Is Homophobia The Most Misused Term On The Face Of This Planet Used By The People?

Originally posted by Nightchild

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Again , one could start gay and dabble having sex with women(depending on there surroundings/environment) for a good part of there lives. That person is still gay. Gay as hell in fact.

Sure, one could do that, and, many actually also do; I have seen it myself many times in the GLBT-communities. However, the fallacy you are commiting here, is that you consider a personal and very sweaping opinion to be actual fact, although that opinion have no support from actual studies that have been performed on the matter.
If you want to claim that it is(Fact), then I will have to ask you to supply with sources proving just that, and that ALL individuals that indulge in Bisexual behaviour only do so temporarily and only for a specific amount of time/years during their lives; That is, actual studies and proof, not singular anecdotal cases.

Nonetheless, you actually did touch on an interesting topic when stating that just because you are intimate with someone of a specific Sex, it does not necessarily mean that you actually are attracted to that specific anatomical sex of the person. Meaning that, for instance, a male that claims to be fully heterosexual despite getting the hots for, let's say, Rupaul, or, Kim Petras, may indeed still be perfectly straight, just as such males for the very most also generally claims to be.
Straight as hell, in fact.

For, if going by your reasoning that one can indeed be intimate with someone of the opposite Sex without being anything else but gay, then it also means that you can have sex with someone of the same biological sex without being gay.

That is, aside from those being true bisexuals, ofcourse.

Its like saying I am strait but for the past 40 years I have been having sex with dead corpses or dogs. Does that make me Bi- beastyality or Bi-necrophilia?

It depends on whether you prefer your corpses to be of a specific Sex. If you do, and for instance cannot be attracted to the subject unless it is of the opposite Sex, then you are a heterosexual Necrophile. If not, and the anatomical Sex of the subject in question are of no importance, then you are either Bisexual or Pansexual(Meaning that you simply do not care about the anatomical sex of the subject at all).

As regarding your question on what a 40 year old habit of humping dogs would make you, it would highly depend on whether you are solely attracted to dogs alone, or, dogs and Humans alike. Regardless of which, you would indeed have a Zoophilic leaning.

Bisexuality is not some sexuality identity, its a fad or phase.

Totally wrong, sorry.
Not saying that you belong to the following group, but the only ones I have heard claiming this, are those that consider the thought that someone would actually be able to be attracted to a person of the same sex without being gay, threatening, as that tears down the wall of the "Us" and "Them" mentality.
Nonetheless, you are ofcourse completely and fully entitled to hold that opinion, however if you are attempting to claim it as being an actual fact, then you will, as previously said, have to supply with actual proof in the form of Scientific sources and studies in support of your opinion. If not, then it remains just that, your personal opinion.

Correct ,, and so does yours(your opinion)...Call me when science gives you an answer

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Correct ,, and so does yours(your opinion)...Call me when science gives you an answer

On the contrary, all my previous statements are based on proven facts and actual studies, not personal opinion.
In regards of Bisexuality, it is likewise a fact that self proclaimed bisexuals(atleast males, as females were not included in the study), do indeed display an electronically measurable attraction towards featured subjects of both sexes; in other words, they have not faked their bisexuality in an attempt to be "fashionable" or the like, as their actual attraction have been messured, as previously stated in the article about the study;

"The fact that we found it, especially using this kind of methodology, confirms that men with bisexual arousal patterns and bisexual identity definitely exist," said Allen Rosenthal, lead study author and doctoral student at Northwestern University.

So, If you are to claim that the previously linked study is wrong, then again; Do so with sources.
Until then, my statements stands as facts, and yours, on the other hand, as mere personal opinion.

Originally posted by Nightchild

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Correct ,, and so does yours(your opinion)...Call me when science gives you an answer

On the contrary, all my previous statements are based on proven facts and actual studies, not personal opinion.
In regards of Bisexuality, it is likewise a fact that self proclaimed bisexuals(atleast males, as females were not included in the study), do indeed display an electronically measurable attraction towards featured subjects of both sexes; in other words, they have not faked their bisexuality in an attempt to be "fashionable" or the like, as their actual attraction have been messured, as previously stated in the article about the study;

"The fact that we found it, especially using this kind of methodology, confirms that men with bisexual arousal patterns and bisexual identity definitely exist," said Allen Rosenthal, lead study author and doctoral student at Northwestern University.

