<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Eygar</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Eygar"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Eygar"/>
	<updated>2026-10-08T22:43:13Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Noun&amp;diff=336975</id>
		<title>Noun</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Noun&amp;diff=336975"/>
		<updated>2007-11-15T20:53:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Eygar: about pronouns and capitalization&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''noun''' is a [[word]] used to name a [[person]], [[animal]], [[place]], [[thing]], or an abstract [[idea]]. Nouns are usually the first words which small children learn.{{fact}} The bold words in the following [[sentence]]s are all nouns:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;'''Jesus''' will return to set up His '''kingdom''' on '''Earth'''.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;'''Philosophy''' is of little '''comfort''' to the '''starving'''.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;'''Homosexuality''' is an '''abomination'''.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A proper noun is a noun that is capitalized. Not all, but most, capitalized words are also proper nouns. The most common exception is the word &amp;quot;I&amp;quot; which is a pronoun.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:languages]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Eygar</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Noun&amp;diff=336972</id>
		<title>Noun</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Noun&amp;diff=336972"/>
		<updated>2007-11-15T20:46:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Eygar: cleanup&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''noun''' is a [[word]] used to name a [[person]], [[animal]], [[place]], [[thing]], or an abstract [[idea]]. Nouns are usually the first words which small children learn.{{fact}} The italicized words in the following [[sentence]]s are all nouns:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&amp;lt;i&amp;gt;Jesus&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; will return to set up His &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;kingdom&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; on &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;earth&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&amp;lt;i&amp;gt;Philosophy&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; is of little &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;comfort&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; to the &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;starving&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&amp;lt;i&amp;gt;Homosexuality&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; is an &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;abomination&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A proper noun is a noun that is capitalized.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:languages]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Eygar</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Noun&amp;diff=336971</id>
		<title>Noun</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Noun&amp;diff=336971"/>
		<updated>2007-11-15T20:43:56Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Eygar: cleanup&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''noun''' is a [[word]] used to name a [[person]], [[animal]], [[place]], [[thing]], or an abstract [[idea]]. Nouns are usually the first words which small children learn.{{fact}} The italicized words in the following [[sentence]]s are all nouns:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Russia'' is the largest ''country'' in the ''world''.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Global Warming'' is of great ''concern'' to ''environmentalists''.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Thomas Jefferson'' was a ''president''.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A proper noun is a noun that is capitalized.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:languages]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Eygar</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homophobia&amp;diff=327241</id>
		<title>Homophobia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homophobia&amp;diff=327241"/>
		<updated>2007-11-03T17:28:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Eygar: better definition&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Homophobia''' is &amp;quot;the irrational fear and hatred of homosexuals and homosexual behavior&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;UNESCO/IUBS/EUBIOS Bioethics Dictionary [http://www.eubios.info/biodict.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Feminists insist that homosexual oppression must be understood within the broader framework of patriarchal sexism. Alternatively, the hostile attitudes are embedded in beliefs and assumptions of how nature operates and what is &amp;quot;natural&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The word may also indicate a fear of being or becoming gay. Homophobic attitudes in men is correlated with insecurity about masculinity. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Masculinity Challenged, Men Prefer War and SUVs http://www.livescience.com/health/050802_masculinity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term is sometimes used to imply that someone who opposes homosexuality is being irrational, i.e., literally suffering from a [[mental illness]] (see also [[Phobia]]). Often the word is used interchangeably: the distinction between &amp;quot;any opposition&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;crazy opposition&amp;quot; is deliberately blurred.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is primarily used by [[gay activist]]s to portray opposition to the [[homosexual agenda]] as irrational &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles W. Socarides, M.D., [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], ''America'', (November 18, 1995). &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
based on fear or hatred, and to smear Christians and others. It is intended to sound like a form of [[mental illness]], but unlike actual phobias, it is not a term for any recognized psychological condition. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; According to the National Association for Research &amp;amp; Therapy on Homosexuality (NARTH), gay-rights advocate Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. wrote that the term &amp;quot;homophobia&amp;quot; was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture. [http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html Gay Psychologist Creates New Terms for Use in the Social Debate]. &amp;quot;In his paper on homophobia, stigma, and sexual prejudice, Dr. Herek suggests that although the term &amp;quot;homophobia&amp;quot; was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture, the term may be too limited in its scope today.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NARTH says,&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The term &amp;quot;homophobia&amp;quot; is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia&amp;amp;mdash;or irrational fear&amp;amp;mdash;of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled &amp;quot;homophobia.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html NARTH Position Statements]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When used in this [[pejorative]] sense, the term is offensive and derogatory (see [[Mockery]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Etymology===&lt;br /&gt;
The word comes from combining the Greek prefix ''homo-'', meaning &amp;quot;same&amp;quot;, and suffix ''-phobia'', meaning &amp;quot;fear of&amp;quot;. In early usage by homosexual activists, the term described heterosexual fears that others might think they were homosexual &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The neologism was promoted by George Weinberg, a gay activist and psychologist, who attempted to define it in clinical literature shortly before the downgrading of homosexuality as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973.  Weinberg claimed it was &amp;quot;the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals -- and in the case of homosexuals themselves, selfloathing.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Plummer, David, ''One of the Boys: Masculinity, Homophobia, and Modern Manhood'', [http://books.google.com/books?id=xHGz4f_2_7IC&amp;amp;pg=PA3&amp;amp;ots=U8ktZZgnAk&amp;amp;dq=George+Weinberg+homophobia&amp;amp;ie=ISO-8859-1&amp;amp;sig=d7hjCcZ1uuBlgdLyRjUJwEn51uA#PPA3,M1 pp. 3-4]: &amp;quot;'Homophobia was introduced into the clinical literature by George Weinberg in 1972, in ''Society and the Healthy Homosexual.'' &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The term then entered common usage beginning with pornographic publications. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., published ''Beyond 'Homophobia': Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century,'' in the April, 2004, issue of Sexuality Research &amp;amp; Social Policy. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The terms meaning has not been accepted or agreed upon within the psychological therapeutic community.  William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0264m864t146585/ Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues], Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Volume 15, Number 3, Springer Netherlands, September, 1993. ISSN 0882-2689&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; have concluded based upon research within the therapeutic community a clear understanding of the term has not been adequately evaluated and it is not clear whether the term can be accurately characterized.  They have concluded, &amp;quot;the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===&amp;quot;Internalized homophobia&amp;quot;===&lt;br /&gt;
The therapeutic community is largely divided between proponents of [[gay gene]] theory who believe a person is born gay and will always be gay, and proponents of [[Reparative therapy]] who believe with sympathy and understanding a homosexual can be relieved of afflictions if they so desire.  Gay gene advocates seek to criminalize so-called &amp;quot;homophobia&amp;quot;, despite many homophobes themselves being gay, whereas Restoration therapy advocates point out the cruelty of brainwashing a young person into believing -- based upon theoretical evidence -- there is no hope of ever leading a heterosexual lifestyle.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi reports homosexuality is a symptom of an underlying problem of [[gender identity]]. Nicolosi says,&lt;br /&gt;
:In the classic triadic family we have a sensitive boy who did not get the close, affirming relationship with his father that would have confirmed him in his gender identity, and a mother who is likely to be over-close and standing in the way between father and son. The father was not supportive enough in affirming, recognizing and reinforcing the boy's maleness. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.narth.com/docs/griefwork.html Clinical Issues: Grief Work], Interview: Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nicolosi adds many gay men admit that no matter how liberated they are, they always struggle, on some deeper level, with a sense of inferiority or self-loathing.  Some therapists refer to this as internalized homophobia. Nicolosi attributes this feeling to an internal process, unrelated to social stigma, which precedes same-sex attractions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ibid&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Homophobia as an &amp;quot;Irrational Fear&amp;quot; ===&lt;br /&gt;
