become one. Which is wrong.

this is fun. i hope nobody is taking me too seriously.
There is absolutely no chance of that. :p

"...but originally, "homophobia" meant just that - fear of teh gay. "

Fear, scared - but why? If someone is afraid/scared there is usually a reason for it ...... Usually deeply routed in the psychie.

It's hard to be afraid of gays. I mean, gosh, they're such sissies! I could wipe out a whole battalion of them single-handed. Not that I would, mind you, as I'm a fairly pacifistic, live-and-let-live sort of person. I'm merely saying that there is no reason to fear gays.

I simply don't believe that about you! :p

:cool:

Since the language evolved to make such terms necessary.

Such as the verb form of 'disappear'. To 'disappear' someone was not a word that was needed, nor one that would have made sense until (mostly) Latin American dictatorships started doing this to people. Now it's a verb that is used for a specific situation. Language changes, and wow has it ever in the past decade...just look at all the technical jargon...the phrases and cliches that have been added to our lexicon...and the words that no longer hold meaning that have been discarded. It's really quite fascinating.

Very true, but I was shocked and appalled when I had heard that some American grade schools are teaching their students that they can spell words how they sound, and in some cases how they want to.

Just because everyone does a certain thing doesn't mean it's right.

Actually, when speaking of language, it does. "Right" is determined by the amount of use.

Since the language evolved to make such terms necessary.

Such as the verb form of 'disappear'. To 'disappear' someone was not a word that was needed, nor one that would have made sense until (mostly) Latin American dictatorships started doing this to people. Now it's a verb that is used for a specific situation. Language changes, and wow has it ever in the past decade...just look at all the technical jargon...the phrases and cliches that have been added to our lexicon...and the words that no longer hold meaning that have been discarded. It's really quite fascinating.

I suppose you're a big supporter of "Ebonics," too. ;)
There has always been popular language and grammatically correct language. I just think that a few more generations of usage should be required before the former becomes the latter. Perhaps we need an academy of language, much like the French have, to decide such things.

Actually, when speaking of language, it does. "Right" is determined by the amount of use.

"Ain't" STILL ain't a word. ;)

Yeah, well thats the thing. Now you can call someone a homophobe, but you don't have to defend the accusation that the homophobe has any sort of fear of homosexuality. The implication is there... the connotation. It gets to stick, subconsciously, so now we have this funny social 'norm' developing where anyone who has an aversion to homosexuality is thought to also have an abnormal fear of it.
And this is a valid complaint. It really is. But the same as 'liberal' or 'conservative' being perjorative terms depending on the (over)use of them, it's simply a case of certain people taking things too far. I have no problem with people who are put off by homosexuals...or who think that homosexual acts are disgusting. I have no problem with people who are put off with Natives, or who think our traditional songs and dances are lame. As long as they don't go around spreading hatred, and actively making life hell for us, then whatever. I'm not going to call a person who doesn't love me a Sinuhuephobe. Some others might, even on my behalf, though I wouldn't want them to.

Language is a tool that can be used to describe, to label, to lay blame, to do all sorts of things. If some people are throwing around 'homophobe' like idiots...I wouldn't quite let it pass...I'd object to being labelled that. If they persisted, I'd stop bothering to converse with them. Obviously, they have issues I don't need to deal with.

Very true, but I was shocked and appalled when I had heard that some American grade schools are teaching their students that they can spell words how they sound, and in some cases how they want to.
? Care to back that up? If there was ever a language that didn't lend itself to phonetic spellings, it's English. Now, if we wanted to move to MAKE English phonetic, I'd be on that bandwagon in an instant! How sweet it would be...my Dad would finally be able to spell!

[QUOTE=Angry Fruit Salad[/QUOTE]

AFS your user name is fantastic - makes me smile/chuckle everytime I see it :)

(I urm mean that as a positive not a negative - one has to be sooo carefull round here :p )

I suppose you're a big supporter of "Ebonics," too. ;)
There has always been popular language and grammatically correct language. I just think that a few more generations of usage should be required before the former becomes the latter. Perhaps we need an academy of language, much like the French have, to decide such things.
It wouldn't work. Our language is already too bastardised. We often don't even bother to make up our own words for things, we just use the English version of 'foreign' names, like boy choy, and chocolate. There IS no pure English to save.

English is so popular because it adapts so quickly. It absorbs, and it grows. And it can't be stopped.

Yeah, well thats the thing. Now you can call someone a homophobe, but you don't have to defend the accusation that the homophobe has any sort of fear of homosexuality. The implication is there... the connotation. It gets to stick, subconsciously, so now we have this funny social 'norm' developing where anyone who has an aversion to homosexuality is thought to also have an abnormal fear of it. Because we're using "phobia" as the base, the connotation is now inherent whenever the word is used. And its no surprise that the word is used a lot.

You seem to think that proplerly using the suffix -phobia is a bad idea just because a few people aren't aware of its full definition and assume it has to do with fear. Meanwhile, no one who uses the term homophobe is suggesting that someone is afraid of homosexuals.

