"Homophobia" - The True Meaning

When the Gay 'community' invented the term 'Homophobia', the purpose was quite clear. It was deliberately designed to vilify anyone who did not state and believe that homosexuals were the best people in the world. It is used exclusively and consistently to mean, "The hatred of homosexuals".

 

Since the correct prefix for hatred is "mis" ie 'misanthrope, misogenist, miscreant, misdemeanour, etc, why use such a blatantly incorrect suffix as "phobia", which means fear? The reason, from a study of their own attitudes is so obvious. In the conventional use of language, the suffix "phobia" is restricted to diseases, eg, claustrophobia, agoraphobia, acrophobia, etc. The obvious conclusion translates into a subtle 'Gay way' of threatening anyone who is not a homosexual and proud of it is mentally ill and in need of psychiatric treatment. This is further reinforced with the claim that "Homophobia is the disease - not Homosexuality."

 

Gays are not slow to complain about anything. They are even quicker to blame someone else for self-inflicted problems. They can never be responsible for doing anything bad. If they do bad things, it is because they are forced into it by others. Yet, in their own publications, [which they imagine normal people do not read], they frequently let slip some of the truth about themselves and what they like to inflict upon themselves , freehand.

 

The term "homosexuality", a 19th Century invention, is itself misleading. A more useful division would be into normals and deviants ( or perverts ), or the term many of them actually prefer: "Queers", since they are not the uniform, monolithic group that normals are.

 

Their other claims state there is no sharp division between normal and homosexual, that there is a continual shading from exclusively heterosexual, to bisexual, through to fully homosexual - that there is just this vague, amorphous sexuality. This illusion is created in spite of the fact that the majority of Queers prefer to keep their abnormality secret. Objective studies based on objective tests - not self-generated accounts, show the distinction to be quite sharp indeed. Any study of Queer culture shows an enormous diversity of types of Queers.

 

When one examines incidences of "homophobia", one finds it most obvious within this group itself - the "Macho Gays" despise the "Drag Queens." - the "Gays" (a term lately restricted exclusively to males ) dislike the "Bisexuals", who in turn hate the Lesbians, who in turn reciprocate with equal venom and so forth.

 

When one examines the supposed "normals" who are claimed to vilify homosexuals, one discovers that they themselves display the telltale signs of repressed homosexuality. Yet, since this is such a political question and the science of Psychology is so dominated by Gays, we are short-changed for the objective tests needed to make any rational policy decisions. Thus we are forced to make do with marginal data - but even that is quite telling.

 

Gays themselves freely admit that those who make a sport of bashing them are themselves repressed Gays. All that hatred and fear, is seeping from their own kind! They acknowledge that many groups of the past, like the "Sydney Push", who were paraded as being aggressively "heterosexual", displayed a strong undercurrent of repressed, - even overt homosexuality.

 

The fact is that most normal people are not particularly interested in the Gays at all. They would be quite happy if the Gays would simply leave them and their children, alone. In other words, their preference is to ignore the Gays. Yet, since Gays are such exhibitionists, this indifference, perceived by them as the unkindest cut of all, drives them to absolute fury.

 

The latest fad is the Gay push to exploit youth suicide in order to promote their own cause, the agenda being to recruit more youth into their pool. They claim an increase in youth suicide because of homophobia. Whilst it may be true that a majority of suiciding youths are homosexuals, it would be most awkward to explain why it is rising at a time in history when homosexuals have not only been accepted, but have become culturally dominant! Surely it should have been at its peak in the dark old days when this practice was stated to be strictly illegal and strongly frowned on by society at large?

 

But a study of individual homosexuals and their problems reveals that they have, through their own mixed-up nature severe personality conflicts and self hatreds. These are built in and not imposed by an external culture. It might well turn out that their former repression by society actually helped them survive by virtue of assisting them in the control of their internal conflicts.

 

Most Gays have a dread of growing old. They feel that when the wrinkles appear and they begin to lose the energy to party all night, life is no longer worth living. Despite the alarmist propaganda about AIDS, most Gays are not only not particularly worried, but have an almost quaint outlook, reminiscent of the romantic attitude to TB in the 19th Century. They seem to observe little compliance privately to the "Safe Sex" message they promote with such zeal publicly.