The suffix &amp;quot;phobia&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Psychologists do not recognize it as a phobia in any generally recognized publication like the DSM IV.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; suggests an irrational fear, but it is most often used as a attack term by [[gay rights]] groups to suggest that opposition to [[homosexuality]] is irrational and hateful.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Eg, this site [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm] first defines homophobia as a dread or fear, but says that it includes those who write their Congressmen to oppose same-sex marriage.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Sander J. Breiner of NARTH has stated, &amp;quot;it would be very valuable for society in general, and therapists in particular, to have a clear picture of homophobia separated from all the other topics that have been lumped under that rubric.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-breiner.html HOMOPHOBIA: A Scientific Non-Political Definition], Dr. Sander J. Breiner, National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality, 2003.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Of the myriads of references to the term in popular and other sociologic publications Breiner observes, &amp;quot;There is no personal, internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia. The terms do not exist in the recognized scientific literature...There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined,&amp;quot; in the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://anxiety.psy.ohio-state.edu/phobia-d.htm Specific Phobia DSM-IV Criteria]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; developed by the American Psychiatric Association.  Breiner, an advocate of [[Reparative therapy]], acknowledges &amp;quot;There is no doubt that homophobia exists&amp;quot; as an irrational fear among both homosexuals and heterosexuals.  2 Timothy 1:7 says, &amp;quot;For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://bible.cc/2_timothy/1-7.htm 2 Timothy 1:7]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Violence against gays ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which required the Attorney General to collect data about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.  In 1994, lawmakers amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include bias against persons with disabilities.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005:  About Hate Crime[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/abouthc.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 348 of which are property crimes which includes theft and grafitti. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.  Thus a conclusion that all offenders are heterosexual is faulty, and the methodology does not measure gay-on-gay violence.  In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Of greater concern among homosexuals is the higher risk and more frequent incidence of [[Homosexuality#Homosexual_Couples_and_Violent_Behavior|Gay Domestic Abuse]] in same sex domestic partnerships than among the heterosexual population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While 818 bias motivated crimes of persons against gays were reported nationwide in 2004, a earlier study found 5046 incidences of homosexual  domestic violence in only nine cities, all of which are crimes of persons.  The subject of homosexual domestic violence has not been researched with anything near the thoroughness afforded to heterosexual domestic violence, however the uniformity of conclusions based upon varying sample sizes all point to a prevalence ranging from 20%-35% of homsexual domestic partnerships. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://ncavp.org/common/document_files/Reports/2001ncavpdvrpt.pdf Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Domestic Violence in 2001,]  National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Homosexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Opposition to homosexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Gay agenda]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Gender identity disorder]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Heterophobia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/homophobia.asp Homophobia Online: The Westboro Baptist Church], Anti-Defamation League (2001). Retrieved 05/23/07. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Homosexuality]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Eygar</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia&amp;diff=327240</id>
		<title>Talk:Homophobia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia&amp;diff=327240"/>
		<updated>2007-11-03T17:26:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Eygar: /* snarl */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{unprotected|3 Nov 2007|TK}}&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Archive(s): &lt;br /&gt;
[[/archive 1|01]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[/archive 2|02]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-homosexual violence ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI only reports offender statistics by race; thus it is not possible to measure how much gay-on-gay or gay domestic union violence occurs versus homosexual victims of heterosexual offenders. '' &lt;br /&gt;
:The FBI hate crime statistics ONLY report offenses based on bias.  Domestic violence and other crimes where bias was not an element are not included in these statistics.  (See the various pages of the web site cited in the article.)  I'm not sure if the sentence above is trying to subtract crimes against homosexuals that did not involve bias from the 1171 number (which would not make sense, as all of the 1171 involved bias, otherwise they would not have been reported as hate crimes), or if it was an attempt to gauge how much of violence against homosexuals involves bias by comparing crimes that involve bias to crimes that don't.  Or perhaps it's something else?  I really don't understand what this section is trying to say.  [[User:RobS|RobS]], could you clarify your thinking?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Neither do the statistics include senior citizens, homeless, military personnel, or battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnant -- all known victim classes of hate crime attacks.''  &lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I agree that the FBI doesn't include in their hate crime statistics crimes that include bias against senior citizens, or bias against the homeless, or bias against military personnel, or bias against pregnant women.  They only include crimes that include bias based on race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, disability, and sexual orientation.  I'm not sure, though, why this is relevant?  And wouldn't it be clearer to simply list the categories that *are* included, rather than those which aren't?  Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see why crimes that include bias against senior citizens, for example, are relevant?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Violent crimes are defined as murder...&amp;lt;snip&amp;gt;...and other.  For the general population, the FBI reports a violent crime rate of 20 victims per 1000 US persons &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm Violent Crime Rates]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or 1 in 50 of the overall population. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Over the same time period there were over 32,000 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters reported in the general population.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States], by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005,Table 1. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;''&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I *think* what you are trying to say in this paragraph is that there aren't many hate crimes against homosexuals - do I have this right?  If so, I think you may be mixing apples and oranges here.  The hate crime statistics do not include *all* violent crimes against homosexuals - just those that include bias.  So if a homosexual man gets murdered by his lover because he was unfaithful, for example, it's not a hate crime, and thus will not be listed as an &amp;quot;anti-homosexual murder&amp;quot; in the hate crime statistics, but it *would* be considered a violent crime in the violent crime rate statistics.  Do you see what I mean? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:40, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hsmom, I could kiss you, I really could. Hell, here you go: ''mwah!'' RobS, however, is firmly in denial on this one. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 22:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I have followed her intelligent comments on [[homeschooling]], and I am with you there.  Well, at least, here: hsmom for sysop! [[User:Human|Human]] 22:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Aw shucks, thanks guys - and right before Mother's Day too.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The statistical flaw in the way the FBI compiles statistics, mandated by law, is it creates and defines a &amp;quot;victim class&amp;quot;; then it only defines &amp;quot;offenders&amp;quot; by race.  A classic example of &amp;quot;mixing apples and oranges&amp;quot;, as defined by law.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::[[User:RobS|RobS]], since you haven't answered my concerns here, I've made some changes to the article.  I'm sure you'll have some changes to what I wrote too - please try to add to it or adjust it rather than just reverting to the previous version.  Let's work together to find a version that is clear and well-cited and focuses on the topic at hand (homophobia).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I still do not understand what you think statistics on offender class would do.  I would like to understand your point of view here.  I'm guessing that most of the crimes that include racial bias would be done by someone of one race to someone of another, most of the crimes that include sexual-orientation bias would be done by someone of one orientation to someone of another, etc.  Do you have a different understanding of these crimes?  Can you give a hypothetical example?  I am trying to understand your point of view.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RobS|RobS]], I do not understand why you made changes to the article without explaining your thinking here.  The idea of the talk page is so that different editors can explain more fully their points of view, concerns, etc., so that other people editing the article can understand why certain edits have been made.  I would really like a fuller understanding of your concerns about the hate crime statistics, mainly because I do not think I have the same understanding as you about about which kinds of crimes are included.  I would very much like to understand your point of view about the limitations of the statistics.  Let me flesh out my current concerns about the article:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  I'm OK with this sentence.  (We could cite the number of incidences, or the number of victims, but offenses is fine with me.)  However, I think it's useful to get a sense of how many of the total hate crimes are based on sexual-orientation bias.  If you prefer not to have further information in the article itself, I think a footnote could clarify important points (such as  the fact that a few of these 1,171 offenses were actually anti-heterosexual.)  Thus I would add this reference &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm]  ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.  These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, ...''  Just a grammar detail here - I think it's important to be clear that race, religion, sexual orientation and disability ARE the victim classes / bias motivations, so I'd change it to ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability)..''.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''...the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.''  I'm still not sure I understand your point here.  