And, for the fourth time today:
Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavonic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

And, just for comparison, the definition of phobia as its own word:

Main Entry: pho·bia
Pronunciation: 'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: -phobia
: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation

See the difference?

"Ain't" STILL ain't a word.

Tehcnically, it is. =)

It simply isn't a word accepted in formal speech or writing.

To prioritise would be the infinitive from which "prioritising" stems, not priority.
Network has probably been a verb for a few decades.

leave it to the business world to make up crappy words, use current words incorrectly, or apply incorrect meanings to existing words.

Cases in point:

Invented word: Decisioning
Now one does not make a decision... one simply decisions. lmao

Correct: We're in the process of making a decision.
Business shite: We're in the process of decisioning.
-------------

Incorrect use of word: Grow
Businesses grow; one does not grow a business. Try explaining that to a person adept at corporate-speak!

Correct: I want my business to grow.
Business shite: I want to grow my business.

lmao

You seem to think that proplerly using the suffix -phobia is a bad idea just because a few people aren't aware of its full definition and assume it has to do with fear. Meanwhile, no one who uses the term homophobe is suggesting that someone is afraid of homosexuals.

I would contend that latter point as that's just what certain folks have meant in arguments I've had.

And the primary definition of the suffix DOES have to do with fear. As you correctly show. People tend to use the more commonly accepted definitions (fear) and the primary definition (fear).

So the connotation is there, and yes it is a bad idea. What use could anyone have for labelling someone a homophobe anyway, if not to dismiss that person or their arguments?

What use could anyone have for labelling someone a homophobe anyway, if not to dismiss that person or their arguments?
Because someone who is a homophobe is generally not going to change their mind. Much as a racist won't. So why bother continuing the conversation? And what's the point of any label? Nonetheless, we do it. Oh well, life goes on.

It's hard to be afraid of gays. I mean, gosh, they're such sissies! I could wipe out a whole battalion of them single-handed. Not that I would, mind you, as I'm a fairly pacifistic, live-and-let-live sort of person. I'm merely saying that there is no reason to fear gays.

Blimey - quote thoes sterotypes - Many of the gay guys I know are so pumped, muscled and so forth thye could wipe anyone out!!!!

:)

Because someone who is a homophobe is generally not going to change their mind. Much as a racist won't. So why bother continuing the conversation? And what's the point of any label? Nonetheless, we do it. Oh well, life goes on.

Life does go on... but I dislike labels when they're used as weapons. We all do it, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy being labelled "anti-Semitic" whenever I criticize Israel, or "homophobic" for basically not being gay. I mean really, by definition heterosexuals are homophobic because they have a sexual aversion to homosexual acts! Am I wrong there or what? The only people I know who REALLY don't have any sort of aversion to homosexuality, are homo- and bisexuals. Broadening terms destroys them, much like "liberal" might mean someone who loves freedom, or someone who wants to enact a 100% tax rate and create the perfect world via federal legislation.

I would contend that latter point as that's just what certain folks have meant in arguments I've had.

And the primary definition of the suffix DOES have to do with fear. As you correctly show. People tend to use the more commonly accepted definitions (fear) and the primary definition (fear).

So the connotation is there, and yes it is a bad idea. What use could anyone have for labelling someone a homophobe anyway, if not to dismiss that person or their arguments?

In truth, there are more words I can think of in the English language that use the second definitoin. By the way, the order of the definitions do not mean that one is primary and the other is secondary. If one is no longer in use, that is noted in a defintion. The two definitions of the suffix are equal - and, as I said, I can probably think of more actual words using the latter definition than the former.

And one can label a person a homophobe in much the same way as one labels any bigot. In the end, it does dismiss their arguments to a point, because their arguments are irrational. It is no different than pointing out the bias in any biased source.

Because someone who is a homophobe is generally not going to change their mind. Much as a racist won't.

much as a liberal wont. much as a facsist wont....

Labeling people makes certain people feel good.

I mean really, by definition heterosexuals are homophobic because they have a sexual aversion to homosexual acts! Am I wrong there or what?

Yes, actually, you are wrong:

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

A heterosexual does not have an irrational aversion to homosexual acts. In fact, their aversion is quite rational, considering that they are not wired to wish to engage in such actions.

The only people I know who REALLY don't have any sort of aversion to homosexuality, are homo- and bisexuals.

Good thing we aren't talking about any sort of aversion then, isn't it?

Broadening terms destroys them, much like "liberal" might mean someone who loves freedom, or someone who wants to enact a 100% tax rate and create the perfect world via federal legislation.

Good thing we aren't talking about broadening terms then - simply using them as they are defined. The fact that some people misuse the term is irrelevant, as long as they are largely ignored.

It wouldn't work. Our language is already too bastardised. We often don't even bother to make up our own words for things, we just use the English version of 'foreign' names, like boy choy, and chocolate.



Is boy choy a homosexual delicacy, or did you just make that up?

Is boy choy a homosexual delicacy, or did you just make that up?
Both :D

Life does go on... but I dislike labels when they're used as weapons. We all do it, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy being labelled "anti-Semitic" whenever I criticize Israel, or "homophobic" for basically not being gay.
SB, that's not a problem with the words, it's a problem with the people using them.

much as a liberal wont. much as a facsist wont....

