CDZ Homophobic People Often Have Psychological Issues

[Esmeralda]

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.

Agree. It is similar to xenophobia. Saying homophobia doesn't exist is tantamount to saying xenophobia doesn't exist. Xenophobia is defined as "Xenophobia is the dislike of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange." That is exactly what homophobia is: dislike of something that is foreign or strange to you. You don't have to agree with homosexuality; you don't have to be involved or participate. You can just live and let live, but to be so involved in hating it and being angry about it is a phobia. People say it is a sin and that is why they don't accept it, but as I have pointed out, adultery is also a sin and people don't have a problem with that.

In fact, the fellow who was upset because some decades ago, homosexuality was not accepted and now it is, this fellow needs to be reminded that nearly the same amount of decades ago divorce was not acceptable and now it certainly is. In the early part of the 20th century, divorce was scandalous. Divorced women in particular were scorned and considered almost whores. We can also talk about the fact women were not allowed to vote until the 20s. And in the 1800s women were not accepted to universities.

Times change. We evolve as a society. It is happening all over the world. The study in the OP was done in Italy, a traditionally very religious country. They are changing and evolving too.

It does seem as though, if some people had their way, we would still be stuck in the Dark Ages.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It seems to always come down to one thing - that some people want to control the actions of others. And, the irrational belief that they have that right. We see that with so many issues throughout history.

 

[Tresha91203]

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.

I have addressed the content. I have pointed out it is not a study at all. It gets completely ignored and the repeated intentional misuse of the words homophobic, dysfunction, study and science make this entire article propaganda. Repeat something often enough loudly enough and some will believe it.

If there were a "study" from a scientific or medical sounding source titled "N*&@%s have smaller brains," it would be removed from CDZ and you know it. Any story about neonatalphobes would be moved to the rubber room and you know it.

I've been smacked by a mod exactly once in all my time here and it was for posting this in CDZ:

"To be fair, there are plenty of libtards, too. USMB (and the internet in general) can be like the Political Special Olympics sometimes. Plenty of people on both sides would rather wallow in ignorance than do some digging. People are lazy, and some are stupid.

Disagreement is fine. I love plenty of people I disagree with. I can't abide stupid, though."

Please tell me how calling people names and presenting a clearly nonscientific biased survey as a scientific study at a site with "science" in the name is less offensive?

It is an attack on those who disagree. It is also misinformation designed to change peoples' thinking. Try changing minds with truth, not lies. It is insulting. It is also a contributing factor to the dumbing down of our society. If this was presented as a scientific study on the science section of the ACT and SAT, our kids are expected to recognize that it isn't and
explain why. This would also not be allowed at an actual reputable debate. This propaganda style is harmful to society.

 

[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.

I have addressed the content. I have pointed out it is not a study at all. It gets completely ignored and the repeated intentional misuse of the words homophobic, dysfunction, study and science make this entire article propaganda. Repeat something often enough loudly enough and some will believe it.

If there were a "study" from a scientific or medical sounding source titled "N*&@%s have smaller brains," it would be removed from CDZ and you know it. Any story about neonatalphobes would be moved to the rubber room and you know it.

I've been smacked by a mod exactly once in all my time here and it was for posting this in CDZ:

"To be fair, there are plenty of libtards, too. USMB (and the internet in general) can be like the Political Special Olympics sometimes. Plenty of people on both sides would rather wallow in ignorance than do some digging. People are lazy, and some are stupid.

Disagreement is fine. I love plenty of people I disagree with. I can't abide stupid, though."

Please tell me how calling people names and presenting a clearly nonscientific biased survey as a scientific study at a site with "science" in the name is less offensive?

It is an attack on those who disagree. It is also misinformation designed to change peoples' thinking. Try changing minds with truth, not lies. It is insulting. It is also a contributing factor to the dumbing down of our society. If this was presented as a scientific study on the science section of the ACT and SAT, our kids are expected to recognize that it isn't and
explain why. This would also not be allowed at an actual reputable debate. This propaganda style is harmful to society.

The article is not the study: the article describes the study. That's obvious.

Using the term homophobic is not the same as using the term libtard. There is a clear difference. The term homophobic is accepted far and wide as a description of a mental condition regarding homosexuality. It is, as I have pointed out, exactly like the term xenophobia as far as how it is used. Libtard is just an out and out nasty insult.

 

[Zoom-boing]

"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.

"Unless you can prove that the symptoms of anger and hatred towards gays are based upon anything other than irrational fears ..."

