CDZ Homophobic People Often Have Psychological Issues

[Zoom-boing]

According to the first word in the article, those who do not adhere to 'all things homosexual' are afraid and/or haters of homosexuals.

Talk about making assumptions.

You said you didn't get past the first word and then YOU made assumptions that were incorrect.

Its very telling that some are very threatened by a civil conversation about this. It proves the OP is correct.

I think that's really an important point. Those who feel very threatened by this study, so threatened they can't engage in civil discourse....that's very telling. If you are not threatened, why has this study triggered such an angry response?

"If you are not threatened, why has this study triggered such an angry response?"

The study itself answers that question.

Homophobia and anger

Overall, the better the mental health of the person (based on the responses to the questionnaire), the less likely he or she was to be homophobic, the researchers found. People with "fearful-avoidant" attachment styles, who tend to feel uncomfortable in close relationships with others, were significantly more homophobic than those who were secure with close relationships. The researchers also found that people with higher levels of immature defense mechanisms were more homophobic than those with mature defense mechanisms.

High levels of hostility and anger, measured as psychoticism, were also linked to homophobia, the researchers found.​

Except no one is responding with anger. If you guys are reading responses as 'angry' well, that's on you.
<shrug>

Read what I wrote ... you claim we are giving an 'angry response'. Where?

We did read what you wrote.

Your use of spurious vulgarities exposed your anger.

Not to mention being a CDZ rule violation.

Again, no one is responding angrily. That you read it as angry is on you.

USMB allows cursing (spurious vulgarities? lol give me a break), even in the CDZ. Don't be so sensitive.

"No Name Calling Or Putting Down Posters
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping"

Please post where I broke any of the CDZ rules.

When you use the term "BS" to describe what someone else is posting you are effectively putting down the other poster.

Furthermore "BS" violates the CDZ terms of "civil discourse".

The Focus of the CDZ is Civil Discourse, regardless of the topic matter.

If you cannot communicate in a civil manner then you will be reported.

And yes, using spurious vulgarities is what angry people do. It was patently obvious that you were angry about the OP and the title.

What is ironic is that the OP article explained why homophobes like you are angry.

Had you actually read the article you would have known that.

Obviously you didn't and you even admitted as much.

Once again, a poster insists that what I am posting is not what I say it is, but what they say it is. (Just had this exact conversation elsewhere on here the other day). That is bullshit and I will call it such.

The first word of the op is insulting/offensive and flat out wrong. People who do not perceive homosexuals as you do neither fear nor hate them. That is also bullshit and I will call it such. Why would I read an article when the first word is a lie?

A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.

Homophobia implies (and is used by the left) that people are afraid and/or hate homosexuals. That is a lie.

 

[Sunni Man]

Well, it certainly doesn't help that people are so incredibly ignorant about homosexuality.

And, the most ignorant are also the least willing or able to educate themselves.

Why do libratard's like you think understanding how two faggots pack each other's poop chutes requires a degree in higher education? ....... ..

 

[Tresha91203]

But I did address it. You ignored that part and did not answer my direct questions. It is NOT a phobia but you attempt to label it as such. Maybe, if you stretch it, it could be a syndrome ... but not a phobia. My issue is intentionally pretending it is a medical diagnosis/pathology when it is not. Terms like "anger and hostility" do not mean dysfunction.

I also take issue with the implication that homophobes are actually homosexual, but that's the fault of heterosexuals. If homophobes are actually latent homosexuals, then it is an issue of homosexuals hating themselves and each other, not a matter of heterosexuals hating or fearing homosexuals.

There are so many problems with pretending this is a disease or insanity. Phobics get disability, you know? Phobics are not legally responsible for their actions as it is uncontrollable (akin to OCD). Do we really need to go there just to call people names?

I binged "author stephanie pappas" and hit the first link. If that's not her, my apologies. I didn't think it would be a common name among authors.

author stephanie pappas - Bing

You have no idea my intent so don't presume to know. I did not attack you and would appreciate the same in the CDZ.

The author is a yoga instructor and meditationalist.

No, she isn't!

The link to the original article in Live Science.