Labeling people makes certain people feel good.
We ALL use labels.

Good thing we aren't talking about broadening terms then - simply using them as they are defined. The fact that some people misuse the term is irrelevant, as long as they are largely ignored.

They aren't largely ignored.

So, it's not irrelevant.

Homophobia
Fear of sameness, monotony or of homosexuality or of becoming homosexual.

The term homophobia often seems to be misused. How scary is gayness? Ridiculous maybe but not scary.


I am not against people being gay (altho the act does seem a bit violent), go ahead if you must, but damn stop with slapping the old homophobe tag around as soon as there is even the slightest hint of anti-gayness.
As far as posts go, I've had more meaningful fits of flatulance.

We ALL use labels.

I dont, you blabbering crackpot!

And, along with that (these statistics sound like something out of the '70's, especially considering that bathhouses practically don't exist anymore), I'd like to see matched statistics for heterosexuals of the same age and general peer group.

Okay fine *geez* I can't mix in even moderately dated stats but I don't see the people around here being called up for their ridiculous 10% numbers based purely on a badly erroneous and nonsensical fake-survey done in 1947 :rolleyes:


January, 2003
In their book, Homosexuality: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, a study of homosexual relationships by A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg:

~ 8% of men and 7% of women had relationships lasting more than 3 years.
~ 50% of gay males over the age of 30 and 75% of gay males over the age
of 40 experienced no relationships that lasted more than one year.
~ 74% of male homosexuals reported having more than 100 partners during
their lifetime, 41% more than 500 partners and 28% more than 1000 partners.
~ 75% reported that more than half their partners were strangers and 65%
reported that they had sex with more than half their partners only once.


If what I say is not true, about it being an unhealthy lifestyle choice, why doens't someone else look up the homosexual life expectancy rates for us...

As far as posts go, I've had more meaningful fits of flatulance.

And likely pay closer attention to them...

They aren't largely ignored.

Actually, they are. Those of us who know the correct usage of the word ignore those who use it to accuse others of fearing homosexuals or to apply it to anyone who doesn't like the thought of homosexual sex. Most of those who are wrongly labeled with it ignore it as well - although a few obviously want to make a big fuss over it and redefine the word because they think it will somehow make it less easy to misuse (never mind that all words are misused).

The vast majority of people use the word by its definition, and ignore those who don't. Thus, they are largely ignored. Your personal outrage at being mislabeled does not constitute large-scale notice.

I guess I'm homophobic. I think there is a homo living in my closet waiting for me to turn the lights out at night so he can get me.
Is that the "Buggerman"?

:D

I dont, you blabbering crackpot!
You lying horndog!

You lying horndog!

Pompous bloviator!!

Actually, they are. Those of us who know the correct usage of the word ignore those who use it to accuse others of fearing homosexuals or to apply it to anyone who doesn't like the thought of homosexual sex. Most of those who are wrongly labeled with it ignore it as well - although a few obviously want to make a big fuss over it and redefine the word because they think it will somehow make it less easy to misuse (never mind that all words are misused).

The vast majority of people use the word by its definition, and ignore those who don't. Thus, they are largely ignored. Your personal outrage at being mislabeled does not constitute large-scale notice.

Your personal "knowledge of the correct usage" of the word doesn't qualify as large-scale ignoring (or a 'vast majority') of the mis-use either.

What do you think is more common, people who know the finer points of the exact definition of the suffix versus the root versus the word in question? ... or people who don't?

Pompous bloviator!!
Inveterate degenerate!

Yeah, well thats the thing. Now you can call someone a homophobe, but you don't have to defend the accusation that the homophobe has any sort of fear of homosexuality. The implication is there... the connotation. It gets to stick, subconsciously, so now we have this funny social 'norm' developing where anyone who has an aversion to homosexuality is thought to also have an abnormal fear of it. Because we're using "phobia" as the base, the connotation is now inherent whenever the word is used. And its no surprise that the word is used a lot.

The fact that it doesn't apply doesn't bother me or anyone, it's the 'correctness' of being able to dismiss anyone like that, a sort of veiled ad hominem argument inherent that's become implicitly 'okay.' That bothers.

Anyway... I may be an asshole pedant, not a twit! :p

well said ;)

Inveterate degenerate!

tantalizing fille de joie...

tantalizing fille de joie...
Masticating thespian.

January, 2003
In their book, Homosexuality: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, a study of homosexual relationships by A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg:


Oh wonderful.. you pick a study done by total quacks... that's great.. a study that has been proven wrong numerous times..

If what I say is not true, about it being an unhealthy lifestyle choice, why doens't someone else look up the homosexual life expectancy rates for us...

You're full of it. Life expectancy rates? I'm sure I'll live long just fine.

And one can label a person a homophobe in much the same way as one labels any bigot. In the end, it does dismiss their arguments to a point, because their arguments are irrational. It is no different than pointing out the bias in any biased source.

