Obamacare: Eugenics

No, it's just that using the Bible to justify slavery can only be traced back for about 1500 years.


That would not even take you back to Christ. You have another 4000 years to Genesis.


Do you think that limiting gay people's legal rights with the force of law is correct and acceptable when those laws are passed by a RELIGIOUS majority who believe that homosexuality is a sin? That is the hallmark of a theocracy, limiting the behavior others based on YOUR religious beliefs.


Really stretching your fantasy there mare.

Evidently what you are proposing, rule by the minority, is close to Fascism.


The people involved were the crazies, I have seen nothing to suggest that all members of GLSEN were/are supporters--in the same sense that not all Baptists are supporters of the Westboro Baptist church's program.


And here I thought your insinuation was that Christians supported Phelps.


Your link doesn't work. I've already told you that "proving" something in science is pretty difficult, what we have is a lot of evidence while you have none to support your position that homosexuality is evil/sin/abomination/etc. I do find the fact that homosexual bonding is so prevalent in the animal kingdom that it must have a genetic basis since animals can't sin.

Yeah, I copied it wrong.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay

Here is another one for you about "homosexual" animals.

http://conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_in_animals_myth

And, you have NO science linking genetics to homosexuality. If you did you would have posted at least one link by now, and , like in every other thread, you have posted none to support your claim.


[/quote]I recall a statement much like this one in which you said that rape, genocide, incest, etc. were not condoned in the Bible too, but since I posted my Scriptural SOURCES you have been very quiet on the subject. Hmmmmm...[/quote]


Not at all. I asked you to post where God condoned those actions, and you failed to do so. Can't argue when there is nothing to argue about.

I referenced Bruce Bagemihl's book BIOLOGICAL EXHUBERANCE in relation to the behavior of animals. I referenced Dr. Cynthia Chappelle's presentation and she gives a number of her sources as well. I have also referenced THE FEMALE BRAIN by Dr. Louanne Brizendine which has a bibliography of more than 1000 peer reviewed papers. No sources? Half-time, switch thumbs!


LOL, and this from one who demands links. You mentioned them, yet gave no link, nor any facts from the authors. Just insinuations that they had done studies.

Yep. Bet you have sucked all the brown off that thumb. Better stick it back for a while.
 
Werbung:
Posted by Mare:
Quote:
Do you think that limiting gay people's legal rights with the force of law is correct and acceptable when those laws are passed by a RELIGIOUS majority who believe that homosexuality is a sin? That is the hallmark of a theocracy, limiting the behavior others based on YOUR religious beliefs.

Response by OT:
Really stretching your fantasy there mare.

Evidently what you are proposing, rule by the minority, is close to Fascism.

Say, trapper, did you think that the US was a direct democracy in which the rule of the majority is the supreme law of the land?

All this time, I thought we lived in a Constitutional republic, in which the rights of the minority were protected as well.

Personally, I like the idea of a government established to protect the rights of everyone, whether they conform to the values of the majority or not.

The idea of creating a theocracy is quite frightening.
 
That would not even take you back to Christ. You have another 4000 years to Genesis.
I haven't been able to locate an instance of the Bible being cited as justification for slavery farther back than about 1500 from the present. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you have examples of the Bible being cited as justification for slavery 4000 years ago, if so please provide a link since I have nothing that far back.

Really stretching your fantasy there mare. Evidently what you are proposing, rule by the minority, is close to Fascism.
I think it's kind of strange that you think equality is fascism. Black people were a minority when they managed to get equal rights legally--was that fascism as well? Do you even know what a theocracy is? The majority forcing the minority to obey the majority religious tenets is a hallmark of a theocracy.

And here I thought your insinuation was that Christians supported Phelps.
Some do, but you'd do better in a discussion with me if you pay more attention to what I write and less to what you think I believe.

Conservapedia? They make the Wiki folks look really good. If you wish to ignore the REAL science as I have sourced it in Bruce Bagemihl's BIOLOGICAL EXHUBERANCE work which cites hundreds of researcher's work and runs to nearly 800 pages, then I guess you will. I usually find that actually reading individual research papers--while interesting--are inconclusive since one needs the peer reviews and subsequent studies to provide the assurance that the first work was not done off the cuff.