This is where you are making the mistake. If someone views marriage as m/w that DOES NOT mean they hate/fear/or are angry at homosexuals. If someone views homosexuality as a sin that DOES NOT mean they hate/fear/or are angry at homosexuals. If someone holds a viewpoint on homosexuality that differs from yours, that DOES NOT mean that they hate/fear/or are angry at homosexuals. Do SOME people hate/fear/are angry at homosexuals? Sure, the world is full of bigots and it always will be. For you guys to broad brush that ANYONE who holds a differing pov on homosexuality is a homophobe and, therefore, has a mental disorder and, therefore, hates/fears/are angry at homosexuals is nothing but bunk. Where is the liberal open-minded viewpoint on those who view homosexuality as a sin? Where is your embracement of diversity on this matter? Out of one side of your mouth you guys name call and belittle anyone who doesn't adhere to your pov and out of the other side of your mouth screech 'diversity!'.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The article is not the study: the article describes the study. That's obvious.

Using the term homophobic is not the same as using the term libtard. There is a clear difference. The term homophobic is accepted far and wide as a description of a mental condition regarding homosexuality. It is, as I have pointed out, exactly like the term xenophobia as far as how it is used. Libtard is just an out and out nasty insult.

It's a made up term to denigrate/insult/put down/belittle/coerce/inflame anyone who holds a differing pov on homosexuality. Period.

Saying that someone who views ss/m as a sin = they are a homophobe = they have a mental disorder is just about as dishonest as it gets. Where is your open-minded, liberal, diversity on this?

 

[Esmeralda]

The article is not the study: the article describes the study. That's obvious.

Using the term homophobic is not the same as using the term libtard. There is a clear difference. The term homophobic is accepted far and wide as a description of a mental condition regarding homosexuality. It is, as I have pointed out, exactly like the term xenophobia as far as how it is used. Libtard is just an out and out nasty insult.

It's a made up term to denigrate/insult/put down/belittle/coerce/inflame anyone who holds a differing pov on homosexuality. Period.

Saying that someone who views ss/m as a sin = they are a homophobe = they have a mental disorder is just about as dishonest as it gets. Where is your open-minded, liberal, diversity on this?

The study proves that they have mental health issues that people who are not homophobes don't have.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The article is not the study: the article describes the study. That's obvious.

Using the term homophobic is not the same as using the term libtard. There is a clear difference. The term homophobic is accepted far and wide as a description of a mental condition regarding homosexuality. It is, as I have pointed out, exactly like the term xenophobia as far as how it is used. Libtard is just an out and out nasty insult.

It's a made up term to denigrate/insult/put down/belittle/coerce/inflame anyone who holds a differing pov on homosexuality. Period.

Saying that someone who views ss/m as a sin = they are a homophobe = they have a mental disorder is just about as dishonest as it gets. Where is your open-minded, liberal, diversity on this?

The study proves that they have mental health issues that people who are not homophobes don't have.

You completely ignored my entire post.

 

[Esmeralda]

The article is not the study: the article describes the study. That's obvious.

Using the term homophobic is not the same as using the term libtard. There is a clear difference. The term homophobic is accepted far and wide as a description of a mental condition regarding homosexuality. It is, as I have pointed out, exactly like the term xenophobia as far as how it is used. Libtard is just an out and out nasty insult.

It's a made up term to denigrate/insult/put down/belittle/coerce/inflame anyone who holds a differing pov on homosexuality. Period.

Saying that someone who views ss/m as a sin = they are a homophobe = they have a mental disorder is just about as dishonest as it gets. Where is your open-minded, liberal, diversity on this?

The study proves that they have mental health issues that people who are not homophobes don't have.

You completely ignored my entire post.

I responded directly to your post. You are saying that people just blatantly call folks homophobes and that is dishonest. I am saying the study tested people on two things, one their general mental health and the other their negativity toward homosexuality. The study found that people who were negative toward homosexuality were more likely to have mental health issues. So, the idea is that the term homophobic is not simply meant as an insult and is dishonest: the reality is that people who are homophobic tend have mental health issues.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The article is not the study: the article describes the study. That's obvious.

Using the term homophobic is not the same as using the term libtard. There is a clear difference. The term homophobic is accepted far and wide as a description of a mental condition regarding homosexuality. It is, as I have pointed out, exactly like the term xenophobia as far as how it is used. Libtard is just an out and out nasty insult.

It's a made up term to denigrate/insult/put down/belittle/coerce/inflame anyone who holds a differing pov on homosexuality. Period.