Homophobic People Often Have Psychological Issues

The author bio at the bottom of the article;

Author Bio

Stephanie Pappas
Stephanie interned as a science writer at Stanford University Medical School, and also interned at ScienceNow magazine and the Santa Cruz Sentinel. She has a bachelor's degree in psychology from the University of South Carolina and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University of California, Santa Cruz.​

Your attempt to demean the credibility of the source has failed.

What I posted was not an attack on you.

It was a factual statement about what you posted.

You attacked her as being "unqualified" (falsely) and you attacked the article.

What you failed to do was to actually refute any of the findings in the study.

No, you didn't address it, you personalized it.

Let me ask you these questions before I address your post above.

Are racism and bigotry "normal"?

Are white supremacists "normal"?

Below are quotes from me in this thread that I believe address the issue:
----------
It is well known and understood in modern psychology that phobias cause dysfunction. What you refer to is functioning people disagreeing with the homosexual lifestyle. It is NOT a scientific definition of phobia ... not even close

Every scientific and medical source I've found says homophobia is NOT a phobia at all. Phobias, by definition, cause dysfunction. Those labeled homophobic; however, are quite funtional. Medical and scientific literature even states that the term is "broad and has come to encompass thosein disagreement."

The term is inflammatory (intentionally) and is designed to shame those in disagreement. Medical professionals admit it is not a phobia at all and is often rooted in disgust rather than fear. It is not debilitating, does not cause anxiety or increased heart rate or inability to move (freezing in fear) or any of the 9 symptoms of phobia.

Dysfunctional has an actual meaning and actual syptoms. The way "dysfunction" is used here is intentionally incorrect and inflammatory. If we go by this "dysfuntion," homophobes suffer fewer dysfuntions than homosexuals.

The "study" (at least they didn't pretend it was an experiment) does nothing to prove causation, does nothing to limit variables and does not even define the terminology used. It was a survey. They found people with dysfunctional traits. We all have them. Did they survey people who agreed with them to determine their levels of hostility and anger? No

I also take issue with the implication that homophobes are actually homosexual, but that's the fault of heterosexuals. If homophobes are actually latent homosexuals, then it is an issue of homosexuals hating themselves and each other, not a matter of heterosexuals hating or fearing homosexuals.
----------

Below are direct questions of mine that received no answer:
----------
Please point me to the medical diagnosis "homophobia" and its symptoms and accepted treatments. Then we may cleanly debate it. I suspect your usage of the term is much broader than the actual definition.

People that don't like me are NOT treshaphobic. Labeling them such is namecalling, no?

Do you believe homosexuals are dysfuntional? Not the majority of those I know.

Do you think homosexualscan be hostile or angry? At the same rate as heterosexuals?

If I call a pro-choice person a neonatalphobic and cite an article that uses same, how long before it gets moved from CDZ?

There are so many problems with pretending this is a disease or insanity. Phobics get disability, you know? Phobics are not legally responsible for their actions as it is uncontrollable (akin to OCD). Do we really need to go there just to call people names?
-----------
This has gotten long so I will answer your questions in my next post.

 

[Tresha91203]

Do I believe biggotry, racism and white supremacists are normal?

I dislike the term "normal," as many equate it incorrectly to "right." Standards and norms change as humanity changes. Biggotry and racism are certainly common enough to be considered normal by some definitions. They appear to be naturally occurring as far as I can tell. White supremacy ... I wouldn't think so.

If you mean do I think they are right, my answer changes to, "No."

I do not believe hatred to be mentally healthy. My issue here is the incorrect and inflammatory use of "phobia" and "dysfunction" applied to one side and not the other. If anger and hostility are dysfunctions in heterosexuals, then they are dysfunctions in homosexuals. Do you agree?

Do you see that incorrectly diagnosing someone with a phobia would grant the phobic protections that should not apply. Disagreeing with homosexuality is not an insanity. People who disagree with homosexuality are in control of their actions (barring actual insanities) whereas a phobic is not.

 

[Tresha91203]

P.S. I get the feeling you may be ascribing feelings/emotions to me that I do not have. My issue is incorrect terminology to lend "scientific" credence to namecalling.