And, you have NO science linking genetics to homosexuality. If you did you would have posted at least one link by now, and , like in every other thread, you have posted none to support your claim.
Again, as I noted above, I find it's better to have many sources with peer reviews and subsequent research to draw on. To this end I have cited Dr. Cynthia Chappelle's presentation and Dr. Louanne Brizendine's THE FEMALE BRAIN with more than 1000 study citations from peer review journals. You will simpy argue with any single piece of research, but a 1000 papers by researchers are going to be harder for you to dismiss. Just as with your thin reading of the Bible, I think that you do not go deeply enough into your research, but rather look to the Wiki and Conserva to find sound byte support to rely on.

Mare Tranquility83695725684125549 said:
I recall a statement much like this one in which you said that rape, genocide, incest, etc. were not condoned in the Bible too, but since I posted my Scriptural SOURCES you have been very quiet on the subject. Hmmmmm...

Not at all. I asked you to post where God condoned those actions, and you failed to do so. Can't argue when there is nothing to argue about.
I cited quite a number of scriptures that made my points and you have had no comment. You keep claiming that I am perverting the Bible but you have not given a single valid example of that. God not only condoned, but sometimes ORDERED the bad actions--according to the Bible anyway. But those scriptures in my opinion are blasphemous in that the speak evil of God.

LOL, and this from one who demands links. You mentioned them, yet gave no link, nor any facts from the authors. Just insinuations that they had done studies.
I suggested links for you because I didn't think you would have books, but if you have books to cite, then do it, do it, do it.
 
Only because you are in a state of denial, and don't want to see any reason.
Ha, ha, when you don't have anything you pretend that I'm ignoring your evidence. Nice try. Try again.

The only thing we would have to change about you to deny you marriage rights is your sexual orientation, therefore one could suspect that sexual orientation is somehow linked to marriage rights. However, there is no valid reason for that to be the case as is proven by the places in the world where gays have been allowed to marry.
 
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay

Here is another one for you about "homosexual" animals.

http://conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_in_animals_myth

And, you have NO science linking genetics to homosexuality. If you did you would have posted at least one link by now, and , like in every other thread, you have posted none to support your claim.

From your Discover article here is a quote:
"Whether or not a gay gene, a set of gay genes, or some other biological mechanism is ever found, one thing is clear: The environment a child grows up in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men gay. Two of the most convincing studies have proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause.

William Reiner, a psychiatrist at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, explored the question of environmental influences on sexuality with a group that had been surgically shifted from boys to girls. These boys had been born with certain genital deformities; because it is easier to fashion a vagina than a penis, the boys were surgically made into girls at birth. In many cases they were raised as girls, kept in the dark about the surgery, and thought themselves female long into adulthood. Invariably, Reiner found that the faux females ended up being attracted to women. If societal nudging was what made men gay, at least one of these boys should have grown up to be attracted to men. There is no documented case of that happening.

The second study was an examination of twins by psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University. Among identical twins, he found that if one was gay, the other had a 50 percent chance of also being gay. Among fraternal twins, who do not share the same DNA, there was only a 20 percent chance.


At first glance, those results seem to suggest that at least some homosexuality must not be genetic. Identical twins have the same genes, right? How could one turn out gay and the other not gay as often as 50 percent of the time? There are many other traits that are not always the same in identical twins, however, like eye color and fingerprints. The interesting question is, how do any of these major differences arise between two products of the same code?

The solution to that question is exactly what Bocklandt is trying to find. By looking not at DNA but at where DNA is switched off, he hopes to find the true genetic seat of homosexuality. Hamer looked at broad regions of chromosomes using genetic markers, a low-resolution result that tells little more than “something’s going on somewhere around here.” Bocklandt is hoping to look with a much stronger magnifying glass at the areas Hamer’s research *highlighted. If he succeeds, it will be a triumph not only for the genetics of homosexuality but also for genetic research in general.

Bocklandt has collected DNA from two groups of 15 pairs of identical twins. In one group, both twins are gay. In the second, one twin is gay, and the other is straight. Identical twins have the same DNA, but the activity of their genes isn’t necessarily the same. The reason is something called methylation."