The FBI also does not report the sexual orientation of victims.  Some but not all of the crimes motivated by sexual-orientation bias were anti-homosexual; a few were actually '''anti-heterosexual'''.  In addition, someone who is attacked because the attacker thinks they're gay may not in fact be gay.  However, the point of this whole section is to show that there are some people out there who take their views against homosexuality to the extreme of committing crimes, and to get a sense of how widespread this problem is.  The stats aren't a perfect fit for this purpose, so I think you're sensible to express some caveats about them.  I had expanded the caveats, but I would be fine with putting my expansion in the footnotes.  Thus I would add this footnote.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Thus a conclusion that all offenders are heterosexual is faulty, and the methodology does not measure gay-on-gay violence.'' I agree with this statement.  However, I would add to it a little bit to say ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias.''  I think some people mistakenly believe that any crime against a homosexual counts as a hate crime, and thus these statistics include ALL crimes against homosexuals, which is not the case.  There's a lot of misunderstanding about hate crimes, so I'd like to make it clear that incidences of violence against homosexuals that cannot be linked to bias based on sexual orientation (which would include most gay-on-gay violence) are not included in these statistics.  (These stats also include non-violent crime - I'm not sure if we should go into that here or not.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  First, let's be clear that this does NOT mean that only one homosexual person was murdered in 2004.  It means that there was one murder which was motivated in whole or in part by bias against homosexuals.  (It does not even mean that the victim was actually homosexual.)  So we need to say ''anti-homosexual '''hate crime''' murder''.  I think it's important to give the reader a context for this number - the fact is that relatively few hate crimes in general are murders.  By giving this number in the context of the total number of hate crime murders, the reader an get a better understanding of the situation.  (For example, if there had been 300 total hate crime murders with only one being anti-homosexual, that would be quite a different situation.)  In addition, ''...and the FBI has reported none since'' is a bit misleading, because there is only one more year of statistics available, those for 2005.  Still, we don't need to clutter up the article too much, so details can be given in the footnotes.  I think we should say something like ''In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism.  In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So the whole thing would read:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm]  ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.  These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability), the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.''  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias.  In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism.  In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RobS|RobS]], I hope that you will explain your concerns here, so that we can work together to improve this article, incorporating both of our concerns to make the best article possible.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Very simple: my edit points out (a) flawed methodolgy of FBI stats; (b) flawed popular misconceptions based upon flawed methodology; (c) flawed methodology is mandated by law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Recycling explanations of deliberate flawed statistics in hypertext does nothing, except serve the agenda of those promoting perversions in law to advance a biased agenda.  Please look up in the left hand corner of your screen.  You will see this Conservapedia.  Our mission is not to advance disinformation and subversion of our political process by alleging FBI statistics are credible to promote the obvious flawed conclusion, that anti-homoexual violence is perpetrated by hetrosexual offenders.  Our mission is quite the contrary.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:19, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You are either completely missing her point or steadfastly ignoring it.  FBI statistics report based on bias.  Thus, anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual.  A gay on gay attack does not have a bias of this type and is thus not included.  You are trying to argue that the FBI counts every crime against a gay individual as an anti-homosexual crime... if this were true, then your point on need statistics on the perpetrators would be valid, but this is not how the statistics are reported, thus your point (not the statistics) is flawed.  Your stubborn denial of this is nothing more than an attempt to push your point of view into statistics which are neutral.  [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:48, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
*''anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual.''&lt;br /&gt;
:Wrong. Flawed.  A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals, and is not accounted for in FBI statistics, mandated by law.  And your premise underlies precisely ''why'' we cannot accept any further explanation regarding the FBI's flawed methodolgy, because it used to perpetrated a flawed popular misconception, that heterosexuals are solely responsible for anti-gay violence, which we have now '''clearly''' demonstrated, FBI statistics do not measure or account for.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:58, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::''A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals.''  If this is true, then of course I would agree that the statistics are seriously flawed.  From reading the report's methodology, it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported as a hate crime.  The report explains &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;&amp;quot;The FBI collects data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability and are committed against persons, property, or society. Because motivation is subjective, it is difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender’s bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime. If law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, then the incident should be reported as a hate crime.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Methodology. &amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/methodology.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   How do you think this happens?  Is the problem with police departments wrongly reporting normal crimes as hate crimes?  Can you provide some kind of reference that speaks to this?  Do you also believe that this is true for disabled people, blacks, etc. and that the hate crimes statistics for them are flawed?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;--The determination is based upon the discretion of the local investigating officer.  He is not mandated to discern the sexual orientation of the offender, only the offenders race.  Therein lies the statistical flaw.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And secondly, in what state, or in what federal law, are law enforcement agencies mandated to keep statistics of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships?  If we are to contemplate things such as so-called &amp;quot;gay marriage&amp;quot;, then what may be appropriate is to investigate the level of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships.  And I believe, it may be credibly proven, homosexual relationships suffer from a distinctly higher proportion of violence than heterosexual relationships -- and the law may as of now, not take any consideration of this in compiling statistics for us to make a judgmental value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, ''&amp;quot;it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported&amp;quot;''.  It makes no difference what the FBI's &amp;quot;intent&amp;quot; is, the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting.  Therein lies the problem, this legal mandate dictates a statistical and biased error in reporting, which likely is intended to lead the public to a faulty conclusion, i.e. that anti-homosexual violence is solely the responsibility of heterosexuals.  Given what I've stated above, if heterosexuals are to be responsible to insure against anti-homosexual violence, and if a disproportionate degree of reported &amp;quot;hate crimes&amp;quot; are perpetrated by homosexual offenders upon homosexuals, then the heterosexual community deserves accurate reporting on such, '''''before''''' heterosexuals are asked to pass judgment upon recognizing the legal validity of domestic, homosexual partnerships.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], when you say ''the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting'' it seems like you believe that the law requires '''all''' crimes against homosexuals to be reported as anti-homosexual hate crimes.  Do I have this right?  This is not my understanding of the law, and I think all our differences hinge on this one point.  If you are right, then I would agree with much of what you are saying - the FBI statistics would be virtually meaningless.  Or are you making a more nuanced argument?  Something like &amp;quot;police officers may mistakenly perceive any crime against a homosexual as a hate crime, especially if they do not determine the sexual orientation of the offender, thus they may include crimes in the statistics that do not belong there (for example gay-on-gay domestic violence crimes)&amp;quot;.  Am I getting closer to understanding you?  Either way, do you have any references to flesh out your concerns?  --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::As I've stated above, the investigating officer or agency must make a determination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Now, let's marry two threads here.  There has been extensive discussion on several pages about [[Homophobia]], and I believe I have effectively made the argument that many, if not most, &amp;quot;homophobes&amp;quot; who seek psychiatric treatment today are homosexual.  It would not be surprising given this, that there is a certain amount of gay-on-gay anti-homosexual violence, and much may be occurring in gay domestic relationships.  Or it could occur even randomly or anonymously in the gay lifestyle, that is to say a gay person, unhappy with himself for being attracted to members of the same sex, or blaming gays for making him attracted to them, vents his anger at himself and gays for being involved in the homosexual lifestyle.  None of these reporting statistics, mandated by law, be they &amp;quot;hate crime&amp;quot; stats, or domestic violence stats, allow for taking this into account.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I suggest moving all this junk to an article on hate crimes. It doesn't have much to do with homophobia. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:RobS|RobS]], I think I am starting to get your point.  You are saying (do I have this right?), that much of the violence that appears on the surface to be anti-homosexual hate crime is in fact perpetrated by homophobic gays.  I think this is an interesting point, and I don't have a problem with including it per se, however I don't think the article as it is currently written conveys this point well at all.  I think the best approach may be to have a factual paragraph about the FBI stats and then a paragraph putting forth your perspective.  I think that approach will make your points clearer to the reader, rather than having them buried in the stats paragraph.  Can you find some references that will allow us to say &amp;quot;some conservatives are concerned that&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;Such and such author has put forth the idea that&amp;quot; or whatever?  