Saying that someone who views ss/m as a sin = they are a homophobe = they have a mental disordes just about as dishonest as it gets. Where is your open-minded, liberal, diversity on this?

The study proves that they have mental health issues that people who are not homophobes don't have.

You completely ignored my entire post.

I responded directly to your post. You are saying that people just blatantly call folks homophobes and that is dishonest. I am saying the study tested people on two things, one their general mental health and the other their negativity toward homosexuality. The study found that people who were negative toward homosexuality were more likely to have mental health issues. So, the idea is that the term homophobic is not simply meant as an insult and is dishonest: the reality is that people who are homophobic tend have mental health issues.

So if a group of psychologists did a study and concluded homosexuals have a mental illness they would be correct? Again, the author if this tripe of an article is a gay activist and the damn thing was done in Italy.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I responded directly to your post. You are saying that people just blatantly call folks homophobes and that is dishonest. I am saying the study tested people on two things, one their general mental health and the other their negativity toward homosexuality. The study found that people who were negative toward homosexuality were more likely to have mental health issues. So, the idea is that the term homophobic is not simply meant as an insult and is dishonest: the reality is that people who are homophobic tend have mental health issues.

The bolded? THAT is the truth. I've read too many comments from too many people to know better. You have too but likely will never admit it.

Once again, you guys broad brush anyone who holds a differing pov on homosexuality. Do you deny that?

I've seen people make a comment that they believe that ss/m is a sin and get called a homophobe. Are you denying that happens? Because that would be dishonest. Are you saying that those who believe that homosexuality is sin have a mental disorder?

This was my post to DT:

This is where you are making the mistake. If someone views marriage as m/w that DOES NOT mean they hate/fear/or are angry at homosexuals. If someone views homosexuality as a sin that DOES NOT mean they hate/fear/or are angry at homosexuals. If someone holds a viewpoint on homosexuality that differs from yours, that DOES NOT mean that they hate/fear/or are angry at homosexuals. Do SOME people hate/fear/are angry at homosexuals? Sure, the world is full of bigots and it always will be. For you guys to broad brush that ANYONE who holds a differing pov on homosexuality is a homophobe and, therefore, has a mental disorder and, therefore, hates/fears/are angry at homosexuals is nothing but bunk. Where is the liberal open-minded viewpoint on those who view homosexuality as a sin? Where is your embracement of diversity on this matter? Out of one side of your mouth you guys name call and belittle anyone who doesn't adhere to your pov and out of the other side of your mouth screech 'diversity!'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

No one fears homosexuals.
Thus, homophobia does not exist.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"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.

"Unless you can prove that the symptoms of anger and hatred towards gays are based upon anything other than irrational fears ..."

This is where you are making the mistake. If someone views marriage as m/w that DOES NOT mean they hate/fear/or are angry at homosexuals. If someone views homosexuality as a sin that DOES NOT mean they hate/fear/or are angry at homosexuals. If someone holds a viewpoint on homosexuality that differs from yours, that DOES NOT mean that they hate/fear/or are angry at homosexuals. Do SOME people hate/fear/are angry at homosexuals? Sure, the world is full of bigots and it always will be. For you guys to broad brush that ANYONE who holds a differing pov on homosexuality is a homophobe and, therefore, has a mental disorder and, therefore, hates/fears/are angry at homosexuals is nothing but bunk. Where is the liberal open-minded viewpoint on those who view homosexuality as a sin? Where is your embracement of diversity on this matter? Out of one side of your mouth you guys name call and belittle anyone who doesn't adhere to your pov and out of the other side of your mouth screech 'diversity!'.

The OP study identified that those who hate and are angry at gays suffer from mental disorders.

And ironic of you to play the diversity card when your homophobia exposes your hatred of the diversity that includes gays as a normal part of society.

 

[Zoom-boing]

"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.

"Unless you can prove that the symptoms of anger and hatred towards gays are based upon anything other than irrational fears ..."

This is where you are making the mistake. If someone views marriage as m/w that DOES NOT mean they hate/fear/or are angry at homosexuals. If someone views homosexuality as a sin that DOES NOT mean they hate/fear/or are angry at homosexuals. If someone holds a viewpoint on homosexuality that differs from yours, that DOES NOT mean that they hate/fear/or are angry at homosexuals. Do SOME people hate/fear/are angry at homosexuals? Sure, the world is full of bigots and it always will be. For you guys to broad brush that ANYONE who holds a differing pov on homosexuality is a homophobe and, therefore, has a mental disorder and, therefore, hates/fears/are angry at homosexuals is nothing but bunk. Where is the liberal open-minded viewpoint on those who view homosexuality as a sin? Where is your embracement of diversity on this matter? Out of one side of your mouth you guys name call and belittle anyone who doesn't adhere to your pov and out of the other side of your mouth screech 'diversity!'.

