RObert, this thread was opened on whether or not gay partnerships should be recognised legally. I responded with my views as did many others. If I should just say 'not for me, same goes for the homos who should just say 'I like it that way'. If they can push their views, why do you not think that I should push mine?

Jpw2040,

I thank you for the definition and now I’d like to dispute its merit. You didn’t have to invent the word for it to be misleading. I don’t follow that logic. The psychologist George Weinburg coined the term in 1972. It was just as nonsensical then as it is now. It was nonsensical to apply a word meaning “fear of same” to people typically labeled homophobic and surprising at a time when same sex attraction was still in the DSM as a mental illness.

“Don't forget the ones you used to support that curious interpretation of that comment were wrong.” You’re welcome to take issue with anything I’ve said, but please do so accurately. One, and only one of the references was wrong. I acknowledged this and apologised.”

I disagree. The key one, that was the fruit of hunting through my comment history and was meant to be the smoking gun that confirmed a bizarre interpretation of comments in this forum, was wrong. Okay maybe it shouldn’t have used "ones" plural but you started it.

”Your posting behaviour encourages others to post homophobic comments. I’ve supported this view extensively, so the denials are a little hollow.”

Your arguments were incorrect but homophobic is a nonsense word…

”… I would construe it as another failure …to apply the standards to yourself that you expect of others.”

You seem to be quoting something I believe I have already debated. Am I missing something?

Paraphrase: “you implied that changing discriminatory legislation would stop small minded homophobics.”

Quote: So long as equality is withheld from sexual minorities simple-minded bigots will continue to vilify, threaten and assault us (following the motto that the government doesn't treat gays equally, so why should I?). Our government has the power to rob these people of the phoney justification for their hate.

Assertion: “… I did state something completely different to what you’ve written…”

Can you explain further?

Robert,

Jack’s quote: “Great link, jpw2040. Kind of like saying that Leftism is a consequence of closet Fascist tendencies.”
http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf

“… In the same vein is the old saying about those who protest too much.”

People labeled homophobic aren’t normally labeled as a result of some protest about their sexuality. Indeed the person who claimed to be “enthusiastically heterosexual” was never labeled as homophobic notwithstanding his predilection for some fairly non-standard practices and the extensive use of the term “homophobic” in this thread. It is a nonsense term.

Jack has already given a reasonable response to the issue of that study. However some issues raised should be noted. Would it be fair to say that it would take a special kind of man (who claims negativity toward same sex attractions but) who volunteers to have experimenters strap a device to his penis to measure his sexual arousal while he views pornography involving people acting out same sex attractions? Do you seriously think that would be a representative sample of people who are labeled “homophobic”?

Jack,

“ If they can push their views, why do you not think that I should push mine?”

Because if you express your view you are a homophobe so shut your mouth!

But seriously, to the extent that that is the way the term homophobe is being used, here here! It is a nonsense term.

"Am I missing something?" Yes, quite deliberately, I suspect.

"Can you explain further?" I don't believe there's any point. If you refuse to accept the recognised meaning of the word "homophobia" then we don't have a common language with which we can communicate on this issue.

I've come to the conclusion that all I'm doing here is providing you with oxygen for your ill will.

I've got bigger fish to fry. Ciao

"The Victorian Labor government announced it would legislate to give single women and homosexuals access to IVF and Surrogacy in 2008. They may well push the 'Relationship Register Bill' through in the first sitting of State Parliament in Feb. 2008. IVF and Surrogacy for same-sex and single people will indeed create a STOLEN generation."

"Children will be born without the ability to have a proper relationship with their father or their mother. Children born with 3 mums and a dad, like Senator Steven Conroy's daughter, or any other combination that surrogacy and/or infertility treatment social engineers can dream up!"

A 'Sixty Minutes' program some years ago, presented a very immature homosexual who "desperately wanted a baby". He was to 'provide the sperm', a lesbian friend was to 'provide an egg' and his mother, the child's eventual grandmother, was to be the surrogate womb. The child would not have a mother, just a father and grandmother - the lesbian donor was not going to be involved. There was also some doubt that there would be a granddad!"

"As BILL MUEHLENBERG stated in his very good article in Monday's Herald Sun" The overwhelming weight of 35 years of social science makes it quite clear that children are best served when raised by both their own biological parents. He also states that there over 10,000 international studies weighing into this question and the data is irrefutable: children raised in any other structure than that of a mother and a father family suffer considerable disadvantages."

"Since when has this Victorian Labor government, or the Victorian Law Reform Commission, listened to the people rather than the homosexual lobby - unless the people are telling them what they want to hear? Even the Herald Sun Editorial of Tuesday 18 said as much.

Very few homosexuals want children, so a small percentage are able to destroy normality to suit their own personal unnatural lifestyle choices. - According to a La Trobe University study 2% of the population are homosexual. What we oppose is a political agenda to normalise unnatural homosexual relationships and undermine the natural FAMILY."

What can you do?
We need you to increase your efforts to combat this social engineering taking place in Victoria.
Make an appointment to see your local State MP (Lower House) and your 5 Upper House members.
Take a friend and talk about the benefits of marriage and the damage that extending benefits to all couples will do to society.

We know some Lib/Nat MPs are supportive of our position to uphold the natural family. Please write politely to persuade all the Lib/Nat opposition to oppose both 'Relationship Registers' and the new IVF/surrogacy laws. Please encourage them to support the children, not the selfish agenda of homosexuals by opposing this legislation.

Write to Party leaders and MPs:
PLEASE write to ALL YOUR political representatives (one Lower House and 5 Upper House) as well as the Premier Mr Brumby, the Deputy Premier Mr Hulls, the Leader of the opposition Mr Baillieu.
Vic. Premier John Brumby - john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au
Vic. Attorney General Rob Hulls - rob.hulls@parliament.vic.gov.au
Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu - ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au
Nationals Leader Peter Ryan - peter.ryan@parliament.vic.gov.au
Shadow Vic. Attorney General Robert Clark robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au

Your own MPs - one in the Legislative Assembly, five in the Legislative Council.
See http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/handbook/menupage.cfm?menuId=1