Because we will be able to write a stronger paragraph if it can be backed up with references.  I don't have time to work on this for the next few days, but will try to take a stab at it when I get a chance.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:48, 7 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References for Anti-homosexual violence discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;most common usage&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Though the term can be used for a variety of purposes, its most common usage is to criticize people opposed to homosexuality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I happen to think this statement is correct, or at least is correct as of the last few decades. But I'd like to see sources or evidence presented that confirms it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I think we've proven on this talk page several times over the meaning was corrupted from the git go; it was coined to impugn critics of the APA dropping homosexuality as a mental diagnosis, it has persisted, but the failure of legistlators to criminalize what was alleged to be a mental disturbance has led to the theraputic community dropping the term.  Its ''misuse'' has persisted in popular culture, largely because common people have not got the message that both the legal and threputic professions are dropping the term.  And lastly, the accepted theraputic use of the term was applied most often to homosexuals themselves.  In sum, popular usage never understood what it meant, and has always been misused. It is little more than an attack term, when it originally was invented to make people think opponents of the homosexual agenda were crazy, not criminal, as it is misued today.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::And the citable '''source''' that supports &amp;quot;criticism of people opposed to homosexuality&amp;quot; as its most common use is... what? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::&lt;br /&gt;
::::The term '''homophobia''' describes the aversion of a person to [[homosexuality]]. Unlike other pathopsychological [[phobia]]s (e.g. [[arachnaphobia]]=a fear of [[spider]]s) this phobia isn't primarily about avoiding contact, but the deliberate insulting, humiliation and symbolic annihilation of homosexuals.&lt;br /&gt;
::::Homophobia usually manifests itself through insults, humiliation, threats and violence directed at homosexuals and may also be directed at [[heterosexuals]] perceived to be homosexual by the perpetrator.&lt;br /&gt;
:&lt;br /&gt;
::::[[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]]&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, there are other uses. I happen to think the one here makes a lot of sense. [http://www.henrymakow.com/021101.html] Maybe, someday, we'll all be proud to be homophobic. I'd rather be homophobic than homos-xual any day. [[User:Mathers|Mathers]] 09:52, 19 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks. That kind of fits into the definition above. [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] 10:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I suggest using the definition provided by [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]]. It should start the article. It clealy describes an aversion of a person to [[homosexuality]] and not [[Homosexuals]] as individuals. It certainly doesn't imply that those who object to [[homosexuality]] on moral and religious grounds are being irrational, i.e., literally suffering from a [[mental illness]] but clearly states that the ''phobia'' isn't primarily about avoiding contact, so by the definition above, those who object to homosexuality on moral and religious grounds are are not homophobic if they don't deliberately insult, humiliate or  threaten violence towards homosexuals. They are simply condemning the sin not the sinner, or as some Christians put it ''hate the sin not the sinner''. The rest of the article could then describe how [[gay rights]] an [[liberal]] activists have perverted the meaning away from the objective one above.&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:BenDoune|BenDoune]] 07:31, 9 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::*''activists have perverted the meaning away from the objective''&lt;br /&gt;
::::*(a) This article documents how the term was created with the specific ''intent'' for the perverted meaning you refer to.&lt;br /&gt;
::::*(b) You are dealing with the same issue in [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]], i.e. a term the medical community does not recognize yet nonetheless has currency in the lay community for what is popularly beleived to be a medical condition.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the suggestion [[User:BenDoune|BenDoune]] and [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] is great. Carry on! [[User:RogerDailey|RogerDailey]] 13:33, 12 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Homophobia-phobia&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
This seems to be an unsourced personal essay or opinion by [[User:Jaques]]. No source is cited to show that this term has any significant degree of usage. Only 92 [http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;amp;rls=en&amp;amp;q=Homophobia-phobia&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;oe=UTF-8 Google hits] on the term (hits include both with and without the hyphen), a negligible number (compare 1,490,000 for ''homophobia,'' 34,900 for ''phobophobia'' (fear of fear), 29,200 for ''heterophobia'' (fear of heterosexuals), 14,900 for ''gamophobia'' (fear of marriage), 11,700 for ''theophobia'' (fear of God), 1310 for ''pantophobia'' (fear of everything). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophobia-Phobia===&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the fear of homophobia, some homsexuals develop a phobia of homophobes, and may become paranoid to the point that he/she believe everyone who dislike him/her or say anything negative about homosexuality is a homophobe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophobiaphobiaphobia===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A condition affecting homophobes who are too frightened to admit that they are homophobic because of widespread phobia against homophobes. Not an official mental condition yet but you heard it here first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Actully, Homophobiaphobiaphobia means people who are afraid of those homosexuals who are afraid of homophobes.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 01:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophilia===&lt;br /&gt;
Why hasn't this word been coined? It is technichally and mechanically the opposite of &amp;quot;Homophobia.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;homo&amp;quot; + &amp;quot;phobia&amp;quot; = &amp;quot;homophobia.&amp;quot; Since &amp;quot;Philia&amp;quot; is the literal and exact opposite of &amp;quot;Phobia&amp;quot; it should therefore follow that: &amp;quot;Homo&amp;quot; + &amp;quot;Philia&amp;quot; = &amp;quot;Homophilia.&amp;quot; If no one has any objections I would like to coin and use this word as is applicable.--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is nothing, as it means the same, apparently. Let's try to keep this as jargon free as possible. Oh, and FYI, please edit and sign your post, please.  Unsigned posts are removed. --[[User:TK|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Sysop-&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;TK]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 17:13, 1 July 2007 (EDT) &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;homophilia:&lt;br /&gt;
Another term for homosexuality , the condition in which love and lust are directed to persons of the same sex.  [http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/homophilia]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
okey-dokey--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:18, 1 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: So, if homosexuality=homophilia, homophobia is the opposite of homophilia, and homosexuality is the opposite of heterosexuality, that means heterosexuality=homophobia?&lt;br /&gt;
::Where does bisexualphobia fit in this scheme?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:30, 1 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::It doesn't. I wasn't sure I had a point, but now i have: The opposite of &amp;quot;love&amp;quot; is rather &amp;quot;hate&amp;quot; than &amp;quot;fear&amp;quot; (although Darth Vader might disagree whether that makes a difference), so, grammatically homophilia is not the opposite of homophobia.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Latin is not the issue. &amp;quot;Homophila&amp;quot; is quite synonymous with &amp;quot;homosexuality&amp;quot;, I have heard it before, but usually in comparision to other paraphilias (pedo-, necro-, copro- etc). So, the word &amp;quot;homophilia&amp;quot; should, imho, be used to emphasize homosexuality as a perversion, rather than as form of love. [[User:Eygar|Eygar]] 15:36, 1 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::(a) it's not Latin, it's Greek.  (b) in the Greek idiom, there is not a duality of polar opposites, it is a triality, philia, phobia, and phagia -- attraction, repulsion, and consumption.  Here's another contrasting idiom, epipheral, ephemeral, and etherial -- what is comprehensible to the naked eye within the horizon, what is known of only momentary significance (which carries a rather sexist idea that it is 'feminine'), and what is known but not visible or something over the horizon.  In a later sense and Latinized sense, etherial also becomes something &amp;quot;up in the air,&amp;quot; for example, Christ will return in the ether.&lt;br /&gt;
::::Soooo, you seem to be applying modern understanding and modern idioms to ancient inscriptions, a rather common occurance.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:55, 2 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I'm not talking about dualities in Greek, the words are &amp;quot;opposite&amp;quot; when used in English, since &amp;quot;attraction&amp;quot; is basically the opposite of &amp;quot;repulsion&amp;quot;, which confirms the original post (It (homophilia) is technichally and mechanically the opposite of &amp;quot;Homophobia.&amp;quot;). I don't try to pretend to be able to discuss &amp;quot;ancient inscriptions&amp;quot;, what I know is what the word is used for today, and why. In the media and the gay community, the word &amp;quot;homophilia&amp;quot; ''is'' used as a synonym for &amp;quot;homosexuality&amp;quot;, although in a more pejorative sense, alluding to the word &amp;quot;paraphilia&amp;quot;. That's what matters in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===snarl===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is a 'snarl' word please? [[User:MrSmith|MrSmith]] 16:30, 31 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, I never heard of it either. --[[User:SpudNolan|SpudNolan]] 15:37, 30 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was reading the article on [[Junk science]], and thought, what if I rewrite the definition of &amp;quot;Junk science&amp;quot; to something like this?&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;quot;The term '''junk science''' is a snarl word used by conservatives to verbally tar and feather anyone who dares to oppose a scientific theory (for example, global warming or evolution).&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
I guess that would get me banned in seconds.&lt;br /&gt;