So, If you are to claim that the previously linked study is wrong, then again; Do so with sources.
Until then, my statements stands as facts, and yours, on the other hand, as mere personal opinion.

There is no proven facts based on any study(on this issue).

Electronically? Everyone is different and some people have different attraction at different point in there lives.

Once One's true identity sex-type is blossomed while puberty is transforming is the makeup of that individual; What one does after puberty is basically a "mask". And the "mask's" origins vary per person. And that mask can stay on,dormant or rotated. Its too complex.

Studies cannot answer any of this. Only unbiased logic. Rosenthal has made a theory based on a subjective study. Were you their? Understand ,all studies will be subjective. Again,This issue is too complex.


You keep talking about sources. There's no sources and there is no true way of analyzing this. Just because a certified professional claims something ,it doesn't mean its a dam fact. Only common sense can state facts. If you want to acknowledge(blindly believe) Bi's as a sex type , go right ahead.


And if you really want proof , there's a huge amount of info on gays/Bi's within the roman empire(huge amounts of info). Studying modern man is pointless. Back then people were socially free in many ways.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
There is no proven facts based on any study(on this issue).

Indeed there are, you only prefer to pretend that there aren't, as you do not like what the results are saying.

Electronically?

Electronically, yes. Apparently, you did not read the Study in question as you are asking.
Not that I am surprised, as you seem to not be very interested in facts.

Everyone is different and some people have different attraction at different point in there lives.

Everyone is indeed different, that is correct, However the study was not about measuring naturally occuring differences but the exact opposite; to identify Measurable commonalities with actual and measurable responses.

Once One's true identity sex-type is blossomed while puberty is transforming is the makeup of that individual; What one does after puberty is basically a "mask". And the "mask's" origins vary per person. And that mask can stay on,dormant or rotated. Its too complex.

In other words, you are saying that not even you, yourself, can be certain about your sexual orientation as your current attractions may after all just be a fase you are going through, correct?

As for your claim about the sex-identity not developing until during Puberty, it is, unfortunately, another incorrect statement, as the "foundantions" of both Sexual orientation aswell as gender identity are Neurobiologically wired; not developing later in life or formed by the Social enviroment, as was believed and propagated during the 60's by Dr. John Money(Although the enviroment also do have an importance, albeit not alone).

Studies cannot answer any of this.

Yes they can, and, they have. If the given results then happends to upset some individuals because they do not like what the proven results say, is irrelevant.

Only unbiased logic.

With "unbiased logic" you ofcourse mean "Personal opinions based on prejudices that are unsupported by actual evidence", sort of like when people claimed that it was unscientific to claim that the World was not flat, despite the evidence actually pointing to just that, that it was not flat..

Rosenthal has made a theory based on a subjective study.

No, he did not make a theory, you have gotten it backwards; He, and the research-team, decided to, with modern and Scientific means, investigate the urban myth claming that there are no such thing as bisexual males.

Were you their?

No need to be "there" to be able to participate of results from studies and scientific investigations, as all one has to do is simplyto read the publiched results.
That is the beauty with the age of electronic communication.

Understand ,all studies will be subjective. Again,This issue is too complex.

The "issue" is only as complex and subjective as you chooses it to be, not more, not less.

You keep talking about sources. There's no sources and there is no true way of analyzing this.

Yes, surces that you apparently are incapable of providing to support your claims. Something that I, on the other hand, have, whether you then wish to admit it or not.
All the previously linked results are sources by the actual definition, no matter whether you agree with the content of them or not.
This is the definition of Source;

A source text[1][2] is a text (sometimes oral) from which information or ideas are derived

There, Source.

Just because a certified professional claims something ,it doesn't mean its a dam fact.

Only common sense can state facts.

With "common sense" you ofcourse mean "Personal opinions based on prejudices and self chosen ignorance", just in the exact same way that it is also considered "common sense" in Iran to punish a woman with ten whiplashes because she borrowed her husband's car to drive to work, or, "common sense" to threaten gays with harassment and death sentence unless they agree to change Sex into the "proper" one.

Yes, I am aware of that type of "common sense".

If you want to acknowledge(blindly believe) Bi's as a sex type , go right ahead.