I can find nothing to indicate this was a scientific study, neither experimental or observational. It appears to be a survey. If they eliminated homosexuals from their survey, it is a biased survey. The misuse of terms makes me question livescience. I looked for the study to check any controls but cannot find it. If livescience calls a survey a study, exactly how scientific are they. Here are the differences, pros and cons of studies vs surveys.

Statistical Studies

If a crazy man (say he thinks he's Napoleon) hates homosexuals, that is no indication that people who hate gays are insane. Was this controlled for? If a homosexual hates homosexuals, which this article (or one of its links) indicated, is that attributed to homophobia, thus heterosexuals? Angry, hostile people tend to hate everyone, so no surprise they hate homosexuals ... and their bosses and their family and old people and women, etc. Why is this presented as cause and effect? I see no mention of anger or hostility existing at all in homosexuals, but we all know they do. Why is it not dysfunction then? This is just sooooo not scientific. It is namecalling and shaming and should be in health & lifestyles or politics. It is not clean debate zone at all.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You said you didn't get past the first word and then YOU made assumptions that were incorrect.

Its very telling that some are very threatened by a civil conversation about this. It proves the OP is correct.

I think that's really an important point. Those who feel very threatened by this study, so threatened they can't engage in civil discourse....that's very telling. If you are not threatened, why has this study triggered such an angry response?

"If you are not threatened, why has this study triggered such an angry response?"

The study itself answers that question.

Homophobia and anger

Overall, the better the mental health of the person (based on the responses to the questionnaire), the less likely he or she was to be homophobic, the researchers found. People with "fearful-avoidant" attachment styles, who tend to feel uncomfortable in close relationships with others, were significantly more homophobic than those who were secure with close relationships. The researchers also found that people with higher levels of immature defense mechanisms were more homophobic than those with mature defense mechanisms.

High levels of hostility and anger, measured as psychoticism, were also linked to homophobia, the researchers found.​

Except no one is responding with anger. If you guys are reading responses as 'angry' well, that's on you.
<shrug>

Read what I wrote ... you claim we are giving an 'angry response'. Where?

We did read what you wrote.

Your use of spurious vulgarities exposed your anger.

Not to mention being a CDZ rule violation.

Again, no one is responding angrily. That you read it as angry is on you.

USMB allows cursing (spurious vulgarities? lol give me a break), even in the CDZ. Don't be so sensitive.

"No Name Calling Or Putting Down Posters
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping"

Please post where I broke any of the CDZ rules.

When you use the term "BS" to describe what someone else is posting you are effectively putting down the other poster.

Furthermore "BS" violates the CDZ terms of "civil discourse".

The Focus of the CDZ is Civil Discourse, regardless of the topic matter.

If you cannot communicate in a civil manner then you will be reported.

And yes, using spurious vulgarities is what angry people do. It was patently obvious that you were angry about the OP and the title.

What is ironic is that the OP article explained why homophobes like you are angry.

Had you actually read the article you would have known that.

Obviously you didn't and you even admitted as much.

Once again, a poster insists that what I am posting is not what I say it is, but what they say it is. (Just had this exact conversation elsewhere on here the other day). That is bullshit and I will call it such.

The first word of the op is insulting/offensive and flat out wrong. People who do not perceive homosexuals as you do neither fear nor hate them. That is also bullshit and I will call it such. Why would I read an article when the first word is a lie?

A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.

Homophobia implies (and is used by the left) that people are afraid and/or hate homosexuals. That is a lie.

According to Wiki...

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.


Again, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

 

[Carla_Danger]

The Clean Debate Zone is to be used for the clean debating of Government Policies, Candidates, Current News and Events ONLY. No personal attacks, name calling, flaming etc is allowed in this section

The title of your thread was a personal attack against normal straight people who don't like queers.

Deal with it........

The title comes from the article, which is not an 'attack' on anyone.

You started an attack thread on "homophobes" and are surprised at backlash? Homophobe is a word made up by a gay activist, nobody fears homosexuals

Why are you so defensive?

 

[Tresha91203]

I think that's really an important point. Those who feel very threatened by this study, so threatened they can't engage in civil discourse....that's very telling. If you are not threatened, why has this study triggered such an angry response?

"If you are not threatened, why has this study triggered such an angry response?"

The study itself answers that question.