Does anyone get my point? [[User:Eygar|Eygar]] 13:19, 1 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Missing your point here, I have to admit. I have dozens of liberal friends and acquaintances who employ the use of the term &amp;quot;junk science&amp;quot; every day, so quite obviously the writer of that article practiced [[deceit]].  I believe that term was used by one of the lead scientists on the United Nations global warming committee, in the Wall Street Journal, to explain the extrapolated conclusions that the UN used in its published report.  --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#1E90FF&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;DC143C&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:22, 3 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I'm sorry, I was trying to point out that the definition of &amp;quot;homophobia&amp;quot; was a little bit unfair to gay activists. Moreover, it is not really informative; the term is (more?) often used to describe &amp;quot;fear of being/becoming gay&amp;quot; than fear of actual gays. I'll look it up in a dictionary and write a better definition. --[[User:Eygar|Eygar]] 13:26, 3 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Eygar</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Noun&amp;diff=327124</id>
		<title>Noun</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Noun&amp;diff=327124"/>
		<updated>2007-11-03T15:25:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Eygar: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''noun''' is a [[word]] used to name a [[person]], [[animal]], [[place]], [[thing]], or an abstract [[idea]]. Nouns are usually the first words which small children learn.{{fact}} The italicized words in the following [[sentence]]s are all nouns:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&amp;lt;i&amp;gt;Jesus&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; will return to set up His &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;kingdom&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; on &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;earth&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&amp;lt;i&amp;gt;Philosophy&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; is of little &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;comfort&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; to the &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;starving&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;&amp;lt;i&amp;gt;Homosexuality&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; is an &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;abomination&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:languages]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Eygar</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia&amp;diff=327097</id>
		<title>Talk:Homophobia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia&amp;diff=327097"/>
		<updated>2007-11-03T13:01:07Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Eygar: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{unprotected|1 May|RobS}}&lt;br /&gt;
Archive(s): &lt;br /&gt;
[[/archive 1|01]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[/archive 2|02]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-homosexual violence ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI only reports offender statistics by race; thus it is not possible to measure how much gay-on-gay or gay domestic union violence occurs versus homosexual victims of heterosexual offenders. '' &lt;br /&gt;
:The FBI hate crime statistics ONLY report offenses based on bias.  Domestic violence and other crimes where bias was not an element are not included in these statistics.  (See the various pages of the web site cited in the article.)  I'm not sure if the sentence above is trying to subtract crimes against homosexuals that did not involve bias from the 1171 number (which would not make sense, as all of the 1171 involved bias, otherwise they would not have been reported as hate crimes), or if it was an attempt to gauge how much of violence against homosexuals involves bias by comparing crimes that involve bias to crimes that don't.  Or perhaps it's something else?  I really don't understand what this section is trying to say.  [[User:RobS|RobS]], could you clarify your thinking?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Neither do the statistics include senior citizens, homeless, military personnel, or battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnant -- all known victim classes of hate crime attacks.''  &lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I agree that the FBI doesn't include in their hate crime statistics crimes that include bias against senior citizens, or bias against the homeless, or bias against military personnel, or bias against pregnant women.  They only include crimes that include bias based on race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, disability, and sexual orientation.  I'm not sure, though, why this is relevant?  And wouldn't it be clearer to simply list the categories that *are* included, rather than those which aren't?  Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see why crimes that include bias against senior citizens, for example, are relevant?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Violent crimes are defined as murder...&amp;lt;snip&amp;gt;...and other.  For the general population, the FBI reports a violent crime rate of 20 victims per 1000 US persons &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm Violent Crime Rates]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or 1 in 50 of the overall population. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Over the same time period there were over 32,000 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters reported in the general population.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States], by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005,Table 1. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;''&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I *think* what you are trying to say in this paragraph is that there aren't many hate crimes against homosexuals - do I have this right?  If so, I think you may be mixing apples and oranges here.  The hate crime statistics do not include *all* violent crimes against homosexuals - just those that include bias.  So if a homosexual man gets murdered by his lover because he was unfaithful, for example, it's not a hate crime, and thus will not be listed as an &amp;quot;anti-homosexual murder&amp;quot; in the hate crime statistics, but it *would* be considered a violent crime in the violent crime rate statistics.  Do you see what I mean? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:40, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hsmom, I could kiss you, I really could. Hell, here you go: ''mwah!'' RobS, however, is firmly in denial on this one. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 22:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I have followed her intelligent comments on [[homeschooling]], and I am with you there.  Well, at least, here: hsmom for sysop! [[User:Human|Human]] 22:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Aw shucks, thanks guys - and right before Mother's Day too.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The statistical flaw in the way the FBI compiles statistics, mandated by law, is it creates and defines a &amp;quot;victim class&amp;quot;; then it only defines &amp;quot;offenders&amp;quot; by race.  A classic example of &amp;quot;mixing apples and oranges&amp;quot;, as defined by law.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::[[User:RobS|RobS]], since you haven't answered my concerns here, I've made some changes to the article.  I'm sure you'll have some changes to what I wrote too - please try to add to it or adjust it rather than just reverting to the previous version.  Let's work together to find a version that is clear and well-cited and focuses on the topic at hand (homophobia).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I still do not understand what you think statistics on offender class would do.  I would like to understand your point of view here.  I'm guessing that most of the crimes that include racial bias would be done by someone of one race to someone of another, most of the crimes that include sexual-orientation bias would be done by someone of one orientation to someone of another, etc.  Do you have a different understanding of these crimes?  Can you give a hypothetical example?  I am trying to understand your point of view.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RobS|RobS]], I do not understand why you made changes to the article without explaining your thinking here.  The idea of the talk page is so that different editors can explain more fully their points of view, concerns, etc., so that other people editing the article can understand why certain edits have been made.  I would really like a fuller understanding of your concerns about the hate crime statistics, mainly because I do not think I have the same understanding as you about about which kinds of crimes are included.  I would very much like to understand your point of view about the limitations of the statistics.  Let me flesh out my current concerns about the article:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  I'm OK with this sentence.  (We could cite the number of incidences, or the number of victims, but offenses is fine with me.)  However, I think it's useful to get a sense of how many of the total hate crimes are based on sexual-orientation bias.  If you prefer not to have further information in the article itself, I think a footnote could clarify important points (such as  the fact that a few of these 1,171 offenses were actually anti-heterosexual.)  Thus I would add this reference &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm]  ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.  These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, ...''  Just a grammar detail here - I think it's important to be clear that race, religion, sexual orientation and disability ARE the victim classes / bias motivations, so I'd change it to ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability)..''.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''...the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.''  I'm still not sure I understand your point here.  The FBI also does not report the sexual orientation of victims.  Some but not all of the crimes motivated by sexual-orientation bias were anti-homosexual; a few were actually '''anti-heterosexual'''.  In addition, someone who is attacked because the attacker thinks they're gay may not in fact be gay.  However, the point of this whole section is to show that there are some people out there who take their views against homosexuality to the extreme of committing crimes, and to get a sense of how widespread this problem is.  The stats aren't a perfect fit for this purpose, so I think you're sensible to express some caveats about them.  I had expanded the caveats, but I would be fine with putting my expansion in the footnotes.  Thus I would add this footnote.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Thus a conclusion that all offenders are heterosexual is faulty, and the methodology does not measure gay-on-gay violence.'' I agree with this statement.  However, I would add to it a little bit to say ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias.''  I think some people mistakenly believe that any crime against a homosexual counts as a hate crime, and thus these statistics include ALL crimes against homosexuals, which is not the case.  There's a lot of misunderstanding about hate crimes, so I'd like to make it clear that incidences of violence against homosexuals that cannot be linked to bias based on sexual orientation (which would include most gay-on-gay violence) are not included in these statistics.  (These stats also include non-violent crime - I'm not sure if we should go into that here or not.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  First, let's be clear that this does NOT mean that only one homosexual person was murdered in 2004.  It means that there was one murder which was motivated in whole or in part by bias against homosexuals.  (It does not even mean that the victim was actually homosexual.)  So we need to say ''anti-homosexual '''hate crime''' murder''.  I think it's important to give the reader a context for this number - the fact is that relatively few hate crimes in general are murders.  