Study Indicates HOMOSEXUAL ACTS Shorten Lifespan

[rtwngAvngr]

As free as you are to abstain from using it, "homphobia" is a word in common use in all regions with a fairly solid definition, as Mariner pointed out, being "one who doesn't like gay peple". This is not a function of the "attempt to mainstream homosexuality", its a response to an emerging phenomenon by a society which uses words to describe things.

Typically, words constructed to describe things stick with original meanings of their constituent greek or roman components, hence, since phobia means "fear" it is at least a poorly constructed and inaccurate word, since anyone who's afraid of a fag must be one.

 

[musicman]

Typically, words constructed to describe things stick with original meanings of their constituent greek or roman components, hence, since phobia means "fear" it is at least a poorly constructed and inaccurate word, since anyone who's afraid of a fag must be one.

And likewise, the prefix homo, as applied herre, has to mean, "human being". If one wished to advance the theory that those who will not codify homosexuality are somehow phobic, he could alllege that they have a "phobia of homosexuality". But, no - that wouldn't fly. It doesn't have that Madison Avenue ZING to it.

I detest dishonesty.

 

[manu1959]

ok.. ok ...ok....if i am a women trapped in a man's body (a lesbian if you will)

and i have sex with my wife.........will it affect my health?

.............................i'll get me coat

 

[007]

And, as free as you likewise are to use it, I say, shame on anyone in a position to do so who tries to impart upon this term some sort of official Imprimatur. They are willing participants in an attempt to bastardize the English language for purely political ends. Surely you won't deny that calling someone who is less than accepting of homosexuality "phobic" carries with it a negative connotation. This is by design. It is underhanded. It is intellectually dishonest.
I can disagreee civilly with a person all day long, but when I start hearing sneaky little lies, my respect leaves rapidly - like air rushing out of a blown tire.

It boils down to this musicman, if the queer lovers and supporters want to use and try and legitimize the concocted word homophobe, then we NORMAL people should be of the mind that they are all, as we should describe them, HETEROPHOBES.

 

[nakedemperor]

And likewise, the prefix homo, as applied herre, has to mean, "human being". If one wished to advance the theory that those who will not codify homosexuality are somehow phobic, he could alllege that they have a "phobia of homosexuality". But, no - that wouldn't fly. It doesn't have that Madison Avenue ZING to it.

I detest dishonesty.

Oh. I didn't realize there was something wrong with a negative connotation attached to the term for people who are anti-gay. We can also call them bigots, but then we run into the same problem.

 

[Patriot]

Oh. I didn't realize there was something wrong with a negative connotation attached to the term for people who are anti-gay. We can also call them bigots, but then we run into the same problem.

From the Encarta dictionary......

Bigot:


intolerant person: somebody who has very strong opinions, especially on matters of politics, religion, or ethnicity, and refuses to accept different views



WOW! That would mean YOU Naked!


Now anti gay would be a perfect label for me!

 

[musicman]

Oh. I didn't realize there was something wrong with a negative connotation attached to the term for people who are anti-gay. We can also call them bigots, but then we run into the same problem.

Define "anti-gay", please.

 

[shadrack]

And likewise, the prefix homo, as applied herre, has to mean, "human being". If one wished to advance the theory that those who will not codify homosexuality are somehow phobic, he could alllege that they have a "phobia of homosexuality". But, no - that wouldn't fly. It doesn't have that Madison Avenue ZING to it.

I detest dishonesty.

Oil is hydrophobic.

It's not intellectually dishonest to use -phobe or -phobic. It can simply mean repels or doesn't mix. A person that is not gay and is not accepting of homosexuality is homophobic.

Maybe the homophobe should insist on being called a heterophile.

 

[Mariner]

When we call someone arachnophobic is there a negative connotation?

As for language drift and society's agreement on the meaning of words--no one gives an official imprimatur, though dictionaries try--everyone can use words as s/he pleases.

If you think language can't drift bizarrely, consider the word gay, which used to mean happy. (By the way, I object to the word "language" since I use sign language all day, which doesn't use the tongue at all, and therefore doesn't fit the etymology of language <lingua, tongue.)

Mariner.

