Homophiles?

So I opened up my internet today which automatically brings up a random Wikipedia article and this came up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophile

Homophile - what? I'd never heard of it before this. Anyone heard of this and have anything to say about it?

 

Interesting, but i can't say i've ever heard anyone use the term....

I'd say i would from now, but i know i wouldn't be able to use it unless i was actively thinking about it.

theres so many other words to describe myself

~G

 

I don't really have an opinion either way. Homosexual is fine and Homophile to me sounded like someone who was straight but had a thing for homos ... or something. Also sounds kinda like pedophile.

 

I assumed this was going to be a less offensive version of "faghag".

I don't totally hate it, but I'm happier with "gay". This is mildly interesting though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophile#Use_of_.22homophile.22_by_the_Church_of_England

 

My favourite wacky sexuality word is "cisgender", which is the opposite of transgender apparently.

 

- i think so too - it just anougher word to add to my gay terms dictionary.
- interesting.

 

I find the term pretty dumb. I also assumed it meant something along the lines of someone who actively seeks out to shag homos (like a pedophile, as someone said). I like the term "homo" best There's no sexual bit in that and it sounds amusing for some reason so it is quite handy.

 

If anything, a new term needs to be made regarding homophobes; homophobic is the complete wrong word. I'm not gay myself, and to each his own - but I disagree that labelling people with a 'fear of gays' is just terrible; especially because for most it's more of a general disgust than a fear. On the whole, I doubt people are 'scared' - they just don't like - for whatever reasons they may have.

 

Its human nature to fear what you don't understand.

 

I concur (in this instance).
..and for the record Im not a homophobe.

 

And that's why I use heterosexist rather than homophobic

 

So that makes it okay?

"Phobia" refers to "fear of or aversion to" something. It also doesn't necessarily refer to the kind of violent hatred directed at gay people - most arachnophobics, for example, don't want you to hurt spiders or kill them, for example.

So basically, I'd say homophobia is something of a misnomer.

 

So on the Homophile article, did anyone else notice the blue publication cover on the right? How many were arrested in a police roundup?

69

How perfect.

 

i know androphile which denotes someone who is attracted to men (andro 'male' + philia 'love') and i like that word. never used homophile. to me it sounds like someone who is not gay but likes gay ppl, but as an alternative to homosexual, no, i don't think it's a good one.

 

rofl thnx dude ill use that now
necrophile
pedophile
homophile
rofl

 

ew phile? too similar to pedophile. makes us sound sick.
i prefer the term gay.

 

Are you disgusted by incest?

Morally, there's no difference if birth control is applied.

That's how 'homophobes' feel about gay people: disgust, not fear.

 

You know, after I worked out I was gay and thought of all the hatred toward gay people often based on their sexual activities (which in NO way is justified), I actually have yet to be disgusted by the sexual acts of other people. Of course certain things such as necrophilia are somewhat disturbing, but things like incest, bestiality - whatever floats your boat man. If both people are into it and no one's getting physically or emotionally hurt who cares? Sure with incest you could end up having babies with 6 fingers but that's the parents problem! How does two siblings having a shag affect me? Not at all - therefore I really couldn't give a flying shit about it. Same thing goes for gays...How does me getting it on with another guy affect straight people...NOT AT ALL! So get the fuck over it.

 

I Agree with Andy.

Well said.

And for some reason, reading through this thread reminded me of this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1IHdaJOZe7E

no matter how sad i feel, that woman never fails to make me laugh
AND she raises good points XD

~G
xXxXx

 

In theory, I have no problem with incest.

I do, since someone mentioned it later on in the thread, have some problem with bestiality and necrophilia, unless there's a definite way of establishing consent. Particularly in the case of necrophilia, I have reason to believe that this would be a mental illness, rather than merely a kink, but if someone has willingly signed over the body and no crime's being committed, it's fine by me. Until the existence of the canine mindmeld has been scientifically established, I'm not going to be pro-bestiality. I guess getting licked out by a dog is fine, as long as there's no coercion involved (e.g. rubbing Pedigree Chum all over it).

So yeah, that's the summary, sorry if I've overthought this. I've heard that "if you're okay with gayness, presumably you're okay with [x shocking thing] as well YOU CAN'T NOT BE OKAY WITH IT FAGGOT" argument trotted out quite a few times, and it doesn't wash. Everyone has a choice what they're okay with anyway (otherwise bisexuality would be mandatory.......................................................................................................................................................................................... quiet, you), and there are so many more factors surrounding sex.

The idea that either have to be okay with everything or just okay with heterosex is ridiculous enough in itself; why should heterosexual sex be so acceptable? Some will say it's because we're naturally driven to procreate, but all that exempts from damnation is vaginal sex while the woman is in oestrus (consensual or otherwise; if we're talking in terms of division of energy, chasing some girl around for weeks on end, working all hours god sends to buy her drinks, jewelry, etc.... just plain unnatural is what it is!), with foreplay an inconvenience that should ideally be bred out with eugenics as soon as possible. What's the point in having tons of men wandering the planet who take an age to come, after all? They're there eating food, wasting their energy, and having others waste their energy on them, being prodded and palpated, just so they can get an erection?! Men should, naturally, have a permanent horn and shoot with the absolute minimum of effort. Otherwise they are NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE CONTINUATION OF THE SPECIES AS MUCH AS THEY SHOULD BE!

And so on. In this light, it's far easier surely just to let everything slide that's consensual and doesn't do anyone any serious/permanent harm, isn't it?