By giving this number in the context of the total number of hate crime murders, the reader an get a better understanding of the situation.  (For example, if there had been 300 total hate crime murders with only one being anti-homosexual, that would be quite a different situation.)  In addition, ''...and the FBI has reported none since'' is a bit misleading, because there is only one more year of statistics available, those for 2005.  Still, we don't need to clutter up the article too much, so details can be given in the footnotes.  I think we should say something like ''In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism.  In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So the whole thing would read:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm]  ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.  These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability), the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.''  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias.  In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism.  In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RobS|RobS]], I hope that you will explain your concerns here, so that we can work together to improve this article, incorporating both of our concerns to make the best article possible.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Very simple: my edit points out (a) flawed methodolgy of FBI stats; (b) flawed popular misconceptions based upon flawed methodology; (c) flawed methodology is mandated by law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Recycling explanations of deliberate flawed statistics in hypertext does nothing, except serve the agenda of those promoting perversions in law to advance a biased agenda.  Please look up in the left hand corner of your screen.  You will see this Conservapedia.  Our mission is not to advance disinformation and subversion of our political process by alleging FBI statistics are credible to promote the obvious flawed conclusion, that anti-homoexual violence is perpetrated by hetrosexual offenders.  Our mission is quite the contrary.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:19, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You are either completely missing her point or steadfastly ignoring it.  FBI statistics report based on bias.  Thus, anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual.  A gay on gay attack does not have a bias of this type and is thus not included.  You are trying to argue that the FBI counts every crime against a gay individual as an anti-homosexual crime... if this were true, then your point on need statistics on the perpetrators would be valid, but this is not how the statistics are reported, thus your point (not the statistics) is flawed.  Your stubborn denial of this is nothing more than an attempt to push your point of view into statistics which are neutral.  [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:48, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
*''anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual.''&lt;br /&gt;
:Wrong. Flawed.  A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals, and is not accounted for in FBI statistics, mandated by law.  And your premise underlies precisely ''why'' we cannot accept any further explanation regarding the FBI's flawed methodolgy, because it used to perpetrated a flawed popular misconception, that heterosexuals are solely responsible for anti-gay violence, which we have now '''clearly''' demonstrated, FBI statistics do not measure or account for.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:58, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::''A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals.''  If this is true, then of course I would agree that the statistics are seriously flawed.  From reading the report's methodology, it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported as a hate crime.  The report explains &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;&amp;quot;The FBI collects data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability and are committed against persons, property, or society. Because motivation is subjective, it is difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender’s bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime. If law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, then the incident should be reported as a hate crime.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Methodology. &amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/methodology.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   How do you think this happens?  Is the problem with police departments wrongly reporting normal crimes as hate crimes?  Can you provide some kind of reference that speaks to this?  Do you also believe that this is true for disabled people, blacks, etc. and that the hate crimes statistics for them are flawed?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;--The determination is based upon the discretion of the local investigating officer.  He is not mandated to discern the sexual orientation of the offender, only the offenders race.  Therein lies the statistical flaw.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And secondly, in what state, or in what federal law, are law enforcement agencies mandated to keep statistics of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships?  If we are to contemplate things such as so-called &amp;quot;gay marriage&amp;quot;, then what may be appropriate is to investigate the level of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships.  And I believe, it may be credibly proven, homosexual relationships suffer from a distinctly higher proportion of violence than heterosexual relationships -- and the law may as of now, not take any consideration of this in compiling statistics for us to make a judgmental value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, ''&amp;quot;it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported&amp;quot;''.  It makes no difference what the FBI's &amp;quot;intent&amp;quot; is, the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting.  Therein lies the problem, this legal mandate dictates a statistical and biased error in reporting, which likely is intended to lead the public to a faulty conclusion, i.e. that anti-homosexual violence is solely the responsibility of heterosexuals.  Given what I've stated above, if heterosexuals are to be responsible to insure against anti-homosexual violence, and if a disproportionate degree of reported &amp;quot;hate crimes&amp;quot; are perpetrated by homosexual offenders upon homosexuals, then the heterosexual community deserves accurate reporting on such, '''''before''''' heterosexuals are asked to pass judgment upon recognizing the legal validity of domestic, homosexual partnerships.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], when you say ''the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting'' it seems like you believe that the law requires '''all''' crimes against homosexuals to be reported as anti-homosexual hate crimes.  Do I have this right?  This is not my understanding of the law, and I think all our differences hinge on this one point.  If you are right, then I would agree with much of what you are saying - the FBI statistics would be virtually meaningless.  Or are you making a more nuanced argument?  Something like &amp;quot;police officers may mistakenly perceive any crime against a homosexual as a hate crime, especially if they do not determine the sexual orientation of the offender, thus they may include crimes in the statistics that do not belong there (for example gay-on-gay domestic violence crimes)&amp;quot;.  Am I getting closer to understanding you?  Either way, do you have any references to flesh out your concerns?  --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::As I've stated above, the investigating officer or agency must make a determination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Now, let's marry two threads here.  There has been extensive discussion on several pages about [[Homophobia]], and I believe I have effectively made the argument that many, if not most, &amp;quot;homophobes&amp;quot; who seek psychiatric treatment today are homosexual.  It would not be surprising given this, that there is a certain amount of gay-on-gay anti-homosexual violence, and much may be occurring in gay domestic relationships.  Or it could occur even randomly or anonymously in the gay lifestyle, that is to say a gay person, unhappy with himself for being attracted to members of the same sex, or blaming gays for making him attracted to them, vents his anger at himself and gays for being involved in the homosexual lifestyle.  None of these reporting statistics, mandated by law, be they &amp;quot;hate crime&amp;quot; stats, or domestic violence stats, allow for taking this into account.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I suggest moving all this junk to an article on hate crimes. It doesn't have much to do with homophobia. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:RobS|RobS]], I think I am starting to get your point.  You are saying (do I have this right?), that much of the violence that appears on the surface to be anti-homosexual hate crime is in fact perpetrated by homophobic gays.  I think this is an interesting point, and I don't have a problem with including it per se, however I don't think the article as it is currently written conveys this point well at all.  I think the best approach may be to have a factual paragraph about the FBI stats and then a paragraph putting forth your perspective.  I think that approach will make your points clearer to the reader, rather than having them buried in the stats paragraph.  Can you find some references that will allow us to say &amp;quot;some conservatives are concerned that&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;Such and such author has put forth the idea that&amp;quot; or whatever?  Because we will be able to write a stronger paragraph if it can be backed up with references.  I don't have time to work on this for the next few days, but will try to take a stab at it when I get a chance.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:48, 7 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References for Anti-homosexual violence discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;most common usage&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Though the term can be used for a variety of purposes, its most common usage is to criticize people opposed to homosexuality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I happen to think this statement is correct, or at least is correct as of the last few decades. But I'd like to see sources or evidence presented that confirms it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I think we've proven on this talk page several times over the meaning was corrupted from the git go; it was coined to impugn critics of the APA dropping homosexuality as a mental diagnosis, it has persisted, but the failure of legistlators to criminalize what was alleged to be a mental disturbance has led to the theraputic community dropping the term.  Its ''misuse'' has persisted in popular culture, largely because common people have not got the message that both the legal and threputic professions are dropping the term.  And lastly, the accepted theraputic use of the term was applied most often to homosexuals themselves.  In sum, popular usage never understood what it meant, and has always been misused. It is little more than an attack term, when it originally was invented to make people think opponents of the homosexual agenda were crazy, not criminal, as it is misued today.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::And the citable '''source''' that supports &amp;quot;criticism of people opposed to homosexuality&amp;quot; as its most common use is... what? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::&lt;br /&gt;