The OP study identified that those who hate and are angry at gays suffer from mental disorders.

And ironic of you to play the diversity card when your homophobia exposes your hatred of the diversity that includes gays as a normal part of society.

Please quote where you believe I am 'hating and are angry at gays'. Thanks.

So you believe that people who view homosexuality as a sin have a mental disorder? Hate homosexuals? Are angry at them? Fear them? Because that's the crux of this entire thread. Diversity means accepting other people's pov, not a roomful of people of different races/gender/ethnicities who all think alike. Where is your open-minded liberal stance towards those religious types who view homosexuality as a sin?

You, like Esmerelda, completely ignored my post. I'll post the important part again for you.

This is where you are making the mistake. If someone views marriage as m/w that DOES NOT mean they hate/fear/or are angry at homosexuals. If someone views homosexuality as a sin that DOES NOT mean they hate/fear/or are angry at homosexuals. If someone holds a viewpoint on homosexuality that differs from yours, that DOES NOT mean that they hate/fear/or are angry at homosexuals. Do SOME people hate/fear/are angry at homosexuals? Sure, the world is full of bigots and it always will be. For you guys to broad brush that ANYONE who holds a differing pov on homosexuality is a homophobe and, therefore, has a mental disorder and, therefore, hates/fears/are angry at homosexuals is nothing but bunk.

I'm sure you guys will continue spewing your own hatred towards those who merely view homosexuality differently from you. Which proves that there isn't anything diverse about you at all.

 

[Mertex]

"Homophobes" is not a derogatory or name-calling....it just identifies those that have a phobia of homosexuality. So, I don't understand why some are taking exception to it and claiming that it is derogatory. If you don't approve of homosexuality, for whatever reason, you are by definition a homophobe.

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).

One thing is to disagree with homosexuality or think it is a sin, it is yet another to go another step and insult and call people that are homosexual names. Many that view marriage as m/w claim that they don't hate/fear or are angry at homosexuals, but their actions and words say the opposite. Not only do they make derogatory comments toward homosexuals, they also turn around and attack those that don't have a problem with it.

If all you are are doing is viewing homosexuality differently from those who readily accept it, then you wouldn't have to be so angry at those whose views are different, too, so it goes both ways. I don't understand homosexuality, but I don't have any anger or fear toward homosexuals. The Supreme Court made same sex marriage legal, and everyone that respects our Constitution and form of government (Legislative/Executive/Judicial), needs to respect the decision and quit making spectacles of themselves by going over-board to demean and insult homosexuals. We have a form of government that allows for disagreement and undoing laws that the majority don't agree with, but it is done through working with the law and not against it.

The OP is based on a study done in Italy by university students. It also doesn't claim that "all" homophobes have psychological issues, it says "homophobic people "often" - so those that are getting their panties in a wad because they identify with homophobia, but don't like to be categorized as having issues....read it again. If you are getting your panties all in a wad and getting offended by the word homophobe that you have to launch an attack at the person who posted the thread about "the study" - then you probably do have psychological issues. Think about that.

 

[Carla_Danger]

The article is not the study: the article describes the study. That's obvious.

Using the term homophobic is not the same as using the term libtard. There is a clear difference. The term homophobic is accepted far and wide as a description of a mental condition regarding homosexuality. It is, as I have pointed out, exactly like the term xenophobia as far as how it is used. Libtard is just an out and out nasty insult.

It's a made up term to denigrate/insult/put down/belittle/coerce/inflame anyone who holds a differing pov on homosexuality. Period.

Saying that someone who views ss/m as a sin = they are a homophobe = they have a mental disordes just about as dishonest as it gets. Where is your open-minded, liberal, diversity on this?

The study proves that they have mental health issues that people who are not homophobes don't have.

You completely ignored my entire post.

I responded directly to your post. You are saying that people just blatantly call folks homophobes and that is dishonest. I am saying the study tested people on two things, one their general mental health and the other their negativity toward homosexuality. The study found that people who were negative toward homosexuality were more likely to have mental health issues. So, the idea is that the term homophobic is not simply meant as an insult and is dishonest: the reality is that people who are homophobic tend have mental health issues.

