01 February, 2006

heterophobia

I recently updated the wikipedia definition. If homophobia is fear of homosexual behavior, then heterophobia should be:

fear of heterosexual behavior or relations with the opposite sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophobia

For those who think that somehow "homosexuality" is genetic, please read the link associated with the dots and the title.

Children were raped and forced into the homosexual lifestyle and behavior. See link below.

http://www.snapnetwork.org/news/otherstates/NYTimes_Survey_Two.htm

It is past time to put this mostly political movement on notice. The people have voted.

Here is a new definition. I will confront these activists with heterophobia whenever they bring up homophobia.

35 Comments:

Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

Amen Chief..I've been sayin that all along!

2.2.06  
Anonymous Doug said...

Chief,

Back in the mid-80's, I attended San Francisco State University. One of my good friends was a lesbian English major. After a particularly bad break up with my fiancee at the time I ended up staying at her apartment for a few days, One night after several adult beverages she showed me photo albums of her childhood in Hawaii. Several of the pictures showed her with a very handsome burly male surfer. I asked her about him and she replied, "I never said that I didn't like men. I just prefer women." She also told me a "secret" as she put it. She believed that all homosexuals chose their preferences and that those who said any different were either morons or lying.

Any intelligent person knows this.

4.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Doug-
Sounds like 'sour grapes' to me. I wonder how she thinks she can speak for 250,000,000 Americans? Natural attraction to the opposite sex has been going on for quite a long time now. As some feminists said a few decades ago, rape is not a crime of passion, but power. Similarily, it seems that homosexual conquests are relationships of power rather than some contrived 'love' affairs.

5.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

I'm sorry, how is homosexuality principly "a political movement"?

Homosexuals have existed all throughout history without becoming a political force of any relevency before, if you are simply referring to the movement to attain the same rights as heterosexuals, I would tend to characterize that as more of a struggle of equality than pure politics.

I find it very difficult to believe that any sane person (especially a young person) would simply choose to be gay on a whim, thereby inviting all the verbal and pysical abuse that comes with the package if there wasn't a biological attraction there. I find it equally unlikely that if you asked a random homosexual if their choice was somehow politically motivated, you'd get anything other than a weird look.

If you want some sort of confirmation of a genetic link, look no further than our closest animal ancestors, as many have been observed as having a tendency towards homosexual behaviour.

Unless of course you're one of those whacky literalists that believe the earth was created in 6000 years and humans are the devine and superantural creation of god.

If the latter is the case, I would advise you to take a good hard look at the politicization of religion. And not to cast stones, especially when residing in a glass house.

7.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Homosexuality is a political movement, like NOW is one to the democratic party. They are the extreme branch of a group, trying to make others they are the moderates.
I agree with you. Fifty of fifty-one of the Roman Emperors were homosexuals. Homosexuality is a behavior, just like drug addiction or prostitution or incest or bank robbery. I do feel bad that some have been raped at an early age and indoctrinated by NAMBL? (under age 12?). Correct me if I am wrong on this. No, they just invite you to go to the "act out" conference or what do you call it? action.
Did you read the linked piece which contains only one scientifically qualified research on preferences? The others are tainted. Whacky? Name calling will not help in a debate or even casual conversation. I prefer the term inerrant word. You should respect others. Most people use the word God capitalized.
I am not casting stones, but speaking The Truth. I have had enough stones cast this way, and just want to: as you put it, "attain the same rights as homosexuals". Look at the political statements on the 'kineda page. Some homosexuals are afraid to have an intimate relationship with someone of the opposite sex. For whatever reason: incest, rape, past poor choices, parental preferences (Bono comes to mind as a real example today), they may, I repeat, may have a phobia, or irrational fear of an intimate relationship. I know some heterosexuals who swear that they will never marry again, heck, I know many who have said they will never drink (alcohol) again after getting drunk, too.

7.2.06  
Blogger Nobody said...

Homosexuality is a behavior, just like drug addiction or prostitution or incest or bank robbery.

Except that homosexuality doesn't actually hurt anyone.