 

Currently the Gay argument is "We are normal because we are born that way. We cannot help what we are any more than heterosexuals can. Therefore we should be treated with due respect." Indeed! It appears the scientific evidence actually supports them, in spite of this very recent backflip on their previous position.

 

During the bygone generation, they fought most underhandly and with great fanaticism, any suggestion of such a proposition! To the point that it is now homophobic to deny this same proposition. Were they not themselves once the greatest homophobes for denying it with such venom?

 

Gays continually attack the Churches for teaching that "homosexuality is a sin." No Church has ever taught this! Nor was homosexuality ever classified a crime, or outlawed by our Civil or Criminal Laws. No one has ever been declared unfit for anything on account of being a homosexual. Our legal statutes, and the teachings of the Church condemn one thing and one thing only - Acts! Nothing more.

 

While it may be argued that it would be a good thing if people who had a tendency to engage in serial killing and other similar crimes be restrained before they actually got round to enacting their fantasies, this has never been done by the State or the Church. In fact the teaching of the Church - on which the morality of our State is based, is that we are all miserable sinners and should be treated equally.

 

Whilst many today would insist this is utter nonsense - that some people are clearly born bad, this has never been official teaching or policy, and in absolute conflict with the basic premise of Christianity!

 

So, how is it that the Gays could get it so horribly wrong, about the teaching of the Church and the Laws of the State? The simple answer is - their own internal guilt! Because they despise themselves with such intensity, they imagine the Laws and the teachings of Religion are in agreement with the way they feel about themselves.

 

Since "homophobia" is in fact clearly revealed as a Gay problem, blaming others will solve nothing. Should they ever wish to overcome their own intense self hatred they'll need to approach the problem where it resides - at home! If they cannot like and accept themselves, how can they ever expect anyone else to like and accept them!

 

It might also turn out to be an insoluble problem. Yet, can we be certain until we at least give it a go and attempt to recognise what the real problem is? Blaming others for one's own failings is always a self defeating exercise. If others are not to blame, changing them will make no difference at all!

 

Certainly there is every reason to feel sympathy for the plight of the Gays, who possess minds that are disposed to be female, yet trapped in a male body. The Lesbians, likewise, to the contrary. From a study of their own pornography and the antics of prominent individuals such as Michael Jackson, it would appear that what almost all of them aspire to become, is a middle-class white housewife! This specific pornography invariably features very burly, very masculine males, sporting a full, healthy head of hair. Clearly, the aspiration is not what they want to become, but rather what they desire to have done to them.

 

Perhaps in some future time, with some very fancy genetic engineering it might be possible to alter the very structure of one's body so that one is able able to become what they wish to be. This type of fantasy has been dealt with at length in the theories expressed through Science Fiction. In many fantasies of the future, people don bodies and sexes - even adopt animal bodies, almost as easily as exacting a change of wardrobe.

 

Alternatively, as suggested by some of our most distinguished scientists, we could eliminate what in reality amounts to no more than a simple, preventable birth defect, with the consequence of eliminating entirely this deviant trait along with the problem population itself, way before its inception, thus saving more complicated, even more expensive solutions? Yet, whatever we should do will never be discovered, whilst we are continually misdirected by dangerous red herrings such as "Homophobia".

Jesus fucking Christ man. Write a damn book why don't ya?

 

This is supposed to be a debate forum, not a squatting place for budding novelist.

Sorry, Mate - I just learned to read & rite last week, & I figured it's so much fun, I'll just do a bit more before I get serious & start my new cannibal restaurant. Authors are wankers anyway. Cheers! Flatearther.

Ya thats great and stuff and junk.

 

 

Just some advice bro, start your rants in bits and pieces. Then upon rebutal, you can eloborate. No need for the long drawn out blah blah blah. Mmmmkay? I'm sure you got alot to say, as we all do, but not all at once.

Duuuuuuuhhhhhh! Chee, tanks, Perfesser, I'll try an' dribble like you do, too - was it tough to start walking upright - did yer knuckles hurt much from getting dragged along groun, huh?

What a load of UTTER bullshit !!!

 

I don't know what church you were brought up in but the church I was brought up does teach that being homosexual is a sin and that church is not the only one.

 

Gay people don't demand everyone think their the BEST people in the world, they just want equal status.