Homophobia and anger

Overall, the better the mental health of the person (based on the responses to the questionnaire), the less likely he or she was to be homophobic, the researchers found. People with "fearful-avoidant" attachment styles, who tend to feel uncomfortable in close relationships with others, were significantly more homophobic than those who were secure with close relationships. The researchers also found that people with higher levels of immature defense mechanisms were more homophobic than those with mature defense mechanisms.

High levels of hostility and anger, measured as psychoticism, were also linked to homophobia, the researchers found.​

Except no one is responding with anger. If you guys are reading responses as 'angry' well, that's on you.
<shrug>

Read what I wrote ... you claim we are giving an 'angry response'. Where?

We did read what you wrote.

Your use of spurious vulgarities exposed your anger.

Not to mention being a CDZ rule violation.

Again, no one is responding angrily. That you read it as angry is on you.

USMB allows cursing (spurious vulgarities? lol give me a break), even in the CDZ. Don't be so sensitive.

"No Name Calling Or Putting Down Posters
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping"

Please post where I broke any of the CDZ rules.

When you use the term "BS" to describe what someone else is posting you are effectively putting down the other poster.

Furthermore "BS" violates the CDZ terms of "civil discourse".

The Focus of the CDZ is Civil Discourse, regardless of the topic matter.

If you cannot communicate in a civil manner then you will be reported.

And yes, using spurious vulgarities is what angry people do. It was patently obvious that you were angry about the OP and the title.

What is ironic is that the OP article explained why homophobes like you are angry.

Had you actually read the article you would have known that.

Obviously you didn't and you even admitted as much.

Once again, a poster insists that what I am posting is not what I say it is, but what they say it is. (Just had this exact conversation elsewhere on here the other day). That is bullshit and I will call it such.

The first word of the op is insulting/offensive and flat out wrong. People who do not perceive homosexuals as you do neither fear nor hate them. That is also bullshit and I will call it such. Why would I read an article when the first word is a lie?

A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.

Homophobia implies (and is used by the left) that people are afraid and/or hate homosexuals. That is a lie.

According to Wiki...

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.


Again, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

The shoe is mislabeled. Biggot does not equal phobic. Prejudice does not equal phobic. Phobics panic, like the OCD guy that has to stop his car every few feet, convinced that pothole he hit was a pedestrian. Phobics have panic attacks, freeze in fear, have accelerated heartrate, and even puke or have diarrhea. They cannot control it and live in *intense* fear (not merely fearful).

 

[Carla_Danger]

"If you are not threatened, why has this study triggered such an angry response?"

The study itself answers that question.

Homophobia and anger

Overall, the better the mental health of the person (based on the responses to the questionnaire), the less likely he or she was to be homophobic, the researchers found. People with "fearful-avoidant" attachment styles, who tend to feel uncomfortable in close relationships with others, were significantly more homophobic than those who were secure with close relationships. The researchers also found that people with higher levels of immature defense mechanisms were more homophobic than those with mature defense mechanisms.

High levels of hostility and anger, measured as psychoticism, were also linked to homophobia, the researchers found.​

Except no one is responding with anger. If you guys are reading responses as 'angry' well, that's on you.
<shrug>

We did read what you wrote.

Your use of spurious vulgarities exposed your anger.

Not to mention being a CDZ rule violation.

Again, no one is responding angrily. That you read it as angry is on you.

USMB allows cursing (spurious vulgarities? lol give me a break), even in the CDZ. Don't be so sensitive.

"No Name Calling Or Putting Down Posters
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping"

Please post where I broke any of the CDZ rules.

When you use the term "BS" to describe what someone else is posting you are effectively putting down the other poster.

Furthermore "BS" violates the CDZ terms of "civil discourse".

The Focus of the CDZ is Civil Discourse, regardless of the topic matter.

If you cannot communicate in a civil manner then you will be reported.

And yes, using spurious vulgarities is what angry people do. It was patently obvious that you were angry about the OP and the title.

What is ironic is that the OP article explained why homophobes like you are angry.

Had you actually read the article you would have known that.

Obviously you didn't and you even admitted as much.

Once again, a poster insists that what I am posting is not what I say it is, but what they say it is. (Just had this exact conversation elsewhere on here the other day). That is bullshit and I will call it such.