And THERE is the point I was trying to make before. When someone is illegitamitely labeled a homophobe in order to dismiss thier argument, the person being labeled is unfairly assessed and then must spend quite some effort to refute it. One problem of this, is the derailing of the discussion while the accused is stuck refuting the label.

Labeling a true homophobe/bigot is one thing, but the liberal use of the term makes rational discourse difficult when dealing with non-homophobic/non-bigotted participants who are voicing certain disagreements or misgivings.

I'll live to about the age of forty, if I predict right...maybe longer if I'm lucky...but that has everything to do with my genes and lifestyle choices(in the non-homosexual sense), and nothing to do with the fact that I am gay.

As far as posts go, I've had more meaningful fits of flatulance.

Good for you!

Well as for some feedback to the original post, I feel in todays world the word "homophobe" has been applied appropriately to the right people. We can name a few, like Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson and others... this word means fear and hatred of gay people, and I feel these old quacks have this fear that we might convert them into being gay. There are also the internet homophobes who would probably never go up to a gay person and say what they say (greenlander is one, who relies on studies that have long been proven wrong).

Oh wonderful.. you pick a study done by total quacks... that's great.. a study that has been proven wrong numerous times..

Care to provide a source that states that? At least he provided something, if you're going to argue that it's untrue then you must do the same.

As for the topic, I've seen the term misused and applied far too liberally to people, but that's not something we can stop. To argue about something that will never change is a reasonably pointless effort.

Your personal "knowledge of the correct usage" of the word doesn't qualify as large-scale ignoring (or a 'vast majority') of the mis-use either.

What do you think is more common, people who know the finer points of the exact definition of the suffix versus the root versus the word in question? ... or people who don't?

I don't know how many people know the finer points of the definition of the suffix, but I do know that all but about one person I have ever heard use the word homophobe understood that fear had little to do with it.

And THERE is the point I was trying to make before. When someone is illegitamitely labeled a homophobe in order to dismiss thier argument, the person being labeled is unfairly assessed and then must spend quite some effort to refute it. One problem of this, is the derailing of the discussion while the accused is stuck refuting the label.

Labeling a true homophobe/bigot is one thing, but the liberal use of the term makes rational discourse difficult when dealing with non-homophobic/non-bigotted participants who are voicing certain disagreements or misgivings.

This is true of any label. However, it has little to do with a discussion of the meaning of the word. Changing the definition of the word is unlikely to do anything at all about people misusing it.

Care to provide a source that states that? At least he provided something, if you're going to argue that it's untrue then you must do the same.

You don't actually believe him do you?

Their study is over twenty years old. That's all I'm going to say. It was done in 1970s. I think that does all the speaking for itself. Plus their sample is widely ranging and was not controlled.

Source: http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/factfile/factfile1301_1320.asp

1319/ A survey of homosexuals in San Francisco in the late 1970's by A.P Bell and M.S Weinberg showed that among white males, 28 per cent reported having had more than a thousand partners, and 75 per cent said that they had had more than a hundred partners. Not one white female reported having had a thousand partners, and only 2 per cent had had more than a hundred.

----

First off, how is a study that was done in the 1970s, conducted under questionable motives at all indicative of today? For one thing, there was a sexual revolution in the 1970s in youth...

This is true of any label. However, it has little to do with a discussion of the meaning of the word. Changing the definition of the word is unlikely to do anything at all about people misusing it.

Maybe not, but perhaps it will raise awareness when one encounters it in a debate.

Masticating thespian.


drubbing connatural

First off, how is a study that was done in the 1970s, conducted under questionable motives at all indicative of today? For one thing, there was a sexual revolution in the 1970s in youth...


LOL :p

You're probably right, all the homosexuals from the seventies must be dead by now anyway :rolleyes: They have nothing to offer us even as far as setting an example for us goes...

As for the rest of you that have average life spans of over forty two years, perhaps the results of other surveys done in the seventies still have some bearing because you remember taking them and what you thought then vs. what you think now...

Cameron, Playfair, & Wellum (1994) collected over 7500 obituaries from the homosexual press and mainstream newspaper reported that homosexuals on the average seem to lead a sharply abbreviated lives. It has been found that married and never divorced men had a median life span of 75 years, yet 5745 homosexual men who died of AIDS had a median life span of 39 years, and the 829 who did not die of AIDS had a median life span of 42 years.

As for the rest of you that have average life spans of over forty two years, perhaps the results of other surveys done in the seventies still have some bearing because you remember taking them and what you thought then vs. what you think now...

No. I'm going to live very long thank you very much. And I myself have had four relationships in my life, and those are the only guys I slept with. One relationship was 2 years. I think i'll live about 70 or 80.. or 101 like my grandfather. Most heterosexual guys I know have jumped from girlfriend to girlfriend.

The results of the surveys are not relevant today, as thinking has changed totally.

Cameron, Playfair, & Wellum (1994) collected over 7500 obituaries from the homosexual press and mainstream newspaper reported that homosexuals on the average seem to lead a sharply abbreviated lives. It has been found that married and never divorced men had a median life span of 75 years, yet 5745 homosexual men who died of AIDS had a median life span of 39 years, and the 829 who did not die of AIDS had a median life span of 42 years.