Not at all, nothing I have stated have anything to do with belief, only proven facts from published research.
As for Bisexuality, it is not a "sex type", but a Sexual Orientation. You apparently have some learning to do.


*Continuing in next post because of lack of space*

Originally posted by GiodanoBrunoAnd if you really want proof , there's a huge amount of info on gays/Bi's within the roman empire(huge amounts of info). Studying modern man is pointless. Back then people were socially free in many ways.

1: Apparently you aknowledge that Bisexuality indeed existed in ancient societies(Which is correct) such as Greece and Rome, yet are trying to claim that Bisexuality do not any longer exist in modern times, correct?
Interesting. Any study on this? Or is it another personal invention?

2: Your other statement, that studying Modern Man is pointless, are, at the very best, laughable, as it is the modern times with the modern technology and scientific knowledge that is THE time to study Man and everything that comes with the subject, which in numerous aspects was not possible to do backwards in time.
Unless you rather want to deny that Knowledge, that is. In that case, you are ofcourse fully free to do so.

Originally posted by Nightchild

Originally posted by GiodanoBrunoAnd if you really want proof , there's a huge amount of info on gays/Bi's within the roman empire(huge amounts of info). Studying modern man is pointless. Back then people were socially free in many ways.

1: Apparently you aknowledge that Bisexuality indeed existed in ancient societies(Which is correct) such as Greece and Rome, yet are trying to claim that Bisexuality do not any longer exist in modern times, correct?
Interesting. Any study on this? Or is it another personal invention?

2: Your other statement, that studying Modern Man is pointless, are, at the very best, laughable, as it is the modern times with the modern technology and scientific knowledge that is THE time to study Man and everything that comes with the subject, which in numerous aspects was not possible to do backwards in time.
Unless you rather want to deny that Knowledge, that is. In that case, you are ofcourse fully free to do so.

Being Bi is not a sex type. its a nurtured preference at a specific time in one's life. Why is that so hard to accept. I know a couple of strait-male porn actors(not stars) that to make ends meet they have dabbled in bi-sex porn. There is so many bi-flicks one can do especially when they were born strait not gay. And that is my point . If you are born gay, that is your original preference. Doesn't mean you can't have sex with a women or try to. It just means you will always return to your first arousal.

Again, there was and still is bisexuality in today's world, but its was and still is a phase. One is never(well most of the time,, we're talking about nature and nature tends to avoid total-absolutes) born bisexual.


I can't dumb it down more than that.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno


Being Bi is not a sex type. its a nurtured preference at a specific time in one's life. Why is that so hard to accept. I know a couple of strait-male porn actors(not stars) that to make ends meet they have dabbled in bi-sex porn. There is so many bi-flicks one can do especially when they were born strait not gay. And that is my point . If you are born gay, that is your original preference. Doesn't mean you can't have sex with a women or try to. It just means you will always return to your first arousal.

Again, there was and still is bisexuality in today's world, but its was and still is a phase. One is never(well most of the time,, we're talking about nature and nature tends to avoid total-absolutes) born bisexual.


I can't dumb it down more than that.

You know, I suspect now that we may actually be misunderstanding each other and in actuality may agree more than it seems, but that our statements have collided, so to speak.

This is my suggestion on what we(both) are talking about but collides with; You, I now suspect, may be misinterpreting me for trying to say that bisexuality would be an actual biologically rooted orientation, which you disagree about it as being. Is that correctly assumed of me?

If so, it is no wonder that we are disagreeing, as that is not what I am saying at all.

IF that is what you are disagreeing with, I actually agree, as my personal opinion is that bisexuality, do probably not have a neurobiological cause such as heterosexuality and homosexuality, do, but is rather a type of "personality trait", for lack of a better way to put it, as an actual bisexual orientation would not make sense in a single-sexed creature(such as male or female) from a bio-evolutionary view.
Yes, there are truly bisexual species in the animal kingdom, such as the Bonobo and the Dolphin, but I am not sure that they are actually biologically "programmed" that way, but may rather just have a better capacity for merely enjoying the fruits of life

So, it is not the actual cause of bisexuality I am talking about as being proven, but that there are indeed individuals that are capable of being sexually or sensually attracted to other individuals of either Sex.
What I am disagreeing with, is that such feelings would be a phase, as I know for a fact that there are individuals that have lead a bisexual life since early youth and all into old age.