 

How demented of you to have such a paranoid bent about what other people are doing behind closed doors to make such statements about Gay people.

Lethalfind wrote:

]What a load of UTTER bullshit !!!

Wow! What can I say after such in-depth analysis, groundbreaking presentation of evidence, logical construct and overview theory, except - do you handle tea leaves and rodent's entrails as well? You sound like you'd be very familiar with recognising great piles of excreta (crap).Such scientific rigour must have them hollering for you at the Smithsonian. Give up your day job! The world needs you - like it needs another Castro!

I don't know what church you were brought up in but the church I was brought up does teach that being homosexual is a sin and that church is not the only one.

I wasn't brought up in any church. I was brought up among decent, law-abiding folk who treated others with respect and courtesy. But I won't bore you with such obviously alien concepts.

Gay people don't demand everyone think their the BEST people in the world, they just want equal status.

They can demand the arrest of all people whose names start with the letter 'F" for all I care. But they can't demand the right to vilify someone with the accusation of mental illness if they are legitemately criticised. I think in the old language it's called 'responsibility' and even the outrageous "fair play". No?.

How demented of you to have such a paranoid bent about what other people are doing behind closed doors to make such statements about Gay people.

Ahhh, turn down the volume on yer megaphone. You need to re subscribe to "Popular Psychology", because your cheap 'analysis' is dragging along the ground again. I don't give a rats what they do to each other as long as they leave people's children alone and don't sneeze in public. Get a life - someone else's - yours is just worn out. Cheers!

I will be brief...

 

Uh-rah!

 

Have some rep, Flatearther.

RoyalOrleans wrote:

]I will be brief...

Uh-rah!

Have some rep, Flatearther.

Jeez, RO - you've really got a way with words - both of them. The thing is, though, are you bragging or complaining? Cheers!

What a load of UTTER bullshit !!!

 

I don't know what church you were brought up in but the church I was brought up does teach that being homosexual is a sin and that church is not the only one.

 

You yanks ought to relearn reading then. The bible does not teach that homosexuals are sinful, it teaches that we are ALL sinful. Jeezuz! It says that sodomy is a sin. It says laying down for sexual relations with your own gender is a sin. It does not say that the type of person who does these things is a sin, but merely as you and I are, sinners.

 

You do your God a great disservice when you misrepresent his words, and then do so on a community basis just so you can justify your cruel taunts and geers at perceived homosexuals.

 

What about all the loving, church going husbands and wives, who incorporate sodomy in their bedroom antics. You ignore Gods word on this and as a result, these sinners, remain sinners. Maybe this is why your god sort such vengeful actions in bringing aids/hiv into the hetrosexual community.

 

Gay people don't demand everyone think their the BEST people in the world, they just want equal status.

 

Then you've never been to a mardi gras, gay night spot, or even out to dinner with them have you?

 

How demented of you to have such a paranoid bent about what other people are doing behind closed doors to make such statements about Gay people.

 

Yeah, they are really trying to have babies hey? It couldn't possibly be sodomy going on.

I'm afraid of being fucked in my tight little ass. Is that homophobia?

I'm afraid of being fucked in my tight little ass. Is that homophobia?

No, mate - that's just wishful thinking. Cheers!

No, mate - that's just wishful thinking. Cheers!

You mean wishful that I DON'T get mounted by a buck? Thats true enough. Gays like to think men that are wary of gays are somehow in question of their own sexuality. Which is just a self-empowering delusion. I'm sure there are some closet queers that fit this bill. But for the most part heterosexual men are truly disgusted by the act of two men naked, shoving each other into a greasy frenzy with erections jousting about. Much the same way many people are disgusted by barnyard sex, with pigs and horses and the like.

I find it a pretty thin line between hating the sin and hating the sinner; particularly when not sinning means either changing your sexual orientation or being celibate. It is true that fornication is condemned universally in the Bible. However, heterosexuals do have a legitimate sexual outlet, marriage, that homosexuals do not. I also believe two celibate gay males would not be accepted by the congregation of most churches.

I'm not homophobic at all. Have no problem with any individual who is gay.

 

I am however anti-being fucked in the ass. That just wouldn't feel right.

 

That's not to say I worry about any gay guy raping me (even though I am pretty hot), I get along pretty much with anyone... except bible thumpers who constantly preach their own version of morality.