And this indicates the whole how? I don't think a very questionable collection of data leads to anything... why don't you question those heterosexuals involved in the sex trade?

So other then make a total fool of yourself again, do you have anything to offer?

Oh yes, some light on the researchers who came up with the lifespan:

Bennett got the number from Paul Cameron, a researcher well known to followers of gay controversies. Cameron, a former assistant professor at the University of Nebraska who has consulted for such gay-rights opponents as former Rep. William Dannemeyer, R-Calif., heads a group called the Family Research Institute. Cameron resigned under fire from the American Psychological Association and was later formally terminated from membership following complaints about his research methods. He has had run-ins with other professional groups, including the Nebraska Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association. According to Mark Pietrzyk's exposé in the Oct. 3, 1994, New Republic, the state of Colorado initially hired Cameron as an expert witness to defend its statute restricting gay-rights ordinances, then elected not to use his testimony after it got a closer look. His life-span figures have circulated for years in religious-right circles, but Bennett's comments appear to represent their first real breakout into wider public discussion. (related article)

Cameron's method had the virtue of simplicity, at least. He and two co-authors read through back numbers of various urban gay community papers, mostly of the giveaway sort that are laden with bar ads and personals. They counted up obituaries and news stories about deaths, noted the ages of the deceased, computed the average, and published the resulting numbers as estimates of gay life expectancy.

What do vital-statistics buffs think of this technique? Nick Eberstadt at the American Enterprise Institute sums up the reactions of several of his fellow demographers: "The method as you describe it is just ridiculous." But you don't have to be a trained statistician to spot the fallacy at its heart, which is, to quote Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistician John Karon, that "you're only getting the ages of those who die." Gay men of the same generation destined to live to old age, even if more numerous, won't turn up in the sample.

Other critics rattle off further objections. The deaths reported in these papers, mostly AIDS deaths, will tend to represent the community defined by such papers or directly known to their editors. It will include relatively more subjects who live in town and are overtly gay and relatively few who blend into the suburbs and seldom set foot in bars. It will overrepresent those whose passing strikes others as newsworthy and underrepresent those who end their days in retired obscurity in some sunny clime.

Bennett is a busy man, but even he has access to the back of an envelope. A moment's thought might have suggested a few simple test calculations. Suppose he assumesÑwildly pessimistically, given current incidence dataÑthat half the gay male population is destined to catch the AIDS virus and die of it. The actual average age of AIDS patients at death has been about 40. (Presumably protease inhibitors will extend average longevity, but that will only increase Bennett's difficulty.) For the number 43 to be the true average death age for the entire population of gay males, HIV-negative gay men would, on average, have to keel into their graves at 46. Looked at another way, if even half the gay male population stays HIV-negative and lives to an average age of 75, an average overall life span of 43 implies that gay males with AIDS die at an implausibly early average age (11, actually).

Against this, Cameron and his supporters argue that, according to their survey of obits, even if they don't have AIDS, homosexual males tend to die by their mid-40s (and lesbians by their late 40s). Some downright peculiar results followed from this inference. One is that -- contrary to the opinion of virtually everyone else in the world -- AIDS in fact hasn't reduced gay males' life expectancy by that much -- a few years, at most. Moreover, the obits also recorded lots of violent and accidental deaths. From this Cameron and company concluded not that newsworthy deaths tend to get into newspapers, but that gays must experience shockingly high rates of violent death. With a perfectly straight face they report, for example, that lesbians are at least 300 times more likely to die in car crashes than females of similar ages in general.

Unfortunately there really is no satisfactory measure of actual life expectancy among gay men. However, Harry Rosenberg, the mortality-statistics chief at the National Center for Health Statistics, says he's unaware of evidence that HIV-negative gays have a lower life expectancy than other males. Rosenberg also points to one reason to think the HIV-negative gay male may actually live longer on average than the straight male: Gays may have higher incomes and more education on average than straights -- two factors powerfully correlated with longer life spans. (Bennett himself appears to share this view, terming gays, "as a group, wealthy and well educated.")

http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/olson/olson27.html

Let me bring my favourite topic into this debate, homosexualtiy is like a lesser version of abortion, it kills babies, in this case by not having them! That was a very bad argument, the only reason I'm anti-homosexual is because its a bit disturbing, 2 men going at it... seems a bit gay.... and it sort of comes with the conservative package, with the anti-abortion/euthanasia low tax stuff. privatisation and all.

ok, i think that was possible the WORST argument I have ever given! do not judge my debating skills by this piece of crap!

And this indicates the whole how? I don't think a very questionable collection of data leads to anything... why don't you question those heterosexuals involved in the sex trade?

So other then make a total fool of yourself again, do you have anything to offer?

Now there you're barking up the wrong tree. I am, and have been publicly (in this very forum) opposed to all kinds of indecencies and deviations from healthy family and anti-monogamous lifestyles of every kind.