::::The term '''homophobia''' describes the aversion of a person to [[homosexuality]]. Unlike other pathopsychological [[phobia]]s (e.g. [[arachnaphobia]]=a fear of [[spider]]s) this phobia isn't primarily about avoiding contact, but the deliberate insulting, humiliation and symbolic annihilation of homosexuals.&lt;br /&gt;
::::Homophobia usually manifests itself through insults, humiliation, threats and violence directed at homosexuals and may also be directed at [[heterosexuals]] perceived to be homosexual by the perpetrator.&lt;br /&gt;
:&lt;br /&gt;
::::[[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]]&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, there are other uses. I happen to think the one here makes a lot of sense. [http://www.henrymakow.com/021101.html] Maybe, someday, we'll all be proud to be homophobic. I'd rather be homophobic than homos-xual any day. [[User:Mathers|Mathers]] 09:52, 19 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks. That kind of fits into the definition above. [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] 10:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I suggest using the definition provided by [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]]. It should start the article. It clealy describes an aversion of a person to [[homosexuality]] and not [[Homosexuals]] as individuals. It certainly doesn't imply that those who object to [[homosexuality]] on moral and religious grounds are being irrational, i.e., literally suffering from a [[mental illness]] but clearly states that the ''phobia'' isn't primarily about avoiding contact, so by the definition above, those who object to homosexuality on moral and religious grounds are are not homophobic if they don't deliberately insult, humiliate or  threaten violence towards homosexuals. They are simply condemning the sin not the sinner, or as some Christians put it ''hate the sin not the sinner''. The rest of the article could then describe how [[gay rights]] an [[liberal]] activists have perverted the meaning away from the objective one above.&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:BenDoune|BenDoune]] 07:31, 9 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::*''activists have perverted the meaning away from the objective''&lt;br /&gt;
::::*(a) This article documents how the term was created with the specific ''intent'' for the perverted meaning you refer to.&lt;br /&gt;
::::*(b) You are dealing with the same issue in [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]], i.e. a term the medical community does not recognize yet nonetheless has currency in the lay community for what is popularly beleived to be a medical condition.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the suggestion [[User:BenDoune|BenDoune]] and [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] is great. Carry on! [[User:RogerDailey|RogerDailey]] 13:33, 12 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Homophobia-phobia&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
This seems to be an unsourced personal essay or opinion by [[User:Jaques]]. No source is cited to show that this term has any significant degree of usage. Only 92 [http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;amp;rls=en&amp;amp;q=Homophobia-phobia&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;oe=UTF-8 Google hits] on the term (hits include both with and without the hyphen), a negligible number (compare 1,490,000 for ''homophobia,'' 34,900 for ''phobophobia'' (fear of fear), 29,200 for ''heterophobia'' (fear of heterosexuals), 14,900 for ''gamophobia'' (fear of marriage), 11,700 for ''theophobia'' (fear of God), 1310 for ''pantophobia'' (fear of everything). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophobia-Phobia===&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the fear of homophobia, some homsexuals develop a phobia of homophobes, and may become paranoid to the point that he/she believe everyone who dislike him/her or say anything negative about homosexuality is a homophobe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophobiaphobiaphobia===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A condition affecting homophobes who are too frightened to admit that they are homophobic because of widespread phobia against homophobes. Not an official mental condition yet but you heard it here first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Actully, Homophobiaphobiaphobia means people who are afraid of those homosexuals who are afraid of homophobes.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 01:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophilia===&lt;br /&gt;
Why hasn't this word been coined? It is technichally and mechanically the opposite of &amp;quot;Homophobia.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;homo&amp;quot; + &amp;quot;phobia&amp;quot; = &amp;quot;homophobia.&amp;quot; Since &amp;quot;Philia&amp;quot; is the literal and exact opposite of &amp;quot;Phobia&amp;quot; it should therefore follow that: &amp;quot;Homo&amp;quot; + &amp;quot;Philia&amp;quot; = &amp;quot;Homophilia.&amp;quot; If no one has any objections I would like to coin and use this word as is applicable.--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is nothing, as it means the same, apparently. Let's try to keep this as jargon free as possible. Oh, and FYI, please edit and sign your post, please.  Unsigned posts are removed. --[[User:TK|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Sysop-&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;TK]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 17:13, 1 July 2007 (EDT) &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;homophilia:&lt;br /&gt;
Another term for homosexuality , the condition in which love and lust are directed to persons of the same sex.  [http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/homophilia]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
okey-dokey--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:18, 1 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: So, if homosexuality=homophilia, homophobia is the opposite of homophilia, and homosexuality is the opposite of heterosexuality, that means heterosexuality=homophobia?&lt;br /&gt;
::Where does bisexualphobia fit in this scheme?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:30, 1 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::It doesn't. I wasn't sure I had a point, but now i have: The opposite of &amp;quot;love&amp;quot; is rather &amp;quot;hate&amp;quot; than &amp;quot;fear&amp;quot; (although Darth Vader might disagree whether that makes a difference), so, grammatically homophilia is not the opposite of homophobia.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Latin is not the issue. &amp;quot;Homophila&amp;quot; is quite synonymous with &amp;quot;homosexuality&amp;quot;, I have heard it before, but usually in comparision to other paraphilias (pedo-, necro-, copro- etc). So, the word &amp;quot;homophilia&amp;quot; should, imho, be used to emphasize homosexuality as a perversion, rather than as form of love. [[User:Eygar|Eygar]] 15:36, 1 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::(a) it's not Latin, it's Greek.  (b) in the Greek idiom, there is not a duality of polar opposites, it is a triality, philia, phobia, and phagia -- attraction, repulsion, and consumption.  Here's another contrasting idiom, epipheral, ephemeral, and etherial -- what is comprehensible to the naked eye within the horizon, what is known of only momentary significance (which carries a rather sexist idea that it is 'feminine'), and what is known but not visible or something over the horizon.  In a later sense and Latinized sense, etherial also becomes something &amp;quot;up in the air,&amp;quot; for example, Christ will return in the ether.&lt;br /&gt;
::::Soooo, you seem to be applying modern understanding and modern idioms to ancient inscriptions, a rather common occurance.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:55, 2 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I'm not talking about dualities in Greek, the words are &amp;quot;opposite&amp;quot; when used in English, since &amp;quot;attraction&amp;quot; is basically the opposite of &amp;quot;repulsion&amp;quot;, which confirms the original post (It (homophilia) is technichally and mechanically the opposite of &amp;quot;Homophobia.&amp;quot;). I don't try to pretend to be able to discuss &amp;quot;ancient inscriptions&amp;quot;, what I know is what the word is used for today, and why. In the media and the gay community, the word &amp;quot;homophilia&amp;quot; ''is'' used as a synonym for &amp;quot;homosexuality&amp;quot;, although in a more pejorative sense, alluding to the word &amp;quot;paraphilia&amp;quot;. That's what matters in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===snarl===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is a 'snarl' word please? [[User:MrSmith|MrSmith]] 16:30, 31 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, I never heard of it either. --[[User:SpudNolan|SpudNolan]] 15:37, 30 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was reading the article on [[Junk science]], and thought, what if I rewrite the definition of &amp;quot;Junk science&amp;quot; to something like this?&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;quot;The term '''junk science''' is a snarl word used by conservatives to verbally tar and feather anyone who dares to oppose a scientific theory (for example, global warming or evolution).&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
I guess that would get me banned in seconds.&lt;br /&gt;
Does anyone get my point? [[User:Eygar|Eygar]] 13:19, 1 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Eygar</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia&amp;diff=326094</id>
		<title>Talk:Homophobia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia&amp;diff=326094"/>
		<updated>2007-11-01T19:36:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Eygar: /* Homophilia */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{unprotected|1 May|RobS}}&lt;br /&gt;
Archive(s): &lt;br /&gt;
[[/archive 1|01]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[/archive 2|02]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-homosexual violence ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI only reports offender statistics by race; thus it is not possible to measure how much gay-on-gay or gay domestic union violence occurs versus homosexual victims of heterosexual offenders. '' &lt;br /&gt;