The first word of the op is insulting/offensive and flat out wrong. People who do not perceive homosexuals as you do neither fear nor hate them. That is also bullshit and I will call it such. Why would I read an article when the first word is a lie?

A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.

Homophobia implies (and is used by the left) that people are afraid and/or hate homosexuals. That is a lie.

According to Wiki...

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.


Again, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

The shoe is mislabeled. Biggot does not equal phobic. Prejudice does not equal phobic. Phobics panic, like the OCD guy that has to stop his car every few feet, convinced that pothole he hit was a pedestrian. Phobics have panic attacks, freeze in fear, have accelerated heartrate, and even puke or have diarrhea. They cannot control it and live in *intense* fear (not merely fearful).

The definition I posted is the one I'll be using.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I think that's really an important point. Those who feel very threatened by this study, so threatened they can't engage in civil discourse....that's very telling. If you are not threatened, why has this study triggered such an angry response?

"If you are not threatened, why has this study triggered such an angry response?"

The study itself answers that question.

Homophobia and anger

Overall, the better the mental health of the person (based on the responses to the questionnaire), the less likely he or she was to be homophobic, the researchers found. People with "fearful-avoidant" attachment styles, who tend to feel uncomfortable in close relationships with others, were significantly more homophobic than those who were secure with close relationships. The researchers also found that people with higher levels of immature defense mechanisms were more homophobic than those with mature defense mechanisms.

High levels of hostility and anger, measured as psychoticism, were also linked to homophobia, the researchers found.​

Except no one is responding with anger. If you guys are reading responses as 'angry' well, that's on you.
<shrug>

Read what I wrote ... you claim we are giving an 'angry response'. Where?

We did read what you wrote.

Your use of spurious vulgarities exposed your anger.

Not to mention being a CDZ rule violation.

Again, no one is responding angrily. That you read it as angry is on you.

USMB allows cursing (spurious vulgarities? lol give me a break), even in the CDZ. Don't be so sensitive.

"No Name Calling Or Putting Down Posters
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping"

Please post where I broke any of the CDZ rules.

When you use the term "BS" to describe what someone else is posting you are effectively putting down the other poster.

Furthermore "BS" violates the CDZ terms of "civil discourse".

The Focus of the CDZ is Civil Discourse, regardless of the topic matter.

If you cannot communicate in a civil manner then you will be reported.

And yes, using spurious vulgarities is what angry people do. It was patently obvious that you were angry about the OP and the title.

What is ironic is that the OP article explained why homophobes like you are angry.

Had you actually read the article you would have known that.

Obviously you didn't and you even admitted as much.

Once again, a poster insists that what I am posting is not what I say it is, but what they say it is. (Just had this exact conversation elsewhere on here the other day). That is bullshit and I will call it such.

The first word of the op is insulting/offensive and flat out wrong. People who do not perceive homosexuals as you do neither fear nor hate them. That is also bullshit and I will call it such. Why would I read an article when the first word is a lie?

A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.

Homophobia implies (and is used by the left) that people are afraid and/or hate homosexuals. That is a lie.

According to Wiki...

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.


Again, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.

Homophobia is a made up term to insult/offend/inflame anyone who has a differing viewpoint on homosexuality; it is used to imply that those with a differing viewpoint are in some way afraid of and/or hate homosexuals. That is a lie, it is wrong.

 

[Carla_Danger]

"If you are not threatened, why has this study triggered such an angry response?"

The study itself answers that question.

Homophobia and anger

Overall, the better the mental health of the person (based on the responses to the questionnaire), the less likely he or she was to be homophobic, the researchers found. People with "fearful-avoidant" attachment styles, who tend to feel uncomfortable in close relationships with others, were significantly more homophobic than those who were secure with close relationships. The researchers also found that people with higher levels of immature defense mechanisms were more homophobic than those with mature defense mechanisms.

High levels of hostility and anger, measured as psychoticism, were also linked to homophobia, the researchers found.​

Except no one is responding with anger. If you guys are reading responses as 'angry' well, that's on you.
<shrug>

We did read what you wrote.

Your use of spurious vulgarities exposed your anger.

Not to mention being a CDZ rule violation.

