Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ive done my share of falling off the beaten path. Though it is often due to the questions that are off topic within the responses I have made which does that. I guess I will just note they are rather than responding in the future here.
I guess this is all semantics. Are we all in agreement that if one disagrees with the heterosexual "lifestyle," that doesn't necessarily make the person heterophobic? Not to say that I'm certain of what I think, but I'm throwing it out there. If that is true, then the same would apply with homosexuality, I would think.
I guess this is all semantics. Are we all in agreement that if one disagrees with the heterosexual "lifestyle," that doesn't necessarily make the person heterophobic? Not to say that I'm certain of what I think, but I'm throwing it out there. If that is true, then the same would apply with homosexuality, I would think.
i thought a phobia was to be scared or something? not to hate
Well, here is dictionary.com's definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ho·mo·pho·bi·a
–noun
1. unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ho·mo·pho·bi·a
n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by An·tip·a·thy
–noun, plural -thies.
1. a natural, basic, or habitual repugnance; aversion.
2. an instinctive contrariety or opposition in feeling.
3. an object of natural aversion or habitual dislike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by con·tempt
n.
1. The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn.
2. The state of being despised or dishonored; disgrace.
3. Open disrespect or willful disobedience of the authority of a court of law or legislative body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by re·pug·nance
–noun
1. the state of being repugnant.
2. strong distaste, aversion, or objection; antipathy.
3. contradictoriness or inconsistency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a·ver·sion
–noun
1. a strong feeling of dislike, opposition, repugnance, or antipathy (usually fol. by to): a strong aversion to snakes and spiders.
2. a cause or object of dislike; person or thing that causes antipathy: His pet aversion is guests who are always late.
3. Obsolete. the act of averting; a turning away or preventing.
Well, I have a problem with how this will be used and you touched on some of the reasoning in terms of how people determine "homophobic" people. That is, many take those who disagree with it and hold to those beliefs in all aspects of its dealings in regards to acceptance and tolerance and immediately slide them into that category. That is, they can not fathom someone having an honest disagreement with the practice and so they seek other ways to invalidate the persons position. This study is just one more support for the "Well, you don't like it because you are a closet homosexual yourself!".
For example, in the article that was linked along with the abstract, note this:
See the problem? Basically, if someone disagrees or is religious and believes that some things are immoral, they are automatically pushed into the homophobic realms and the writer here even uses this as an already decided basis for concluding they are homosexual.
So while the study is interesting, the problem is that like many studies of this nature, they are nothing more than observation and perceived conclusions. It isn't a hard science and attempting to make conclusions on soft sciences, especially with these issues is nothing more than yet another agenda driven position grasping at anything to proclaim the other side wrong.
People claim that someone can disagree and not be homophobic, yet those people must accept it and just take a position of they don't like it or agree with it, but have no problems with it. Which is really nothing more than a disinterested acceptance of it. They are accepted because in all honesty, they accept it, just don't do it.
Everyone who disagrees, does not accept it and treats it as any immoral action or behavior is considered a hater, a bigot, and ultimately a homophobic. This study may be honest at its core, but its uses will be littered with dishonest manipulations.
Nomander, you are not quoting from this study, and your comments about the study may or may not hold merit in regards to the article about the study, but, if you would please read the abstract of the study, to which I provided a link, or the discussion of the study on the religious tolerance site, to which I also provided a link, you would see that your arguments against the validity of the study, or about it's intent, are totally misdirected. For the purpose of this study very specific screening for homophobia was conducted.
And thats the problem. Since we live in a day and age where actual definitions are set aside while people make up their own versions, the term can fit anyone who disagrees regardless of their stance. This can go both ways, I am just point out that relativistic terms and proclaimed studies have a very bad way of becoming policy. Which is to say, that it is very possible for those who disagree to be labeled as homophobic and then accused of being homosexual themselves. You have to admit, you have heard that ignorant claim before, whether flippant or not concerning someone who disagrees. In fact, I was accused of it in a thread not too long ago. Not saying it is the standard, but it can easily be established, especially when people start throwing around weak science studies.
I totally agree, as far as the degree to which the meaning of language seems to be so disregarded. As for the study, it certainly wasn't weak science, it was a professional peer reviewed and published study, per my earlier posts.
Is it safe to say that everyone that has posted here feels like we're all just spinning our wheels, and no appeals to logic will get anyone on the other side to see things from your perspective?
frustrating as hell, isn't it?
This certainly is not a waste of time, if nothing else my middle school aged kids are learning by reading along with me
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