 

[musicman]

shadrack:

The use of the word "phobic" is not the issue. It is the addition of the prefix "homo", for the disingenuous purpose of creating a definition which does not exist, that rankles me. Again, "having a phobia of homosexuals", I could accept. It's honest. It doesn't even begin to hold water, but it's an honest attempt at a definition. "Homophobia" is convenient. By that daffynition, anyone who refuses to accept homosexuality as an orientation - no better or worse than any other - is somehow "phobic". But, can't you see how problematic it is? By that yardstick,either, A) humanity has - unknowingly - been phobic for the entirety of it's history, or, B) homosexuality has lately acquired a new nobility.

Then again, there's C):

Most Americans are "live and let live" types. Homosexuality has, throughout history, been regarded as a perversion. Although homosexuals comprise only 2-3% of the population, they account for a staggering 25-40% of child molestations. Their almost exclusive culpability in the introduction and spread of AIDS throughout America cannot be seriously debated. It is a dangerous and destructive lifestyle. Yet, for all that, most Americans aren't interested in condemning ANYONE out of hand. "Live and let live", we say.

That's simply not good enough for homosexual activists. They don't want, "live and let live", damn it - they want ACCEPTANCE! They want CODIFICATION! They want LEGITIMACY! "I'm just going to mind my own business" won't do it. No - it has to be "Yours is an orientation given you by nature, and is, as such, no worse than my own; probably better, in fact. To the degree that my innate feelings, my teachings, and the words of the one I call God condemn your actions as unnatural, sick, and dangerous, I am in the grasp of hateful bigotry".

Does that sound like the mantra you'd like to chant, shadrack? Because that's what they're after, and they won't be satisfied with anything less.

 

[musicman]

When we call someone arachnophobic is there a negative connotation?



Mariner.

Only if he then becomes, by definition of the word, "arachnophobic", a hysterical bigot, denying spiders their rights.

Besides which, that word actually makes sense.

 

[musicman]

Oil is hydrophobic.....

. A person that is not gay and is not accepting of homosexuality is homophobic.

Do me a favor and look up the prefix "homo" in your dictionary.

 

[musicman]

If you think language can't drift bizarrely, consider the word gay, which used to mean happy.

Mariner.

Interesting, isn't it? One can almost sense a pattern here...an obsessive quest for the legitimization of a perverted lifestyle through....the manipulation of LANGUAGE.

Wow - what was that? Did a light just come on!

 

[shadrack]

shadrack:

The use of the word "phobic" is not the issue. It is the addition of the prefix "homo", for the disingenuous purpose of creating a definition which does not exist, that rankles me. Again, "having a phobia of homosexuals", I could accept. It's honest. It doesn't even begin to hold water, but it's an honest attempt at a definition. "Homophobia" is convenient. By that daffynition, anyone who refuses to accept homosexuality as an orientation - no better or worse than any other - is somehow "phobic". But, can't you see how problematic it is? By that yardstick,either, A) humanity has - unknowingly - been phobic for the entirety of it's history, or, B) homosexuality has lately acquired a new nobility.

Then again, there's C):

Most Americans are "live and let live" types. Homosexuality has, throughout history, been regarded as a perversion. Although homosexuals comprise only 2-3% of the population, they account for a staggering 25-40% of child molestations. Their almost exclusive culpability in the introduction and spread of AIDS throughout America cannot be seriously debated. It is a dangerous and destructive lifestyle. Yet, for all that, most Americans aren't interested in condemning ANYONE out of hand. "Live and let live", we say.

That's simply not good enough for homosexual activists. They don't want, "live and let live", damn it - they want ACCEPTANCE! They want CODIFICATION! They want LEGITIMACY! "I'm just going to mind my own business" won't do it. No - it has to be "Yours is an orientation given you by nature, and is, as such, no worse than my own; probably better, in fact. To the degree that my innate feelings, my teachings, and the words of the one I call God condemn your actions as unnatural, sick, and dangerous, I am in the grasp of hateful bigotry".

Does that sound like the mantra you'd like to chant, shadrack? Because that's what they're after, and they won't be satisfied with anything less.

homo comes from the greek homos for same; homo comes from the latin homo for man

There have been different levels of acceptance of homosexuality in societies throughout history.....from very tolerant to harsh judgement.