Again, no one is responding angrily. That you read it as angry is on you.

USMB allows cursing (spurious vulgarities? lol give me a break), even in the CDZ. Don't be so sensitive.

"No Name Calling Or Putting Down Posters
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping"

Please post where I broke any of the CDZ rules.

When you use the term "BS" to describe what someone else is posting you are effectively putting down the other poster.

Furthermore "BS" violates the CDZ terms of "civil discourse".

The Focus of the CDZ is Civil Discourse, regardless of the topic matter.

If you cannot communicate in a civil manner then you will be reported.

And yes, using spurious vulgarities is what angry people do. It was patently obvious that you were angry about the OP and the title.

What is ironic is that the OP article explained why homophobes like you are angry.

Had you actually read the article you would have known that.

Obviously you didn't and you even admitted as much.

Once again, a poster insists that what I am posting is not what I say it is, but what they say it is. (Just had this exact conversation elsewhere on here the other day). That is bullshit and I will call it such.

The first word of the op is insulting/offensive and flat out wrong. People who do not perceive homosexuals as you do neither fear nor hate them. That is also bullshit and I will call it such. Why would I read an article when the first word is a lie?

A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.

Homophobia implies (and is used by the left) that people are afraid and/or hate homosexuals. That is a lie.

According to Wiki...

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.


Again, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.

Homophobia is a made up term to insult/offend/inflame anyone who has a differing viewpoint on homosexuality; it is used to imply that those with a differing viewpoint are in some way afraid of and/or hate homosexuals. That is a lie, it is wrong.

I disagree.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Except no one is responding with anger. If you guys are reading responses as 'angry' well, that's on you.
<shrug>


Again, no one is responding angrily. That you read it as angry is on you.

USMB allows cursing (spurious vulgarities? lol give me a break), even in the CDZ. Don't be so sensitive.

"No Name Calling Or Putting Down Posters
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping"

Please post where I broke any of the CDZ rules.

When you use the term "BS" to describe what someone else is posting you are effectively putting down the other poster.

Furthermore "BS" violates the CDZ terms of "civil discourse".

The Focus of the CDZ is Civil Discourse, regardless of the topic matter.

If you cannot communicate in a civil manner then you will be reported.

And yes, using spurious vulgarities is what angry people do. It was patently obvious that you were angry about the OP and the title.

What is ironic is that the OP article explained why homophobes like you are angry.

Had you actually read the article you would have known that.

Obviously you didn't and you even admitted as much.

Once again, a poster insists that what I am posting is not what I say it is, but what they say it is. (Just had this exact conversation elsewhere on here the other day). That is bullshit and I will call it such.

The first word of the op is insulting/offensive and flat out wrong. People who do not perceive homosexuals as you do neither fear nor hate them. That is also bullshit and I will call it such. Why would I read an article when the first word is a lie?

A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.

Homophobia implies (and is used by the left) that people are afraid and/or hate homosexuals. That is a lie.

According to Wiki...

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.


Again, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.

Homophobia is a made up term to insult/offend/inflame anyone who has a differing viewpoint on homosexuality; it is used to imply that those with a differing viewpoint are in some way afraid of and/or hate homosexuals. That is a lie, it is wrong.

I disagree.

You disagree with the dictionary definition of 'phobia'?

 

[Tresha91203]

Maybe there's a truthophobia, honestyphobia, realityphobia ... or an artfully crafted propaganda campaign to smear political or social "opposition."

 

[Esmeralda]

The issue is that you don't believe you fear something that is not danger to you. The study shows that people who are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality do fear it and have personality disorders.

I will admit that I do fear homosexuals.

I don't want a homo waiter serving or touching my food at a restaurant. Many of them are disease ridden and infected with STD's and AIDS.

I don't want a homo watching my kids at the daycare. Homos are known to have a propensity to be pedophiles. Well above the national average.

Every person convicted in the last several decades in the US for cannibalism has been a homosexual. .....

Your fears are irrational. You will not be likely to get an STD from anyone who serves you food. STDs are transmitted sexually, including AIDS. As well, homosexuals are not any more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, definitely not above the national average. The cannibalism thing: how about citing a source for that bizarre knowledge claim?