7.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Nobody- I did some homework and looked over your blog. Kinda' dark in there. Drug addiction doesn't hurt anyone either if the person keeps to him or herself. Prostitution has been argued as a "crime" of mutual satisfaction! Incest in some religions has been condoned as necessary. Bank robbery (Bonnie & Clyde) has been defended as a "robin hood" equalization.
I am not condemning the behavior of homosexuality--or even the sodomy that usually goes with it any more than any other sin or abnormal behavior. We are free in the USA to engage in divers strange behaviors between consenting adults in private.
My point, which you do not seem to get is just what I typed on the blog: "I will confront these activists with heterophobia whenever they bring up homophobia".
There is no homophobia. People are free to engage in their activities without having others confront them with their deviant behaviors. Keep it in the privacy of your (second person) own house.

7.2.06  
Anonymous Wiarton Willy said...

Chief,

but heterosexuality is not confined to the privacy of people's homes is it? YOu see it on Television, in the bar, pretty much in every corner you look there are elements of sexuality being thrown around. What do you think about this?

I am curious to know who you will be "confronting" with your notion of "heterophobia"? There is a heck of a lot more discrimination from heterosexuals against homosexuals, than vice versa.

In any case, what maybe "strange" to you, is often deemed scientifically and biologically proven behaviour amongst not only humans but also other animals.

9.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Open displays of acceptable behavior between married people have been observed in polite societies for centuries.
PDA is not allowed in the military for example, nor in schools. People can decide not watch base productions on the television, and can certainly avoid bars. In public parks, behaviors are also defined. Just this week, two homosexuals were arrested, soliciting young boys. They were ages 50 and 62. The boys were under age 18. There were also families around. The local laws will take care of these two deviants.
As far as illegal discrimination, I would like to see some instances. Michelle Malkin has published numerous instances of faked "discrimination" at many locations.
I am aware of the asexual nature of some of the lower forms of animals (I took College Biology). The confrontation I mentioned will be an equal and opposite mentioning of the word heterophobia when and if someone mentions homophobia. Fair enough?

9.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

By the way, I'm having trouble understanding some of your initial response, compared to your responses to others, it's writing and syntax is comparably poorer.

Could you please clarify some of your statements about political groups and bahaviour versus biology?

9.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

I have no comment to your first paragraph except to say that I, by myself wrote and type all replies on this blog. Sometimes interpersonal relations come into play and a person may reply differently depending on who or whom they are addressing.

I don't see any adversity between political groups and Biology or Zoology. A political group may be trying to secure some position of power, or in this case, status. The asexual reply I made was part addressed to a comment about biological behavior(s).

The Truth: I just got back from a JAG briefing on homosexuals in the military. The position is: It is not our business to ask about a person's sexual preference. It is against the UCMJ and policy to engage in outward behavior. The same is true of heterosexual behavior. It is against the UCMJ to engage in sexual intercourse outside of marriage. This is in addition to fraternization policy.

9.2.06  
Blogger yodi-va said...

This has been an interesting exchange. I have felt for years that there is just too much sexual manipulation in general. In commerce, in politics, in general. If there were no power in sex there would be no manipulation. Our society's stupidity puts the power in it. Harlequinn romances and Playboy. And no, the 60s didn't make sex free or any more or less powerful. Can we just chill out and maybe not have sex on the brain all the time. in every commercial !!! even little kids clothes in Target - sizes slut and pre-slut. it's everywhere, I'm no prude but it gets disgusting.
I was in the service in the 80s and the co-ed dorms were like a rabbit warren, little bunnies scrumpin' everywhere. are we going to have 4 dorms - one for straight guys, one for gay guys, one for straight women and one for gay women. It's ridiculous. What was wrong with salt peter anyway?

Coin me a phrase for a "just keep it to yourself"-er.