I’m against no fault divorces, I'm against couples that break up too easily, I'm against the public acceptance of promiscuity in our communities, I’m against the free trade of sexuality (prostitution etc.,) against deviant lifestyles (wife swapping, multiple wives, or affairs outside of one’s marriage) I’m against nearly all the different kinds deviant sexual behaviors being espoused as ‘normal healthy choices’ (heterosexual or homosexual is irrelevant) , S&M, pornography and non-relationship sexuality and it’s utter indoctrination of our children via it’s prevalence in all media forms, the displays of selling sex and all aspects of that (young girls harming themselves through anorexia and bulimia diets, and young men listening to rap songs about beating their bitches etc.,) I’m against all of that in our society...

Well as for some feedback to the original post, I feel in todays world the word "homophobe" has been applied appropriately to the right people. We can name a few, like Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson and others... this word means fear and hatred of gay people, and I feel these old quacks have this fear that we might convert them into being gay.
Watch it with the "old" crap, dude. :mad:

I'm a pedophobe
You're afraid of/dislike children?

Aversion to Pedophiles :p
I suggest j00 learn your shit before you write!

That... pretty much sums up everyone on Nation States.
I disagree. Most people are tolerant of those with differing political opinions. The only people who will flame you to a crisp for disagreeing with them are rightfully known as trolls.

73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person
Judging from the other statistics in your list, this one probably isn't true. But if it is, maybe it's got something to do with the facts that these homosexuals constantly face discrimination?

and young men listening to rap songs about beating their bitches etc.,) I’m against all of that in our society...
How come no one complains against metal advocating revenge and genocide, and honourable slaughter?

Not that I am!

How come no one complains against metal advocating revenge and genocide, and honourable slaughter?

Not that I am!


Okay, you convinced me, I'll put them on my list of compost to be disparaged.

:p

How come no one complains against metal advocating revenge and genocide, and honourable slaughter?

Not that I am!

However many metal bands may do that, they aren't mainstream metal...and therefore most of the populace knows nothing about them, and rarely hears it. The same can't be said for mainstream rap. I'm personally not a metal fan myself, and that is one of its less redeeming aspects.....but it's not nearly as popular as the rap that's invading the young peoples' heads, and overall less harmful (not that I think music is harmful, but for the sake of argument...) than metal that advocates slaughter and genocide. *rolls eyes* That said, music is music, and it takes a weak person to be changed drastically and perform actions that they hear in songs. It's not a problem with the artist's expression, but the person's will and understanding of right vs. wrong. Same for any other means of expression (i'm looking at you video games ;) )

Wow greenlander, you're against a lot of stuff...I agree with you on most of it...the music, anorexia/bulemia

Although, I don't agree with you on polygamy. It should be up to the people involved on that one. If three(or more) people love each other that much, I think they should be allowed to get married. And what do you mean by

nearly all the different kinds deviant sexual behaviors being espoused as ‘normal healthy choices’

?

Couples that break up too easily? I can't understand this. How do you know how long a relationship is going to last unless you're already in it?

A no fault divorce? What you think there should be some kind of fine to people who get divorced?

(Sorry if this is a hijack)

Wow greenlander, you're against a lot of stuff...I agree with you on most of it...the music, anorexia/bulemia

Although, I don't agree with you on polygamy. It should be up to the people involved on that one. If three(or more) people love each other that much, I think they should be allowed to get married. And what do you mean by



?

Couples that break up too easily? I can't understand this. How do you know how long a relationship is going to last unless you're already in it?

A no fault divorce? What you think there should be some kind of fine to people who get divorced?

(Sorry if this is a hijack)


I believe he's against no fault divorce, as it allows people to marry too hastily, and then divorce once they realize that things could get difficult. (Which happens frequently) I'm ashamed to look at how marriage is treated today, (no, this has nothing to do with gay marriage....the peoples' rights are the peoples' rights) it's pretty much nothing more than a joke in society, (50% divorce rate?! WTF) and it's sickening....but what's a person to do about it, people will get married hastily, they'll realize it was stupid, they'll look for a way out.....it's that way with a lot of things. Everybody wants an easy way out of any trouble they get themselves into, and that's the direction society's moving.....*shrugs* anyway....Homophobia....Word....Overused.....that about covers the topic.

Ah, then I can understand that, if that is what they mean. Divorce rates in the US areridiculous, I don't know about in the rest of the world.

Where'd you get the numbers on moral order and stuff in your sig? I've taken the other test.....sorry, just curious. ^_^

Let me bring my favourite topic into this debate, homosexualtiy is like a lesser version of abortion, it kills babies, in this case by not having them!

That was a very bad argument, the only reason I'm anti-homosexual is because its a bit disturbing, 2 men going at it... seems a bit gay....

and it sort of comes with the conservative package, with the anti-abortion/euthanasia low tax stuff. privatisation and all.
These are really some of the worst arguments I have ever seen on this forum, but since you are a child there is a chance that you can be educated out of your foolishness.

So not having babies is like killing them? It's this logic that leads to the conclusion that if a women isn't a permanently pregnant baby-factory, then she is a baby-killer.