Your fear of homosexuals is irrational, which makes it a phobia.

 

[Mac1958]

Maybe there's a truthophobia, honestyphobia, realityphobia ... or an artfully crafted propaganda campaign to smear political or social "opposition."

Bingo.
.

 

[Esmeralda]

The term homophobic is not an attack word. It is a word that is well known and understood in modern psychology.

It is well known and understood in modern psychology that phobias cause dysfunction. What you refer to is functioning people disagreeing with the homosexual lifestyle. It is NOT a scientific definition of phobia ... not even close. That's why literature says

The issue is that you don't believe you fear something that is not danger to you. The study shows that people who are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality do fear it and have personality disorders.

This is a lie. Every scientific and medical source I've found says homophobia is NOT a phobia at all. Phobias, by definition, cause dysfunction. Those labeled homophobic; however, are quite funtional. Medical and scientific literature even states that the term is "broad and has come to encompass those in disagreement."

The term is inflammatory (intentionally) and is designed to shame those in disagreement. Medical professionals admit it is not a phobia at all and is often rooted in disgust rather than fear. It is not debilitating, does not cause anxiety or increased heart rate or inability to move (freezing in fear) or any of the 9 symptoms of phobia.

Please point me to the medical diagnosis "homophobia" and its symptoms and accepted treatments. Then we may cleanly debate it. I suspect your usage of the term is much broader than the actual definition.

People that don't like me are NOT treshaphobic. Labeling them such is namecalling, no?

If you read the article it explains that those who are homophobic suffer from various types of dysfunctions.

Dysfunctional has an actual meaning and actual syptoms. The way "dysfunction" is used here is intentionally incorrect and inflammatory. If we go by this "dysfuntion," homophobes suffer fewer dysfuntions than homosexuals. Do you believe homosexuals are dysfuntional? Not the majority of those I know.

From the OP;

"Homophobic attitudes may say a lot about the person who holds them, new research suggests.

A new study of university students in Italy revealed that people who have strongly negative views of gay people also have higher levels of psychoticism and inappropriate coping mechanisms than those who are accepting of homosexuality."

"Overall, the better the mental health of the person (based on the responses to the questionnaire), the less likely he or she was to be homophobic, the researchers found."​

People with good mental health are not homophobic.

Dysfunctional people, i.e. those who behavior is outside of social norms, are homophobic.

People with "fearful-avoidant" attachment styles, who tend to feel uncomfortable in close relationships with others, were significantly more homophobic than those who were secure with close relationships. The researchers also found that people with higher levels of immature defense mechanisms were more homophobic than those with mature defense mechanisms.

High levels of hostility and anger, measured as psychoticism, were also linked to homophobia, the researchers found.​

This thread already demonstrates "high levels of hostility and anger" from those who are homophobic.

Since this is the CDZ they are behaving outside of the social norms for this forum. Yes, they do the same throughout USMB and in society in general.

The OP article explains that this can be measured as psychoticism.

My God this world.

Twenty years ago homosexuality was considered a mental disease, now thinking its gross is.

It's actually more like 50 years ago. In 1969 I was a college student working in a restaurant with a chef and several waiters who were gay. The rest of the staff and customers had no problem with them and did not consider them mentally ill. This was an upscale breakfast and lunch restaurant in the business district of a large city: I made enough in tips, working 3 hours a day Monday through Friday to pay my tuition, buy my books, pay my rent, and buy food, etc. It wasn't a low class diner. No one had issues with the chef and half of the wait staff being gay. The salad chef was my best friend's mother, a traditional lady, and she had no problem with it; she even got me the job when I was just out of high school.

That's 46 years ago. The only people who considered homosexuality a mental illness 20 years ago were right-wing, conservative religious people.

Times change: it's called social evolution. We are growing and improving socially, evolving into better informed and more tolerant people.

 

[Esmeralda]

Maybe there's a truthophobia, honestyphobia, realityphobia ... or an artfully crafted propaganda campaign to smear political or social "opposition."

You folks are focusing on the word homophobic instead of the content of the article and study. Ignore that one word and respond to the article and study.