So if a group of psychologists did a study and concluded homosexuals have a mental illness they would be correct? Again, the author if this tripe of an article is a gay activist and the damn thing was done in Italy.

It would be worth looking into, but I doubt any such study exists.

 

[Mertex]

The article is not the study: the article describes the study. That's obvious.

Using the term homophobic is not the same as using the term libtard. There is a clear difference. The term homophobic is accepted far and wide as a description of a mental condition regarding homosexuality. It is, as I have pointed out, exactly like the term xenophobia as far as how it is used. Libtard is just an out and out nasty insult.

It's a made up term to denigrate/insult/put down/belittle/coerce/inflame anyone who holds a differing pov on homosexuality. Period.

Saying that someone who views ss/m as a sin = they are a homophobe = they have a mental disordes just about as dishonest as it gets. Where is your open-minded, liberal, diversity on this?

The study proves that they have mental health issues that people who are not homophobes don't have.

You completely ignored my entire post.

I responded directly to your post. You are saying that people just blatantly call folks homophobes and that is dishonest. I am saying the study tested people on two things, one their general mental health and the other their negativity toward homosexuality. The study found that people who were negative toward homosexuality were more likely to have mental health issues. So, the idea is that the term homophobic is not simply meant as an insult and is dishonest: the reality is that people who are homophobic tend have mental health issues.

So if a group of psychologists did a study and concluded homosexuals have a mental illness they would be correct? Again, the author if this tripe of an article is a gay activist and the damn thing was done in Italy.

You really seem to take this "study" personally? Nobody said they are correct....they give their findings and explain their reasons...and, they don't say that everyone that is homophobic has psychological issues.......it just says "often". But for you to go on the defensive, you probably do have issues, otherwise you wouldn't be so adamant and respond as if they were describing you.

 

[Rotagilla]

"Homophobes" is not a derogatory or name-calling....it just identifies those that have a phobia of homosexuality. So, I don't understand why some are taking exception to it and claiming that it is derogatory. If you don't approve of homosexuality, for whatever reason, you are by definition a homophobe.

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).

One thing is to disagree with homosexuality or think it is a sin, it is yet another to go another step and insult and call people that are homosexual names. Many that view marriage as m/w claim that they don't hate/fear or are angry at homosexuals, but their actions and words say the opposite. Not only do they make derogatory comments toward homosexuals, they also turn around and attack those that don't have a problem with it.

If all you are are doing is viewing homosexuality differently from those who readily accept it, then you wouldn't have to be so angry at those whose views are different, too, so it goes both ways. I don't understand homosexuality, but I don't have any anger or fear toward homosexuals. The Supreme Court made same sex marriage legal, and everyone that respects our Constitution and form of government (Legislative/Executive/Judicial), needs to respect the decision and quit making spectacles of themselves by going over-board to demean and insult homosexuals. We have a form of government that allows for disagreement and undoing laws that the majority don't agree with, but it is done through working with the law and not against it.

The OP is based on a study done in Italy by university students. It also doesn't claim that "all" homophobes have psychological issues, it says "homophobic people "often" - so those that are getting their panties in a wad because they identify with homophobia, but don't like to be categorized as having issues....read it again. If you are getting your panties all in a wad and getting offended by the word homophobe that you have to launch an attack at the person who posted the thread about "the study" - then you probably do have psychological issues. Think about that.

it's a fake word used as an attempt to marginalize people who don't agree with an ideology or an agenda by asserting that they have a "phobia" or a fear...It's merely a semantic distortion.

 

[Mertex]

"Homophobes" is not a derogatory or name-calling....it just identifies those that have a phobia of homosexuality. So, I don't understand why some are taking exception to it and claiming that it is derogatory. If you don't approve of homosexuality, for whatever reason, you are by definition a homophobe.

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).

One thing is to disagree with homosexuality or think it is a sin, it is yet another to go another step and insult and call people that are homosexual names. Many that view marriage as m/w claim that they don't hate/fear or are angry at homosexuals, but their actions and words say the opposite. Not only do they make derogatory comments toward homosexuals, they also turn around and attack those that don't have a problem with it.

If all you are are doing is viewing homosexuality differently from those who readily accept it, then you wouldn't have to be so angry at those whose views are different, too, so it goes both ways. I don't understand homosexuality, but I don't have any anger or fear toward homosexuals. The Supreme Court made same sex marriage legal, and everyone that respects our Constitution and form of government (Legislative/Executive/Judicial), needs to respect the decision and quit making spectacles of themselves by going over-board to demean and insult homosexuals. We have a form of government that allows for disagreement and undoing laws that the majority don't agree with, but it is done through working with the law and not against it.