10.2.06  
Blogger yodi-va said...

I was in the military in the 80s and the co-ed dorms were like a rabbits warren - little bunnies scrumpin all over the place. Our society is stupid about sex by choice. in marketing, in politics, in general. I'm sick of it. and the 60s did not make sex free or any more or less powerful. straight or gay it can ruin careers by muddling brains. and yes choosing to be gay is choosing to be "mis-understood" but people do that all the time. I chose to marry outside my race. I didn't have to and I've lost friends (and faced discrimination on the job) so has my husband. who needs 'em. People choose to get tattoos all over themselves and there ain't no crossing back over on that one! my point is that martyrdom and infatuation and teen angst are powerful even without the sex hype. How many girls do you think lost their virginity when they weren't in it for the sex? Harlequinn Romances and Playboy. I'm sick of it all. Coin me a phrase for detesting all sex in public or commercial view or conversation - I'll take it. Not fear just aversion. Lack of tolerance shouldn't automatically be considered to be fear. it can be just plain old disgust.

10.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Yodi-Va,
Thank you for your post and links! I looked at zombitime and I see I need to get out more to help expose liars like the SF Chronicle. Great job there. What a bunch of propaganda to push communism.
Back to the sexist media you posted: First, thank you for serving and telling the truth since your discharge. Did you get all your benefits? May I ask, did you serve in a war zone, and are you enrolled at VA (1010ez)?
Second, I agree with the disgust remark. I also agree that there is quite a bit of "free love" going around that does nothing but corrupt young people and take away many of their free choices later in life, besides being a bad example for even younger people.
Third, thanks for recognizing that people choose to engage in homosexual behavior and be identified that way. Good analogy--piercings, race, pink hair, profanity with every other word, gangs, or anything else to draw attention to oneself, unearned.
Finally, again, thank you for stopping by and I have have found more people out "there" who are rational and adult.

10.2.06  
Blogger prying1 said...

Good Post. I'm on your side on this one Chief RZ. People make choices all the time and then complain about the results.

10.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

Can we just chill out and maybe not have sex on the brain all the time. in every commercial !!! even little kids clothes in Target - sizes slut and pre-slut. it's everywhere, I'm no prude but it gets disgusting.
I was in the service in the 80s and the co-ed dorms were like a rabbit warren, little bunnies scrumpin' everywhere.... It's ridiculous. What was wrong with salt peter anyway?

Second, I agree with the disgust remark. I also agree that there is quite a bit of "free love" going around that does nothing but corrupt young people and take away many of their free choices later in life, besides being a bad example for even younger people.


Sorry for being crass, but this just comes off as a bunch of old farts whining about the destruction of that innocent, youthful morality that never really existed at any time.

I understand that sex bothers some people but it's a fact of life, and if education and protection were more available the problems would not be as grave as they are.

11.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

No, not at all. In one of my first education courses I remember a quote about ~children do not listen to their parents, they become involved with all types of activities their parents disaprove of, etc. Socrates ~ B. C. !!
Yes, some, if not a majority of youth throw away their futures for a minute of bliss. Yes, that is freedom and I would not want to restrict those choices -- as long as that person is personally responsible for the consequences of their behavior. Specifically, they should not ask taxpayers to foot bills for their support or that of an unwanted child, in the case of pre-marital intercourse.
Sex does not bother me. Engaging in sexual intercourse is an intimate conversation between married people that can continue for decades.
Now. Stop the ifs. Education is and has been available for decades about AIDS for example. As a Health Educator, I didn't waste too much time with the particulars. Scientific surveys show that over 95% of school age students know perfectly well what causes STDs and pregnancy. The crux is a behavior. It is not a phobia. Sometimes people engage in these activities under the influence of drugs, sometimes incest, rape and coercion are involved. When a person or group try to say that the vast majority of citizens in the USA who have just recently voted to support the traditional definition of marriage, they may be the ones with heterophobia.

13.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Somehow, a post was lost. Basically, a young person commented and hinted that a certain recreational drug was or could be helpful in "understanding" this issue.

As I stated before, rape, incest, and drugs can confound sexual orientation. Enough said. See my lastes post on Drugs and Personal Responsibility.