The trick when posting a link is to actually READ the article, Siho didn't do it either and she posted several articles contradicting her own thesis.

As far as the Conservapedia arguments, the things they cited would harm people so people don't do them, homosexuality doesn't harm people anymore than heterosexuality.
 
From your Discover article here is a quote:
"Whether or not a gay gene, a set of gay genes, or some other biological mechanism is ever found, one thing is clear: The environment a child grows up in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men gay. Two of the most convincing studies have proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause.

William Reiner, a psychiatrist at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, explored the question of environmental influences on sexuality with a group that had been surgically shifted from boys to girls. These boys had been born with certain genital deformities; because it is easier to fashion a vagina than a penis, the boys were surgically made into girls at birth. In many cases they were raised as girls, kept in the dark about the surgery, and thought themselves female long into adulthood. Invariably, Reiner found that the faux females ended up being attracted to women. If societal nudging was what made men gay, at least one of these boys should have grown up to be attracted to men. There is no documented case of that happening.

The second study was an examination of twins by psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University. Among identical twins, he found that if one was gay, the other had a 50 percent chance of also being gay. Among fraternal twins, who do not share the same DNA, there was only a 20 percent chance.


At first glance, those results seem to suggest that at least some homosexuality must not be genetic. Identical twins have the same genes, right? How could one turn out gay and the other not gay as often as 50 percent of the time? There are many other traits that are not always the same in identical twins, however, like eye color and fingerprints. The interesting question is, how do any of these major differences arise between two products of the same code?

The solution to that question is exactly what Bocklandt is trying to find. By looking not at DNA but at where DNA is switched off, he hopes to find the true genetic seat of homosexuality. Hamer looked at broad regions of chromosomes using genetic markers, a low-resolution result that tells little more than “something’s going on somewhere around here.” Bocklandt is hoping to look with a much stronger magnifying glass at the areas Hamer’s research *highlighted. If he succeeds, it will be a triumph not only for the genetics of homosexuality but also for genetic research in general.

Bocklandt has collected DNA from two groups of 15 pairs of identical twins. In one group, both twins are gay. In the second, one twin is gay, and the other is straight. Identical twins have the same DNA, but the activity of their genes isn’t necessarily the same. The reason is something called methylation."


The trick when posting a link is to actually READ the article, Siho didn't do it either and she posted several articles contradicting her own thesis.

As far as the Conservapedia arguments, the things they cited would harm people so people don't do them, homosexuality doesn't harm people anymore than heterosexuality.




Naw, the trick is to have an open mind.

Two additional studies have been done besides the Hamer one, and neither could duplicate his results. So, to date there is no provable genetic link to homosexuality.

Homosexuality has killed millions simply because they will not act responsibly. The spread of HIV/AIDS in the 80's, and even into the 90's, was a direct result of their actions, and their refusal to act in accordance of CDC laws which they opposed, and still oppose.

Prior to the outbreak of HIV the rules for one who contracted a uncurable sexual disease were invioable, and protected people.

The homosexual community in their paranoia changed that forever.
 
Naw, the trick is to have an open mind.

Two additional studies have been done besides the Hamer one, and neither could duplicate his results. So, to date there is no provable genetic link to homosexuality.

Homosexuality has killed millions simply because they will not act responsibly. The spread of HIV/AIDS in the 80's, and even into the 90's, was a direct result of their actions, and their refusal to act in accordance of CDC laws which they opposed, and still oppose.

Prior to the outbreak of HIV the rules for one who contracted a uncurable sexual disease were invioable, and protected people.

The homosexual community in their paranoia changed that forever.

You post a source which you haven't read and when it says you are wrong you attack the source and say things about it that are not supported by the source or any other link. Nice.

"Prior to the outbreak of HIV the rules for one who contracted a uncurable sexual disease were invioable, and protected people." Just what exactly does this statement mean? Are you really trying to say that people with syphilis protected people without it? Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about?

Your info about AIDS is also wrong, gays have not been the major source of the spread of AIDS worldwide or even here in the US.