The OP is based on a study done in Italy by university students. It also doesn't claim that "all" homophobes have psychological issues, it says "homophobic people "often" - so those that are getting their panties in a wad because they identify with homophobia, but don't like to be categorized as having issues....read it again. If you are getting your panties all in a wad and getting offended by the word homophobe that you have to launch an attack at the person who posted the thread about "the study" - then you probably do have psychological issues. Think about that.

it's a fake word used as an attempt to marginalize people who don't agree with an ideology or an agenda by asserting that they have a "phobia" or a fear...It's merely a semantic distortion.

Where do you get the idea that it is a fake word? We use "phobia" to identify fear or repelling feelings toward different things. This word just identifies those that have "a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality". It may not be the type of "fear" that you get when someone points a gun at you, or you step near the edge of a precipice without borders, but there is definitely some kind of fear associated with homophobia. And, it appears to be different for different people. Fear that it is contagious? Fear that it is going to change society in a way that makes it difficult for straights? Fear that our own children will find it appealing and become homosexuals?

If a person believes it is a sin, then their response should be not to participate in it. You can't dictate morality to others. Adultery is considered a sin, and yet there is no such thing as adulteryphobia.....and we don't see the same Christians that speak out against homosexuality castigating those (often leaders in their political party) that commit adultery. Instead, they forgive them.

So, explain how it is a semantic distortion. Explain how your feelings about it don't involve fear.
homophobia:
a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situationthat leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

 

[Rotagilla]

"Homophobes" is not a derogatory or name-calling....it just identifies those that have a phobia of homosexuality. So, I don't understand why some are taking exception to it and claiming that it is derogatory. If you don't approve of homosexuality, for whatever reason, you are by definition a homophobe.

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).

One thing is to disagree with homosexuality or think it is a sin, it is yet another to go another step and insult and call people that are homosexual names. Many that view marriage as m/w claim that they don't hate/fear or are angry at homosexuals, but their actions and words say the opposite. Not only do they make derogatory comments toward homosexuals, they also turn around and attack those that don't have a problem with it.

If all you are are doing is viewing homosexuality differently from those who readily accept it, then you wouldn't have to be so angry at those whose views are different, too, so it goes both ways. I don't understand homosexuality, but I don't have any anger or fear toward homosexuals. The Supreme Court made same sex marriage legal, and everyone that respects our Constitution and form of government (Legislative/Executive/Judicial), needs to respect the decision and quit making spectacles of themselves by going over-board to demean and insult homosexuals. We have a form of government that allows for disagreement and undoing laws that the majority don't agree with, but it is done through working with the law and not against it.

The OP is based on a study done in Italy by university students. It also doesn't claim that "all" homophobes have psychological issues, it says "homophobic people "often" - so those that are getting their panties in a wad because they identify with homophobia, but don't like to be categorized as having issues....read it again. If you are getting your panties all in a wad and getting offended by the word homophobe that you have to launch an attack at the person who posted the thread about "the study" - then you probably do have psychological issues. Think about that.

it's a fake word used as an attempt to marginalize people who don't agree with an ideology or an agenda by asserting that they have a "phobia" or a fear...It's merely a semantic distortion.

Where do you get the idea that it is a fake word? We use "phobia" to identify fear or repelling feelings toward different things. This word just identifies those that have "a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality". It may not be the type of "fear" that you get when someone points a gun at you, or you step near the edge of a precipice without borders, but there is definitely some kind of fear associated with homophobia. And, it appears to be different for different people. Fear that it is contagious? Fear that it is going to change society in a way that makes it difficult for straights? Fear that our own children will find it appealing and become homosexuals?

If a person believes it is a sin, then their response should be not to participate in it. You can't dictate morality to others. Adultery is considered a sin, and yet there is no such thing as adulteryphobia.....and we don't see the same Christians that speak out against homosexuality castigating those (often leaders in their political party) that commit adultery. Instead, they forgive them.

So, explain how it is a semantic distortion. Explain how your feelings about it don't involve fear.
homophobia:
a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situationthat leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

I have already demonstrated this point a couple pages back.
I appreciate any input you may have, but please read the thread before commenting to avoid redundant, mundane repetition.
If you cannot keep pace with the debate, perhaps you should excuse yourself from it