14.2.06  
Blogger yodi-va said...

"I understand that sex bothers some people but it's a fact of life, and if education and protection were more available the problems would not be as grave as they are." This statement is true to a degree but it doesn't address the point. That's like saying that eating food is a fact of life when the discussion is about the effects of anorexia and bulemia. I was addressing the mis-use of the power of sex and probably sounding alot older than I am. The world has not been naive since - ever. I think that overt, in your face, consumerized, politicized sexual fact or innuendo is adding pressure to the decline in society's intelligence and emotional quotients. Civil discourse and social progress depend on citizens gaining a level of maturity and excercising patience and self-control. It says something about us as a society when there is
such a lack of self-control whether it is sex or food. It effects stress levels and communication. The workplace has become Jerry Springer-ized with sexual harrassment (actual and alleged)with people not knowing how to maintain their own personal boundaries and supervisors having to know how to walk the fine line. This is a conversation of ethics and responsibilty as much as it is about moral fundamentals. I don't advocate society becoming a village of busybodies. I endorse the original definition of tolerance: you do you, leave me & everybody else out of it. Don't mess with anybody's kids, don't put it in the streets. Everybody serves their own God and faces their own demons. You'd be better off with the God I serve but, hey, thats your call. My grandmother said "Act in haste, repent in leisure" and it took me 20 years of mistakes to figure out how true that was.

16.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Yodi-Va,
Well summarized and perhaps a fitting finish to this issue. I hope they keep it to themselves and not put it on the streets. "The people have spoken."

16.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

You know, I left a pretty constructive comment here a few days ago, and I don't know why you censored it.

18.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Timmah,
I will, but on Monday with 80% of your post intact. I should include in my profile intro -- no profanity.
The #1-4 or 5 I will address with research and careful thought. I do appreciate your articulate comments.

18.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

still waiting on that comment, about aids in africa...

23.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Timmah--AIDS in Africa is a political issue. Some "strong men" are blocking medicine so that a certain part of their countries will die. There are civil wars there. Same problem with groups donating food and other supplies. They never get there. Bad situation. The only 100% sure prevention of AIDS/HIV/STDs is abstinance and monogamous sexual contact which is not prevalent in the homosexual community.

Now to the personal responsibility/freedom issue: This post is about heterophobia.
With that is hinted at homosexual activism. A certain group of people want the freedom to engage in risky activity that usually results in AIDS/HIV. In the US, about 2/3rds of the cases are caused by this type activity.
Let me be clear. I am not one to restrict a person's freedom. If anyone wants to engage in risky behavior, I am not one to stop them unless it pretty directly affects me. One example would be shooting fireworks at my house. Another would be driving a car into mine because they didn't stop at a stop sign. Another health example would be having TB and refusing to be treated, thereby increasing the chance I can catch this communicable disease. Now for the issue that has been discussed but not directly. When a person decided to engage in this type behavior, they also accept the consequences. Now for the part that involves Canada and why I asked you about your citizenship:
Just like not wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle, the activist group wants, but they do not want to be personally and financially responsible when they are injured. Similarily, when another person engages in risky sexual behavior, or a sport activity, they take the financial responsibility to pay for their injuries at the hospital or clinic and not then ask the taxpayers to foot the bill for their previous free choice. Do you now see the connection? Freedom=responsibility

23.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Timmah--AIDS in Africa is a political issue. Some "strong men" are blocking medicine so that a certain part of their countries will die. There are civil wars there. Same problem with groups donating food and other supplies. They never get there. Bad situation. The only 100% sure prevention of AIDS/HIV/STDs is abstinance and monogamous sexual contact which is not prevalent in the homosexual community.

Now to the personal responsibility/freedom issue: This post is about heterophobia.
With that is hinted at homosexual activism. A certain group of people want the freedom to engage in risky activity that usually results in AIDS/HIV. In the US, about 2/3rds of the cases are caused by this type activity.
Let me be clear. I am not one to restrict a person's freedom. If anyone wants to engage in risky behavior, I am not one to stop them unless it pretty directly affects me. One example would be shooting fireworks at my house. Another would be driving a car into mine because they didn't stop at a stop sign. Another health example would be having TB and refusing to be treated, thereby increasing the chance I can catch this communicable disease. Now for the issue that has been discussed but not directly. When a person decided to engage in this type behavior, they also accept the consequences. Now for the part that involves Canada and why I asked you about your citizenship:
Just like not wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle, the activist group wants, but they do not want to be personally and financially responsible when they are injured. Similarily, when another person engages in risky sexual behavior, or a sport activity, they take the financial responsibility to pay for their injuries at the hospital or clinic and not then ask the taxpayers to foot the bill for their previous free choice. Do you now see the connection? Freedom=responsibility

23.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

That's not the point, you said that they've had education forever and it's done them no good.