Heterosexuals have killed more millions than gays by not acting responsibly either. You're really stretching here, DOT.
 
You post a source which you haven't read and when it says you are wrong you attack the source and say things about it that are not supported by the source or any other link. Nice.


Again you prove why it is useless to debate with a fool especially one that has no sense of standards.

It was you that said there was a genetic causation to homosexuality. I said prove it. All you have done is speak of possibilities referring to Hamer, and Bocklandtand, then you say I have not read the article when I post information from the article that shows there is no genetic link. Two subsequent studies have been done using the same technique that Hamer used, and neither one could duplicate Hamer's results.

BTW, Hamer's research funds were cut off too.


"Prior to the outbreak of HIV the rules for one who contracted a uncurable sexual disease were invioable, and protected people." Just what exactly does this statement mean? Are you really trying to say that people with syphilis protected people without it? Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about?


Obviously you know nothing of CDC rules. Prior to the outbreak of "GRID" in the 50's, and then when it was renamed AIDS in the 80's, the rule was that any communicable disease required the reporting of sexual partners, or other contacts like in the case of TB (a rule still enforced today); notification of sexual partners, or other contacts; and quarantine when the transmission of the disease is umknown, or, in the case of TB even when it is. These rules are still in effect to this day for everything but HIV/AIDS.

If those rules had been enforced when the disease was in its infancy we would not have the outbreak we have in the US. When it was first discovered there were less then 800 known cases. Within a few years it had grown to over 12,000, and was beginning to infiltrate the heterosexual community. Ryan White was one of the first highly publicized children who became infected by a blood transfusion since he was a haemopheliac.

If not for the political opposition to the CDC rules, and by the actions of the homosexual activist, and the ACLU, the disease could have been contained possibly, or not as many would be infected today.

Your info about AIDS is also wrong, gays have not been the major source of the spread of AIDS worldwide or even here in the US.

Heterosexuals have killed more millions than gays by not acting responsibly either. You're really stretching here, DOT.


You are in denial again Mare just to support your deviant lifestyle. Even today the homosexual is the main carrier of the disease in the US. And the main cause of the spread worldwide is still the sexual perversions in other countries. Not necessarily that of homosexuality, just perversions.
 
DOT,
If I can prove within a reasonable doubt that being gay is a genetic condition will it make any difference in how you feel and treat gay people? Will you still hate them and vot to take away their rights? Will you still be foursquare in favor of denying them equality?
 
DOT,
If I can prove within a reasonable doubt that being gay is a genetic condition will it make any difference in how you feel and treat gay people? Will you still hate them and vot to take away their rights? Will you still be foursquare in favor of denying them equality?

Believing is seeing. He will see it when he believes it.
 
DOT,
If I can prove within a reasonable doubt that being gay is a genetic condition will it make any difference in how you feel and treat gay people? Will you still hate them and vot to take away their rights? Will you still be foursquare in favor of denying them equality?



Mare, you can't do it or you would already have done so. So, quit beating a dead horse.

Got a question for you. Since you think that homosexuals have not harmed heterosexuals, how do you explain their actions when they knowingly, and willingly, have sex with another (be that person gay, or straight) after they have been diagnosed with the HIV virus?

Now, you can consistently lie about my feelings towards homosexuals all you want, it will make no difference. If you could even prove that the homosexual act was "natural" that would be good start. However, the myth you refer to with homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom cannot be applied to the human race for several reasons of which I have already posted.

Homosexuals are not denied any "rights". There is no Constitutional right to marry, and the contracts you refer to can be amended by law, not by granting a certain class special rights.

As I said before, your ONLY is the destruction of traditional marriage as established thousands of years ago, and the added bonus of destroying Christianity.
 
Mare, you can't do it or you would already have done so. So, quit beating a dead horse.

Got a question for you. Since you think that homosexuals have not harmed heterosexuals, how do you explain their actions when they knowingly, and willingly, have sex with another (be that person gay, or straight) after they have been diagnosed with the HIV virus?

Now, you can consistently lie about my feelings towards homosexuals all you want, it will make no difference. If you could even prove that the homosexual act was "natural" that would be good start. However, the myth you refer to with homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom cannot be applied to the human race for several reasons of which I have already posted.