I believe that the above stated matters are actually the reason for our wild disagreement, that we have simply misunderstood each other.
I also believe that when you say "phase" you are rather meaning "Personality trait", and when I say that bisexuality indeed exists, I mean that people with proven bisexual feelings exists; not that such an orientation is biological in origin.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I do think it is misused often. I'm a gay man and I have experienced homophobia personally, I had a few ribs broken because of it.

However it's not as widespread as the use of the word is. I prefer the term heterocentrism. The belief that only heterosexuality is acceptable. Just as ignorant and bigoted but not the same thing

Being gay is 1000% natural. One is born that way and will die that way.

reply to post by GiodanoBruno


For the record, that is just a theory not fact.

Originally posted by ScatterBrain

For the record, that is just a theory not fact.

Actually, it is indeed a fact, and in the later years a confirmed one, too. The studies proving this can be found a few pages backwards in the thread.

Actually, it is indeed a fact, and in the later years a confirmed one, too. The studies proving this can be found a few pages backwards in the thread.

reply to post by Nightchild


I went back and looked, I would have liked to have seen some links or some information that proved it was a fact.
I didn't find anything that proved fact, care to back up your statement with actual links or something to prove it is fact?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Words don't necessarily mean exactly what their root words mean. Yes at its root homophobia would mean fear of homosexuality however it has gained a colloquial use to refer to things that are considered anti-gay, hateful, bigoted or simply just misinformed comments about homosexuals and homosexuality. Simply because the definition has become broader through what you deem it's misuse doesn't mean it is actually being misused.

Language is not some static thing, it evolves.

Originally posted by ScatterBrain
I went back and looked, I would have liked to have seen some links or some information that proved it was a fact.
I didn't find anything that proved fact, care to back up your statement with actual links or something to prove it is fact?

Did you see This post?

But, nonetheless, sure, no problem at all.

We may begin with the following study from 2010, that, besides from explaining the found cause of Homosexuality, also applies to the causes of Heterosexuality, Transsexualism, and, Intersexualism;
Abstract:

The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation

Link


We can next take the Ram-example, or, also called the "Ram-model", for, although the following findings concerns the Ram, they are nonetheless as relevant in regards of Human homosexuality, as the exact same results that are discussed regarding the Ram, has also been found in Same-sex oriented Human test subjects;

Prenatal Programming of Sexual Partner Preference

The domestic ram is used as an experimental model to study early programming of the neural mechanisms which underlie homosexuality, developing from the observation that approximately 8% of domestic rams are sexually attracted to other rams (male-oriented) when compared to the majority of rams which are female-oriented. In many species, a prominent feature of sexual differentiation is the presence of a sexually dimorphic nucleus (SDN) in the preoptic hypothalamus, which is larger in males than in females. Roselli et al. discovered an ovine SDN (oSDN) in the preoptic hypothalamus that is smaller in male orientated rams than in female oriented rams, but similar in size to the oSDN of females. Neurons of the oSDN show aromatase expression which is also smaller in male-oriented rams versus female-oriented rams, suggesting that sexual orientation is neurologically hard-wired and may be influenced by hormones. However, results failed to associate the role of neural aromatase in the sexual differentiation of brain and behavior in the sheep, due to the lack of defeminization of adult sexual partner preference or oSDN volume as a result of aromatase activity in the brain of the fetuses during the critical period. Having said this, it is more likely that oSDN morphology and homosexuality may be programmed through an androgen receptor that does not involve aromatisation. Most of the data suggests that homosexual rams, like female-oriented rams, are masculinized and defeminized with respect to mounting, receptivity, and gonadotrophin secretion, but are not defeminized for sexual partner preferences, also suggesting that such behaviors may be programmed differently. Although the exact function of the oSDN is not fully known, its volume, length, and cell number seem to correlate with sexual orientation, and a dimorphism in its volume and of cells could bias the processing cues involved in partner selection. More research is needed in order to understand the requirements and timing of the development of the oSDN and how prenatal programming effects the expression of mate choice in adulthood.

Further reading: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Originally posted by ScatterBrain

Being gay is 1000% natural. One is born that way and will die that way.

reply to post by GiodanoBruno

 

For the record, that is just a theory not fact.

Learn history buddy