.

.

I find it a pretty thin line between hating the sin and hating the sinner; particularly when not sinning means either changing your sexual orientation or being celibate. It is true that fornication is condemned universally in the Bible. However, heterosexuals do have a legitimate sexual outlet, marriage, that homosexuals do not. I also believe two celibate gay males would not be accepted by the congregation of most churches.

 

Pretty thin line hey? Well then, might I remind you that all christians are sinners, therefore that pretty thin line should be extended to include all sinners, and not just those who are men who engage in sodomy.

 

Oh yeah... and what ever happened to the prodigal son in all of this. Hangon, that's old testemant crap. God is love now. Pfft.

 

Oh yeah... and how many females enjoy anal sex? And how many men perform anal sex on a woman? Are these people sinners of the same ilk as homosexuals.

 

Should we be hetrophobic too.

Oh yeah... and what ever happened to the prodigal son in all of this.

 

The Prodigal Son is off having a little fun with the Chosen One and the Manchild.

I'll sum this up this way.

 

Flatearther,

 

Go ahead and be Gay. I don't care.

 

Now, fuck off and find some one who does care.

The fact is that most normal people are not particularly interested in the Gays at all. They would be quite happy if the Gays would simply leave them and their children, alone. In other words, their preference is to ignore the Gays. Yet, since Gays are such exhibitionists, this indifference, perceived by them as the unkindest cut of all, drives them to absolute fury.

 

Interesting assessment. Very interesting.

 

I enjoyed reading this, Flatearther. You certainly have a flair for playing devil's advocate and getting the wheels turning. Well done.

I chuckled outloud and leaked piss.

I chuckled outloud and leaked piss.

 

I did it the other way round & everyone laughed - what's so funny about humour? Cheers!

I did it the other way round & everyone laughed - what's so funny about humour? Cheers!

 

You shat on yourself? Jeers!

what crap are you on about? you've taken an interesting enough thread and ruined it, i mean i know its titled speak your mind but, well, must you?

so im going back to the original thread-the word homophobia. i think -phobia was used because most are scared of what they don't understand but have to face. which is, as far as im concerned what causes homophobia, a lack of knowledge and/or ignorance.

Mockingbird whined:

]what crap are you on about?

Obviously different crap to the crap you're on about. Straighten yourself out and do what most people here do without prompting - speak plain English.

you've taken an interesting enough thread and ruined it, i mean i know its titled speak your mind but, well, must you?

Indeed, I MUST. Apparently 'thinking' and worse, saying so, seems to you to be on the same level as treason and criminality. You've certainly got a way with words, bonehead - both of them.

i think -phobia was used because most are scared of what they don't understand but have to face. which is, as far as im concerned what causes homophobia, a lack of knowledge and/or ignorance.

Therein lies your problem, Einstein - you DON"T think. If you did, you'd understand that to criticise someone, for whatever reason, does not automatically make them mentally ill. "Phobia" is exclusively used as a trerm of mental illness. I haven't seen anyone show the connection betwen mental illness and criticism. If you're saying that homosexuals are beyond criticism, you're just lying. Everyone is entitled to criticism. People like you also use that sleazy slur 'racism' when in fact you're vilifying critics and you know it has nothing to do with race. You'll find it shocking that you can shout a huge "Boo!" (racist, homophobe) and you're seen for the liar you essentially are. Grow up. Take a holiday - under a tour bus. Cheers!

wow that was touchy! but sorry i'll try not to hit any raw nerves in this post.

firstly the word phobia isn't exclusively assosciated with mental illness; look at anything from arachnophobia to xenophobia, i think a better terminology would have beeen 'mental block'. i wasn't saying to critise someone who's gay makes you mentally ill but you're chatting bob (hope you like that phrasing) if you'e critisizinng them because they're gay. i have no idea where you got the idea that i think they're above criticism you're right they're not. why? because they're humans just like you and i.

one other point that's not really of any relevance, save answering back, is that no i'm not one of those sleazy people who throw the word racism around. i'm more than capable of defing the difference between someone questioning/stating something and someone else just relinquishing their prejudice.

 

p.s i have no problem with anyone thinking what they like and for the most part the majority can say what they were thinking without me feeling a great sense of disdain.