"they", "they", "they"............how 'bout a little individualism

Many disturbed people act out as homosexual or pedophiles and there are social costs as you point out. But there is evidence that "homosexuality" is a physiological condition......consider intersexuals, hormonal imbalances, physical structure of the brain......these people should be provided a little empathy. Those with antisocial behaviors should be treated and/or locked up.

Wouldn't it bring more stability to society to make a legitimate institution for homosexual couples? ie, If same-sex relations were viewed as a legitimate and responsible contractual partnership between two consenting adults it might provide the incentive to be responsible.

 

[musicman]

homo comes from the greek homos for same; homo comes from the latin homo for man

There have been different levels of acceptance of homosexuality in societies throughout history.....from very tolerant to harsh judgement.

"they", "they", "they"............how 'bout a little individualism

Many disturbed people act out as homosexual or pedophiles and there are social costs as you point out. But there is evidence that "homosexuality" is a physiological condition......consider intersexuals, hormonal imbalances, physical structure of the brain......these people should be provided a little empathy. Those with antisocial behaviors should be treated and/or locked up.

Wouldn't it bring more stability to society to make a legitimate institution for homosexual couples? ie, If same-sex relations were viewed as a legitimate and responsible contractual partnership between two consenting adults it might provide the incentive to be responsible.

So, by any honest attempt to establish definition, "homophobia" can only mean, "irrational fear of human beings" - in other words - nothing. It is an underhanded attempt to acheive legitimization for a perverted lifestyle through the disingenuous manipulation of language. And - as Mariner was helpful enough to point out - it's not the first.

I've seen the studies by LeVar and others which attempt to establish a physiological link to homosexuality. They are thin air; so hopelessly flawed and loaded as to be laughable. The studies will continue as long as there are people with money and a vested interest in the legitimization of homosexuality. I remain unmoved.

On the other hand, the studies that show homosexuality to be a dangerous and destructive behavior are a matter of public record. I do not believe that legitimizing perversion in any of it's forms would help to stabilize society; quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[musicman]

"they", "they", "they"............how 'bout a little individualism

.

LOL! Gimme a break, willya? You sound like my sophomore English teacher. He was a stickler - although, truthfully, I've probably called him worse.

Actually, the "they" are the homosexual activists I'd referenced in my previous paragraph. Sorry.

 

['ol Perfessor]

Fear of silly people.
The greatest gift is to see ourselves as others see us. (I lack this, Do Yoo?) Anyway, my observation in a long life is that those incapable of "mainstream" relationships imitate the bastions and traditions they scorn.I.E. gays want to marry, lesbian women use artificial "devices".
What For?
The epitome of the homosexual lifestyle, ( the elusive ,mythical gay gene notwithstanding) is the complete freedom of commitment to binding social standards.
A kind of 6th grader, yell poop the loudest, blind to the facts alternative Darwinism resistance to all of human progress as it were. Like the Koala bear of Austrailia,( who canna exist without the Eucalyptus leaves which are all he will eat) Where would the homosexual exist without athe golden rays of nurture or outright objections of our politically correct society?
I see no effort to imitate the Pilgrims of Mayflower fame and leave the decadent oppressors to live in hand holding, skipping, lisping freedom somewhere where they could be left alone!
A truer more imaginative response would be to procure some other , more public, previously innocent oriface for the defining arena of modern homosexuality.
Perhaps the nose or ear could be modified and re- labeled. Thus each libertine would truly have a cause and uniqueness to announce to the world rather than a pale imitation of all they therein are somehow "agin"( as sgt York used to say).
so rants the'ol perfessor

 

[OCA]

Koroithophobia LMFAO!

Koroidos is Greek, being Greek it is usually referring to someone as the butt of a joke or a dumbass.

 

[OCA]

Lol this crap is funny. Listen there is no doubt there have been homosexual lifestyle choice perversionsists throughout history and they have always been rightfully scorned for their incorrect choices. The attempt to legitimize homosexuality choice through the court system is nothing more than, dare I say it again, an attempt to legitimize a perversion of choice and to soothe the troubled conscience of the ones who make that choice.

Call me or others homophobic all you want, it will not change the fact that this attempt is going to end up in the garbage can, its not like the civil rights movement of the 60's, Blacks and others can't change who they are....not so with homosexuals....its a made up minority based on something not right.

 

[OCA]

Why do liberals have such a problem accepting that there are and have been moral absolutes?