"It's not appealing" is not an acceptable reason to make laws on. Laws on homosexuality don't just affect homosexual men, but also homosexual women. Why are they and more or less wrong than the men?

So you are proud that you choose to simply blindly follow what other conservatives think, rather than having your own reasons for your positions?

Things mean what people use them to mean, not what their component parts MIGHT combine to mean. So you are basically talking out your asshole.

If you're gonna throw around a pseudo-scientific word, how about using one that means what it says rather than trashing the English language? 'Homophobia' does not mean the same as how you use it, and people who use this stupid word make themselves look like idiots.

Now there you're barking up the wrong tree. I am, and have been publicly (in this very forum) opposed to all kinds of indecencies and deviations from healthy family and anti-monogamous lifestyles of every kind.

You can be opposed to anything. Even the facts... but I will call you up on that (especially when your so called studies lack all forms of credibility). My lifestyle is monogamous. Not once have I ever cheated on anyone. So you are definitely barking up the wrong tree. You will not be opposed to the fact that your so-called studies are based on horrid population samples (all the AIDS related deaths for gay people.. and make it disproportionate). Your studies have been thoroughly discredited. You have anything to say for this?


I’m against no fault divorces, I'm against couples that break up too easily, I'm against the public acceptance of promiscuity in our communities, I’m against the free trade of sexuality (prostitution etc.,) against deviant lifestyles (wife swapping, multiple wives, or affairs outside of one’s marriage) I’m against nearly all the different kinds deviant sexual behaviors being espoused as ‘normal healthy choices’ (heterosexual or homosexual is irrelevant)

Then you are against 60% of heterosexual marriage? Promiscuity is not limited to homosexuals. It is very much a problem for heterosexuals, and so is the fact that most prostitutes are heterosexual females. The fact that most sex offenders are heterosexual males. The fact that you go after homosexuals for having so many problems, when your own house isn't order.

S&M, pornography and non-relationship sexuality and it’s utter indoctrination of our children via it’s prevalence in all media forms, the displays of selling sex and all aspects of that (young girls harming themselves through anorexia and bulimia diets, and young men listening to rap songs about beating their bitches etc.,) I’m against all of that in our society...

You still want to address any of the evidence that I used to shell your argument with?

I wonder why it is us gay guys who have more education and make more money on average then heterosexual males? Points to clear and unmistakeable fact, that you're dead wrong about us.

100% with mesatecala. i'm straight, but he's got a point.

I wonder...

Is Nature a homophobe? How many generations of pure homosexual animals would survive?

If you put 10 male Beta fish in a tank together, at least one of them will actually change sex and become a female.

I think we know where Nature stands.

I wonder...

Is Nature a homophobe? How many generations of pure homosexual animals would survive?

If you put 10 male Beta fish in a tank together, at least one of them will actually change sex and become a female.

I think we know where Nature stands.
Right behind you in the shower, waiting for you to pick that bar of soap of the floor ;)

Homophobia
Fear of sameness, monotony or of homosexuality or of becoming homosexual."ho·mo·pho·bi·a n.
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling."
http://www.answers.com/homophobia&r=67
The definition you quoted was also in the link. "Homo" is Latin for same. Homosexuality is being attracted to the same sex as yourself, and the term homophobia, as it is commonly used is more like homosexualityphobia. It's a mouthful. No wonder we use the shorter form of the word.


The term homophobia often seems to be misused. How scary is gayness? Ridiculous maybe but not scary.Calling someone's sexuality ridiculous shows a contempt of their lifestyle and of them. Homophobe.


I am not against people being gay (altho the act does seem a bit violent), go ahead if you must,Thank you for giving me permission to be gay. And "the act" that I think you refer to is sodomy, which was never patented by a gay man, fyi, and as such is neither inheriently gay or straight. And most gay sex is not anal sex, so find a new reason to hate, or *gasps* maybe you could stop being a homophobe!
Hoser.

but damn stop with slapping the old homophobe tag around as soon as there is even the slightest hint of anti-gayness."Anti-gayness" is homophobia, so you can expect that people will continue to call it as they see it when it comes to hatred towards gay people.

Calling someone's sexuality ridiculous shows a contempt of their lifestyle and of them. Homophobe.

I know and that's pretty stuck what he/she said...

And most gay sex is not anal sex, so find a new reason to hate, or *gasps* maybe you could stop being a homophobe!
Hoser.

I totally agree.. and he said anal sex is violent.. since when?

I wonder... most gay guys I know are really easy going and peaceful..

"Anti-gayness" is homophobia, so you can expect that people will continue to call it as they see it when it comes to hatred towards gay people.

Yep. anti-gayness=homophobia.

If you're gonna throw around a pseudo-scientific word, how about using one that means what it says rather than trashing the English language? 'Homophobia' does not mean the same as how you use it, and people who use this stupid word make themselves look like idiots.

How about we examine what science has to say on the subject of the meaning of the word phobic, shall we? Phobic in science means "hating." As in a hydrophobic molecule is one that, literally "hates water" or a lipophobic one "hates fats." So calling someone who hates gays--whether or not they are afraid of them--a homophobe is actually hitting the nail right on the head.