If this were a thread about racism and it had the N word in the title, and then everyone only focused on that word, you'd tell them to ignore it and focus on the content of the article under discussion instead of one word.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do I believe biggotry, racism and white supremacists are normal?

I dislike the term "normal," as many equate it incorrectly to "right." Standards and norms change as humanity changes. Biggotry and racism are certainly common enough to be considered normal by some definitions. They appear to be naturally occurring as far as I can tell. White supremacy ... I wouldn't think so.

If you mean do I think they are right, my answer changes to, "No."

I do not believe hatred to be mentally healthy. My issue here is the incorrect and inflammatory use of "phobia" and "dysfunction" applied to one side and not the other. If anger and hostility are dysfunctions in heterosexuals, then they are dysfunctions in homosexuals. Do you agree?

Do you see that incorrectly diagnosing someone with a phobia would grant the phobic protections that should not apply. Disagreeing with homosexuality is not an insanity. People who disagree with homosexuality are in control of their actions (barring actual insanities) whereas a phobic is not.

Anger and hatred are only some of the symptoms of the irrational fear, or dysfunction, if you prefer.

You cannot deny that hatred of gays is any different to hatred of other races, religions, nationalities, etc.

That hatred is not based upon anything rational or reasonable. Instead is is based upon irrational fear!

People display irrational anger and hatred towards that which they fear. (e.g Muslims, gays, blacks, etc.)

Therefore if there is no sound rational basis for engaging in irrational hatred and anger that is dysfunctional and since it against a specific class of persons that means that it fits the definition of a phobia.

the definition of phobia

phobia

noun
1.
a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object,activity, or situation that leads to a compellingdesire to avoid it.

Synonyms
aversion, hatred.
-phobia
1.
a combining form meaning “fear,” occurring inloanwords from Greek ( hydrophobia); on thismodel, used in the names of mental disorders thathave the general sense “dread of, aversiontoward” that specified by the initial element:
agoraphobia.​

In essence phobia means an irrational fear of something and it is common practice to prefix the fear with the cause as per the example above.

Now unless you can prove that the symptoms of anger and hatred towards gays are based upon anything other than irrational fears the term homophobia is an accurate description of what they are exhibiting with their behavior.

 

[Derideo_Te]

P.S. I get the feeling you may be ascribing feelings/emotions to me that I do not have. My issue is incorrect terminology to lend "scientific" credence to namecalling.

I can find nothing to indicate this was a scientific study, neither experimental or observational. It appears to be a survey. If they eliminated homosexuals from their survey, it is a biased survey. The misuse of terms makes me question livescience. I looked for the study to check any controls but cannot find it. If livescience calls a survey a study, exactly how scientific are they. Here are the differences, pros and cons of studies vs surveys.

Statistical Studies

If a crazy man (say he thinks he's Napoleon) hates homosexuals, that is no indication that people who hate gays are insane. Was this controlled for? If a homosexual hates homosexuals, which this article (or one of its links) indicated, is that attributed to homophobia, thus heterosexuals? Angry, hostile people tend to hate everyone, so no surprise they hate homosexuals ... and their bosses and their family and old people and women, etc. Why is this presented as cause and effect? I see no mention of anger or hostility existing at all in homosexuals, but we all know they do. Why is it not dysfunction then? This is just sooooo not scientific. It is namecalling and shaming and should be in health & lifestyles or politics. It is not clean debate zone at all.

Your failure to follow the links to the original study does not negate the factual scientific findings.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsm.12975/full

Instead you seem to be thrashing about trying to find any and all reasons to denigrate the author of the article and the study.

Instead of questioning why the first author you linked on had zero scientific background you fallaciously assumed that it was her and used that as a specious "reason" to defame the article.

Now you are doing the same thing by disingenuously trying to negate the findings in the study when all you are actually exposing is your own failure at researching.

Why should anyone give any credence to what you post when you make blanket statements that are based upon nothing more than your inability to follow the cited links in the article that was provided in the OP?

The above is not an "attack" on you either. Once again it is a factual statement of what you have posted and, more importantly, failed to do when it comes to expressing your ill-informed opinion on this topic.

The onus is on you to provide the data that refutes the scientific findings in the study.

 

[Meathead]

Anyone with a phobia has psychological issues. I; personally am a dingchiroptophobe.