Homosexuals are not denied any "rights". There is no Constitutional right to marry, and the contracts you refer to can be amended by law, not by granting a certain class special rights.

As I said before, your ONLY is the destruction of traditional marriage as established thousands of years ago, and the added bonus of destroying Christianity.

I asked a simple question, you can't/won't answer it. Why? You got something to hide? Scared to call my bluff? So far it seems that you have lied about your DOCTORATE IN THEOLOGY and shown a marked lack of courage in your convictions, and now you can't even answer a straight forward and easy question. You call me names in almost every post, so why do you continue to post to me? Answer my question and I'll answer yours. Quid pro quo.
 
J Abnorm Psychol. 1996 Aug;105(3):440-5.

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?
Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

PMID: 8772014 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014?dopt=Citation

As has been shown in many studies, it is the fear of being homosexual that usually drives homophobic men.
 
Werbung:
J Abnorm Psychol. 1996 Aug;105(3):440-5.

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?
Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.



PMID: 8772014 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014?dopt=Citation

As has been shown in many studies, it is the fear of being homosexual that usually drives homophobic men.

LOL, more of your heterophobic BS I see.

The Washington Blade
http://www.washingtonblade.com/
No fear factor in 'homophobia,' study claims
Researchers say anti-gay prejudice rooted in disgust, 'contamination' concerns

Bunmi Olatunji, lead author of a University of Arkansas study on the word 'homophobia,' says the term is often used inaccurately when describing prejudice.

By KEITH TAYLOR

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. -- Call it what you will, but hostility toward gay men and lesbians is not homophobia, University of Arkansas researchers concluded in a new study.

The word "homophobia," commonly used to describe anti-gay prejudice, is technically a misnomer, the researchers reported in early June. Homophobia is not actually a fear, and therefore it should not be "pathologized," or treated as a disease would be treated, said doctoral student Bunmi Olatunji, lead author of the study.

University of Arkansas researchers were able to demonstrate through statistical analysis that the concept usually described as "homophobia" originates from feelings of disgust, Olatunji said in a telephone interview Tuesday. A true phobia is derived from fear or anxiety, he said.

Olatunji said that anti-gay hostility is a prejudicial attitude more closely resembling racism than a phobia. The researchers offered no substitute for the word "homophobia," although Olatunji said some of the feedback he had received suggested "homonegativism" might be more accurate.

"I think a lot of people have been generally surprised" at the study's findings that the word homophobia, as commonly used, is "not conceptually accurate," Olatunji said. He said the study was not intended to quibble with the use of the term "homophobia," but to identify emotional components of the origin and nature of the condition.

"If you can identify the underlying emotions of certain attitudes and behaviors, you can better understand how those attitudes formed," Olatunji said. "That has implications for treatment, but it also enables you to consider a condition in the proper context."

Jeffrey Lohr, a University of Arkansas psychology professor, has spent the past several years attempting to identify emotional factors in variety of phobias. Olatunji and doctoral student Suzanne Meunier conducted the study on homophobia within that program of research. Olatunji presented the findings June 9 at an American Psychological Society convention in New Orleans.

The University of Arkansas study seems to show a "perfectly reasonable set of findings," but its conclusions are not really a new concept, said Gregory M. Herek, a psychology professor at the University of California at Davis.

Herek credits psychologist George Weinberg with inventing the word homophobia in the late 1960s. It had a double meaning. Weinberg used homophobia to label heterosexuals' dread of being in close quarters with gays. The word also was used to describe "homosexuals' self-loathing."

"The term is catchy, and it was very important at the time Weinberg coined it," said Herek, who is recognized as an authority on prejudice against lesbians and gay men. However, the word "has a number of problems with it," Herek said, particularly because there is no basis for the "phobia" suffix in a clinical sense.

Herek noted that a 1984 study by researchers Stephanie Shields and Robert Harriman, in which people viewed images of homosexual sex and their physiological responses were measured, did not find physical reactions consistent with phobias.

"The problem isn't people who are gay," Herek said. "The problem is people who are prejudiced against people who are gay." For that reason, Herek suggested "sexual prejudice" as a better term than "homophobia."

