It is quite instructive that you have been unable to select even one example, Antiseptic, from the entire thread to date.

>>I suggest you read thio thread, [hysterical homophilia] has been discussed extensively. I'm not surprised you missed it, though. It's hard to see much past your nose with a blindfold on.<<

In your own words, "Go on, I dare you" to show us exactly what you mean by the phrase. I suspect it is merely a convenient label that you have chosen, more for the fact that it includes the word "homo" than anything else.

>>[Homophilia] is at least as sound in its provenance as "homophobia". Still begging the question as usual.<<

Interestingly enough, this is not the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
http://allphilosophy.com/topic/1784

But I guess it does include the word "homo", which is what attracts you to it.

>>If I did [hate gays], I would, but I don't, so I see no reason to say so<<

Nah, you're just saying that in case the thought police are about, aren't you. Scaredycat.

>>It's quite sad that you and the rest of the homophiles can't actually argue your case, but rely on waspish efforts to paint your opponents as intolerant.<<

No need for the paint job, you're doing just fine on your own.

>>Tell me, in simple terms, why you think Akermanis is incorrect and deserved all the nastiness heaped on his head. Go on, I dare you.<<

Here's one I prepared earlier on this thread:

"What he is trying to do, though, is to influence other people's choice - i.e. the choice of someone to openly declare their sexual orientation"

Now, back to the question.

>>the club has also censored him from making any public comments for 3 weeks, which is something of a backdown from their rather hysterical homophilic position<<

Where's all this "hysterical homophilia" that you were going on about?

All that to keep begging the question. tsk, tsk, tsk. Do you normally get paid by the word?

Now, let's try this again.

Are we to understand that your principle (and only stated) objection to Akermanis's comment is that it may impinge on a choice of a gay first grade footballer to "come out"?

I'll trade you, Antiseptic.

I'll answer your question, if you'll answer mine.

>>Are we to understand that your principle (and only stated) objection to Akermanis's comment is that it may impinge on a choice of a gay first grade footballer to "come out"?<<

I actually preferred my own phraseology, but if this is as far as you can understand then yes, something like that.

Were you expecting something different?

All the rest of my observations here have concerned the peanut gallery's attempts to paint it as some kind of heroic stance against an onrushing tide of homosexuality in the last bastions of Aussie maledom.

Now it's your turn.

Where's all this "hysterical homophilia" that you were going on about?

Or do you just like the sound of the words?

I still can't work out why anybody would want to "come out"
People generally don't proudly proclaim their incestuousness.
People generally don't proudly proclaim their bestiality.
Why would you be proud?

Dear Proxy,

Homosexuals are drawn together not only
by a shared sexual orientation but also
by a common social experience of stigma
as deviants. Some spend a lifetime denying
their homosexual tendencies to others, and
perhaps even to themsleves. Most however, find
ways to resolve the conflict, and many do so
in the gay and lesbian communities,
subcultures in which they can be resocialized
by learning new roles, norms and values.
The new climate helps to neutralize earlier
conceptions of homosexuality as perverted
or sinful, and enables gays and lesbians to
build positive self-concepts. According to
Masters and Johnson, the great majority of
gay men tend to form long-lasting, affectionate
relationships, and lesbians seem to maintain even
more stable and enduring relationships than
heterosexuals.

Perhaps that may explain why they feel that they
no longer have to hide their sexual orientation.

I'm not sure though about your reference to
incest and beastiality. I wasn't able to find
any information in my research to connect those
two references of yours to homosexuality.

Foxy,
<<According to
Masters and Johnson, the great majority of
gay men tend to form long-lasting, affectionate
relationships, and lesbians seem to maintain even
more stable and enduring relationships than
heterosexuals.>>
How then do you explain the far higher preponderance of STD's amongst MSM,
if not from a much greater propensity to promiscuously engage in high risk practices?
Or is it all those "heterosexual MSM" cheating on their wives?