Now your trying to make the point that it's the fault of dictators, and that abstinance is the only answer. Yeah, good luck with that.

What dimension do you live in where you think that's gonna fly in Africa?

23.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

timmah--Yes, more education will not change behavior. We agree on that. More money for "education" is not the answer. Moral guidance is. Having a caring, present, parent is. Recently, the Canadian survey has just made note that parents are extremely influencial in guiding their children in choices about drugs and sexual activity.

It--the prevalence of AIDS or the non-distribution of food aid is the fault of dictators in Africa.

Oh, you mean personal responsibility. OK, yes it can and has in the past. This post is about heterophobia--the fear of engaging in opposite sex intimate relationships whether strictly verbal or sexual when married.

To bring in some facts that seem to still be correct: NIH: "adult cases of AIDS, about two-thirds of which were attributed to sexual contact, about one-quarter to intravenous drug usage, and only 2 percent to blood transfusion..."

These are the consequences of homosexual risky behaviors. The IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY are imbedded here: http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/books/1997/chapter_11.html
The NIH in the USA is a fairly open and scientific entity. I would put weight on their findings and accept their studies as fact.

23.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

I see you are still withholding my comment, where I tear your stance on Africa and education apart.

Go and read about it, the countries in Africa that has high infection rates are the ones that lack education, lack tolerance for open discussion on sex or lack infrastructure to deliver protection. Weather this is the fault of dictators, or the current US stance of promoting abstinance, or (likely) both, the answer continues to be education and the means to protect themselves.

I can't even undstand what point you're trying to make anymore, that risky sexual behavior causes AIDS infection, well no kidding. That's why we need to keep as many people using condoms as possible, even one prevented infection saves a theoretically limitless number of others from infection.

Wether or not this started out as a disease that primarily affected the homosexual community, it isn't that way anymore, and if the US government continues it's support of abstinance only programs in Africa, people will die as a result, both here and in Africa.

23.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

timmah--Somehow a long post was lost my myself. I will try to replicate it.
I doubt that a scientific survey could be done in Africa at this time. Please cite your reference.
Condoms do not block all viruses especially AIDS/HIV which the NIH has advised. I taught this in my Health Classes. Abstinance and monogomous marital sexual relations are the only sure way to avoid these diseases.
AIDS/HIV was spready by homosexuals and continues to be spread by these individuals. Only about 2% are spread by accident, blood transfusion or other ways. The French were responsible for releasing a large quantity of tainted blook in the 1990s, hiding behind some bureaucratic language. The French!

For these people who are egotistical and egocentric to infect others is a crime in some jurisdictions and should be in others.

24.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

Did you seriously just say that condoms don't prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS???

Tell my you aren't that ignorant to have taught a whole class of children that you can't prevent HIV infection with a condom.

I guess I'll have to do some research to prove that wrong again, really hope you keep *this* post intact.

From the NIH.gov website:Theoretically, if the condom were used consistently and correctly, it should prevent pregnancy 97% of the time. The actual effectiveness among users, however, is only between 80% and 90%. This difference is due to:

-the occasional rupture of a condom during intercourse
-semen spilling from a condom during withdrawal
-delayed placement of a condom on the penis (penis comes into contact with vagina before condom is on)
-rupture due to manufacturing defects (rare)
-failure to use a condom during each act of intercourse

For the same reasons, the actual effectiveness of the condom against the transmission of STDs also drops.

It should be noted that only latex and polyurethane condoms, but not those made of natural animal membranes, effectively prevent the spread of viral infections such as HIV.


There is a deliberate campaign of misinformation and fact muddling that has been executed by fundamentalist religious groups in america (almost a mirror image of the fundamentalist effort if muslim dominated african countries) to spread the (false) word that condoms will not protect against HIV and the like. Obviously not all condoms are created equal, but latex/polyurethane condoms are the most common, and should be made the standard. And if condom technology and proper usage further improves, failures would go down to statistically insignificant numbers.