So the only people who truly look like idiots, are those who think that a phobia is only a fear because they have not been educated well enough to know anything but the most common meaning for the word.

How about we examine what science has to say on the subject of the meaning of the word phobic, shall we? Phobic in science means "hating." As in a hydrophobic molecule is one that, literally "hates water" or a lipophobic one "hates fats." So calling someone who hates gays--whether or not they are afraid of them--a homophobe is actually hitting the nail right on the head.

So the only people who truly look like idiots, are those who think that a phobia is only a fear because they have not been educated well enough to know anything but the most common meaning for the word.

I can't believe I chimed in on such a stupid thread. This "discussion" more closely resembles a room full of bike helmet wearing retards trying to sing Vivaldi, than it does a real discussion. I was actually arguing against the idiotic usage of 'homo-', in front of '-phobic'. Homo in science means the same; homogenous. Not homosexual, Bill Nye. See, we call them homosexuals because they are attracted to the same (homo) sex. This is a proper usage of prefixes and suffixes. The word 'homophobe' would more closely mean afraid of or repelled by those of the same sex (applying this word to sexuality), something to that nature. As I said, you look like an idiot using this dumb word invented by pop culture shit eaters when you can easily create a new politically loaded word that at least makes sense. Case closed, you're a dumbass.

My last question is - it seems that a number of homophobic "people" seem 2 have the most problem with Gay males - and do not seem to have such "angry/phobic" thoughts/ideal/ideas towards gay females? Why is this? I'm intrested in this and any answers as a Lez female.

The beauty of hypocrisy, pure and simple.

Oh gawd, another thread? No, I won't be drawn in this time...damn, too late :rolleyes: :p

Okay I think I have a way to end all of this. I like guys and I like dick. So with that said, I think the discussion is over. :)

What if a person has a standard outside of what they "feel"? What if they try to live their entire life under this standard? What if their standard is the Bible, not just a feeling. The Bible says that homosexual acts are wrong. The Bible never says that being a homosexual is wrong, just that same sex intercourse is wrong. This is similar to alcoholism. Getting drunk is wrong, not being a sober alcoholic. Someone might say that a person who tries to follow the Word of God is homophobic. There is no fear of homosexuals in following the Bible! There is only a standard. Is having a standard homophobic?
No having a standard is not necessarily homophobic, but having a standard does not require that one attempts to coerce others into complying with that standard.

A good analogy would be to compare being a christian with the standards proscribed in the koran. Should those who believe that Allah is the one true God and Jesus was merely 'another prophet' coerce christians into abiding by that same standard. I suggest not.

It's all good and well to apply standards from some really old books to your own life, so long as you do not see this as an excuse to circumscribe the freedom of other people. Most people seem to find this a perfectly acceptable proposal in the context of not having someone else's standards forced onto them, so I see no reason why they cannot apply it when others do not wish to conform to their standards.

My last question is - it seems that a number of homophobic "people" seem 2 have the most problem with Gay males - and do not seem to have such "angry/phobic" thoughts/ideal/ideas towards gay females? Why is this? I'm intrested in this and any answers as a Lez female. The beauty of hypocrisy, pure and simple.

Nah, it's not entirely hypocrisy, there's a method to the madness, and even more so, it's called ‘picking your fights’ and prioritizing their importance...

For me it comes down to the children, namely, that because lesbian couples with children in the house are astronomically more monogamous and committed to their relationships and they (statistically anyways) recognize the importance of raising their children without the pitfalls that come from promiscuous activity in the home so they demand monogamous relations from their significant others.

They 'should' try extra hard to get a very close male friend of the family or relative to come over or spend time with daily, for the sake of the children, but otherwise the lesbian couple seems to statistically do as well as other divorced and remarried families do for raising their children (not good enough really but that is both lesbian homes and remarried heterosexual homes, the children do lose something from not having both of their biological parents with them daily), but so much better that it's a non-issue really, especially when compared to homosexual male lifestyles that have essentially zero redeeming factors and a thousand bad factor examples for the development of homes and when the raising of children is concerned...

especially when compared to homosexual male lifestyles that have essentially zero redeeming factors and a thousand bad factor examples for the development of homes and when the raising of children is concerned...

You seem to be stereotyping(generalizing w/e) the homosexual male lifestyle...

ooh, ooh, I'm a homosexual male, tell me what my lifestyle is.

You seem to be stereotyping(generalizing w/e) the homosexual male lifestyle...

ooh, ooh, I'm a homosexual male, tell me what my lifestyle is.

Lifestyle is a word people toss around like candy.. it is a misnomer.

He generalizes big time on false statistics. I already proved him false several times. And he runs away.

Lifestyle is a word people toss around like candy.. it is a misnomer.

He generalizes big time on false statistics. I already proved him false several times. And he runs away.

I've noticed that.

What I want to know is that even if say the average homosexual male has the lifestyle he's alluding to,

A homosexual male with children is a little different than just a homosexual male.

I believe this is the most I've ever used 'homosexual male' in a single discussion in my life.