'Homophobia' here for now

Whatever the concern over its descriptiveness, the word "homophobia" is not likely to disappear from the lexicon of the gay rights movement anytime soon, activists said.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has no intention of dropping the word from its communications, said Connie Ress, a GLAAD regional media manager. Debating "this word versus that word as a label" does not address the real concerns of gay men and lesbians, she said.

David Smith, communications director and senior strategist for the Human Rights Campaign, described the Arkansas study as "very academic." He said HRC continues to use the word "homophobia" in describing anti-gay prejudice.

"It's still in our vocabulary," Smith said. "Granted, the word may not be technically descriptive, but the meaning of the word has evolved."

Even so, Smith said he accepts the study's assertion that "homophobia" connotes a societal prejudice against gays, and therefore would not be a phobia in the same way "arachnophobia" is a fear of spiders.

Cure to homophobia isn't facing fears

Clinical psychologists often treat true phobias by forcing patients to confront their fears. Prolonged exposure to feared stimuli can weaken the fear response. But the researchers said such a procedure may not be effective in eliminating disgust and would be inappropriate if the object of disgust is another person.

"If contempt and disgust drive homophobia, then it seems more of a moral or social problem than a psychopathological one," said Lohr, the Arkansas professor, in the news release announcing the results of the study. "If we start to consider negative attitudes pathological -- implying that there's something medically wrong with prejudiced people, that they're somehow sick with their own attitudes -- that seems to me misguided."

The researchers also found close associations between homophobic tendencies and worries of contamination, Olatunji said. He said the contamination factor involves a perception among some people that homosexuality is "something that's not clean."

"I think a lot of people see it as some sort of disease," Olatunji said. "Some just see it as dirty. They don't want to get their hands dirty."

Some people, particularly those coming from a religious background, also worry that exposure to homosexuality would amount to "moral contamination," Olatunji said.

Researchers studied the contamination component because it "clarifies the type of disgust that people are feeling," Olatunji said. "Without information about contamination fears, you could assume that homophobic people were just disgusted by the abnormality of the homosexual lifestyle."

By using a research tool known as the Padua Inventory, which assesses contamination obsessions, the researchers found "a perception of contagion that feeds into homophobia."

The respondents were a random sample of psychology undergraduates at the university's Fayetteville campus during the 2001-2002 school year. Olatunji said he did not know how many of the student respondents might have been gay or lesbian.

For its methodology, the researchers asked the 138 participants to complete a series of questionnaires and surveys, including the Index of Attitudes toward Homosexuals (IAH), the Sexual Attitude Scale, the Disgust Emotion Scale and the Padua Inventory. Subjects who showed homophobic tendencies on the IAH also displayed conservative sexual attitudes, elevated levels of disgust and dread of contamination. However, the results showed a negative correlation between attitudes about homosexuals and measures of fear or anxiety.

Olatunji said the researchers did not yet know the extent to which the results could be replicated in a broader sample. "Obviously you don't want to make generalizations when you don't have a very inclusive population," Olatunji said. "That may be something we may be able to address in the future."

Not all activists accept the premise that fear is not a key element in homophobia.

"I think there is a particular fear and animus toward homosexuality," said Riki Wilchins, executive director of the Gender Public Advocacy Council, a national organization that often focuses on transgender rights but also works more generally to end discrimination based on gender stereotypes. As such, said Wilchins, the word homophobia accurately describes that fear.

The same is true of "genderphobia," said Wilchins, a transgendered woman. Genderphobia refers to a "fear and loathing toward anyone, gay or straight, who transcends narrow, outdated stereotypes," she said.

Genderphobia and homophobia are related, Wilchins said, offering an example: "One of the primary fears is that men who love men are in some fundamental way being unmanly." Therefore, addressing gender stereotypes becomes an essential element in addressing homophobia, she said. Heterosexism, a word also used to describe anti-gay prejudice among heterosexuals, is rooted in the same concept.

William Leap, chair of the anthropology department at American University and coordinator of the university's annual Lavender Languages & Linguistics Conference, said the Arkansas study was not the first to address the usage of "homophobia."
 
Back
Top