Faced with these facts, you cannot deny that education as to proper condom usage and the elimination of the taboos involved with talking about pre-marital sex will prevent infections here, and around the world. This is a taboo you seem content to keep alive, possibly at the cost of other people's safety.

I'm not saying abstinance doesen't have it's place in that education, but if all it took to keep people from having sex before they get married was to demand that they do so, we wouldn't be living in a world of six billion people.

I sincerely hope you also taught proper condom usage in those health classes, if not, I hope those students asked someone else's advice, before they make an uninformed decision they will regret.

24.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Of course I did not teach condom use in Health Class !

That is the area of responsibility for the local health department and parents.
I will repeat a similar question from another site here: When any student asked any pertinent question, I always replied honestly, and with correct and appropriate information.  We used many resources.  We had fun and learned a lot.  There were criminals in the class, there were some drug dealers, there were some prostitutes there also.  Most students were there to learn, and did.  We did not dispense condoms in Middle School in the classroom.  For these products, I suggested a visit to the local health department, a state tax supported institution.  On only one occasion in my 28 years of teaching did this question come up about where to get condoms.  Students are not stupid.  Even the girl in question already knew the answer to her question.  She just wanted to get a laugh and get out of school, and did, after first processing through the school nurse.  When she returned later in the day, she blew up the condoms and threw them under some student's desks.  This about one to two week chapter of the 12 chapter Health Education course was appropriate, and we explored Eric Erickson, Sigmund Freud, Jean Piaget, and Lawrence Koheberg for guidance in growth and development.  I also showed pictures of fetuses, embryos during the gestation period so they could see the development of the human being.  There was no doubt how "babies were created" after that chapter. I challenged a friend of mine to substitute in school for just one day when he commented on how easy it must be.  I offered him $100 cash plus whatever he would be paid by the district.  He never took me up on the challenge.  That was ten years ago.  Now his is trying to get others to sub and he get the credit.  He is a phoney.  There are many like him.  I hope I have done a small part in exposing similar people and will continue to tell The Truth.   

From the US CDC:
"The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected."
Will a condom guarantee I won't get a sexually transmitted disease?

From our US government FDA brochure. Are condoms completely safe? No. There's no absolute guarantee even when you use a condom. But most experts believe that the risk of getting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases can be greatly reduced if a condom is used properly.

In other words, sex with condoms isn't totally "safe sex," but it is "less risky" sex.
The FDA is working with condom manufacturers to help ensure that the latex condoms you buy are not damaged.

Manufacturers "spot check" their condoms using a "water-leak" test. FDA inspectors do a smilar test on sample condoms they take from warehouses. The condoms are filled with water and checked for leaks. An average of 996 of 1000 condoms must pass this test.

That would answer the question which is exactly what I told my students up until 1997 when I retired after teaching for about 28+ years. "Condoms are not completely safe. There is no guarantee that the HIV virus, or other similar size one will not penetrate through the barrier." The only 100% safe way is abstinance. I am glad that our government is now telling The Truth.

25.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Someone visited my site and added:

http://www.technorati.com/search/heterophobia%20?language=en&start=0

Thanks for the support. We will finally get rid of this PC when more of us are not afraid to tell The Truth.

8.5.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

fear of sexual behavior or relations with a member of the opposite sex" is still there. Great! these people are a bunch of nasty ones. Let's try to at least keep them honest. Nasty.

14.6.07  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

They have censored the logical definition of: fear of relations with a member of the opposite sex.

Apparently, Wikipedia people can not tolerate thoughts that differ from theirs.

Just think about it. Are homosexuals really afraid of heterosexuals? Perhaps, but not all the time just like people are not always afraid of the dark, or high places or dogs or whatever phobia there might be created.

13.2.10  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

I wonder who would be fearful of a heterosexual?
Perhaps someone who's parent berated him or her when they were young because they chose the wrong husband.

Passing their problem on to their children could be a cause of "heterophobia".

Time for a real discussion of this homosexual problem which is tied to lack of a stable home and lack of morality--no marriage to stabilize children's rearing.

17.2.10  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home