:The FBI hate crime statistics ONLY report offenses based on bias.  Domestic violence and other crimes where bias was not an element are not included in these statistics.  (See the various pages of the web site cited in the article.)  I'm not sure if the sentence above is trying to subtract crimes against homosexuals that did not involve bias from the 1171 number (which would not make sense, as all of the 1171 involved bias, otherwise they would not have been reported as hate crimes), or if it was an attempt to gauge how much of violence against homosexuals involves bias by comparing crimes that involve bias to crimes that don't.  Or perhaps it's something else?  I really don't understand what this section is trying to say.  [[User:RobS|RobS]], could you clarify your thinking?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Neither do the statistics include senior citizens, homeless, military personnel, or battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnant -- all known victim classes of hate crime attacks.''  &lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I agree that the FBI doesn't include in their hate crime statistics crimes that include bias against senior citizens, or bias against the homeless, or bias against military personnel, or bias against pregnant women.  They only include crimes that include bias based on race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, disability, and sexual orientation.  I'm not sure, though, why this is relevant?  And wouldn't it be clearer to simply list the categories that *are* included, rather than those which aren't?  Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see why crimes that include bias against senior citizens, for example, are relevant?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Violent crimes are defined as murder...&amp;lt;snip&amp;gt;...and other.  For the general population, the FBI reports a violent crime rate of 20 victims per 1000 US persons &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm Violent Crime Rates]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or 1 in 50 of the overall population. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Over the same time period there were over 32,000 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters reported in the general population.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States], by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005,Table 1. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;''&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I *think* what you are trying to say in this paragraph is that there aren't many hate crimes against homosexuals - do I have this right?  If so, I think you may be mixing apples and oranges here.  The hate crime statistics do not include *all* violent crimes against homosexuals - just those that include bias.  So if a homosexual man gets murdered by his lover because he was unfaithful, for example, it's not a hate crime, and thus will not be listed as an &amp;quot;anti-homosexual murder&amp;quot; in the hate crime statistics, but it *would* be considered a violent crime in the violent crime rate statistics.  Do you see what I mean? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:40, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hsmom, I could kiss you, I really could. Hell, here you go: ''mwah!'' RobS, however, is firmly in denial on this one. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 22:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I have followed her intelligent comments on [[homeschooling]], and I am with you there.  Well, at least, here: hsmom for sysop! [[User:Human|Human]] 22:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Aw shucks, thanks guys - and right before Mother's Day too.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The statistical flaw in the way the FBI compiles statistics, mandated by law, is it creates and defines a &amp;quot;victim class&amp;quot;; then it only defines &amp;quot;offenders&amp;quot; by race.  A classic example of &amp;quot;mixing apples and oranges&amp;quot;, as defined by law.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::[[User:RobS|RobS]], since you haven't answered my concerns here, I've made some changes to the article.  I'm sure you'll have some changes to what I wrote too - please try to add to it or adjust it rather than just reverting to the previous version.  Let's work together to find a version that is clear and well-cited and focuses on the topic at hand (homophobia).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I still do not understand what you think statistics on offender class would do.  I would like to understand your point of view here.  I'm guessing that most of the crimes that include racial bias would be done by someone of one race to someone of another, most of the crimes that include sexual-orientation bias would be done by someone of one orientation to someone of another, etc.  Do you have a different understanding of these crimes?  Can you give a hypothetical example?  I am trying to understand your point of view.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RobS|RobS]], I do not understand why you made changes to the article without explaining your thinking here.  The idea of the talk page is so that different editors can explain more fully their points of view, concerns, etc., so that other people editing the article can understand why certain edits have been made.  I would really like a fuller understanding of your concerns about the hate crime statistics, mainly because I do not think I have the same understanding as you about about which kinds of crimes are included.  I would very much like to understand your point of view about the limitations of the statistics.  Let me flesh out my current concerns about the article:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  I'm OK with this sentence.  (We could cite the number of incidences, or the number of victims, but offenses is fine with me.)  However, I think it's useful to get a sense of how many of the total hate crimes are based on sexual-orientation bias.  If you prefer not to have further information in the article itself, I think a footnote could clarify important points (such as  the fact that a few of these 1,171 offenses were actually anti-heterosexual.)  Thus I would add this reference &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm]  ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.  These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, ...''  Just a grammar detail here - I think it's important to be clear that race, religion, sexual orientation and disability ARE the victim classes / bias motivations, so I'd change it to ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability)..''.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''...the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.''  I'm still not sure I understand your point here.  The FBI also does not report the sexual orientation of victims.  Some but not all of the crimes motivated by sexual-orientation bias were anti-homosexual; a few were actually '''anti-heterosexual'''.  In addition, someone who is attacked because the attacker thinks they're gay may not in fact be gay.  However, the point of this whole section is to show that there are some people out there who take their views against homosexuality to the extreme of committing crimes, and to get a sense of how widespread this problem is.  The stats aren't a perfect fit for this purpose, so I think you're sensible to express some caveats about them.  I had expanded the caveats, but I would be fine with putting my expansion in the footnotes.  Thus I would add this footnote.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Thus a conclusion that all offenders are heterosexual is faulty, and the methodology does not measure gay-on-gay violence.'' I agree with this statement.  However, I would add to it a little bit to say ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias.''  I think some people mistakenly believe that any crime against a homosexual counts as a hate crime, and thus these statistics include ALL crimes against homosexuals, which is not the case.  There's a lot of misunderstanding about hate crimes, so I'd like to make it clear that incidences of violence against homosexuals that cannot be linked to bias based on sexual orientation (which would include most gay-on-gay violence) are not included in these statistics.  (These stats also include non-violent crime - I'm not sure if we should go into that here or not.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  First, let's be clear that this does NOT mean that only one homosexual person was murdered in 2004.  It means that there was one murder which was motivated in whole or in part by bias against homosexuals.  (It does not even mean that the victim was actually homosexual.)  So we need to say ''anti-homosexual '''hate crime''' murder''.  I think it's important to give the reader a context for this number - the fact is that relatively few hate crimes in general are murders.  By giving this number in the context of the total number of hate crime murders, the reader an get a better understanding of the situation.  (For example, if there had been 300 total hate crime murders with only one being anti-homosexual, that would be quite a different situation.)  In addition, ''...and the FBI has reported none since'' is a bit misleading, because there is only one more year of statistics available, those for 2005.  Still, we don't need to clutter up the article too much, so details can be given in the footnotes.  I think we should say something like ''In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism.  In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So the whole thing would read:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm]  ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.  These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability), the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.''  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias.  In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism.  In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RobS|RobS]], I hope that you will explain your concerns here, so that we can work together to improve this article, incorporating both of our concerns to make the best article possible.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Very simple: my edit points out (a) flawed methodolgy of FBI stats; (b) flawed popular misconceptions based upon flawed methodology; (c) flawed methodology is mandated by law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Recycling explanations of deliberate flawed statistics in hypertext does nothing, except serve the agenda of those promoting perversions in law to advance a biased agenda.  Please look up in the left hand corner of your screen.  You will see this Conservapedia.  Our mission is not to advance disinformation and subversion of our political process by alleging FBI statistics are credible to promote the obvious flawed conclusion, that anti-homoexual violence is perpetrated by hetrosexual offenders.  Our mission is quite the contrary.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:19, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You are either completely missing her point or steadfastly ignoring it.  FBI statistics report based on bias.  Thus, anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual.  A gay on gay attack does not have a bias of this type and is thus not included.  You are trying to argue that the FBI counts every crime against a gay individual as an anti-homosexual crime... if this were true, then your point on need statistics on the perpetrators would be valid, but this is not how the statistics are reported, thus your point (not the statistics) is flawed.  Your stubborn denial of this is nothing more than an attempt to push your point of view into statistics which are neutral.  [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:48, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
*''anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual.''&lt;br /&gt;
:Wrong. Flawed.  A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals, and is not accounted for in FBI statistics, mandated by law.  And your premise underlies precisely ''why'' we cannot accept any further explanation regarding the FBI's flawed methodolgy, because it used to perpetrated a flawed popular misconception, that heterosexuals are solely responsible for anti-gay violence, which we have now '''clearly''' demonstrated, FBI statistics do not measure or account for.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:58, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::''A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals.''  If this is true, then of course I would agree that the statistics are seriously flawed.  From reading the report's methodology, it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported as a hate crime.  The report explains &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;&amp;quot;The FBI collects data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability and are committed against persons, property, or society. Because motivation is subjective, it is difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender’s bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime. If law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, then the incident should be reported as a hate crime.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Methodology. &amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/methodology.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   How do you think this happens?  Is the problem with police departments wrongly reporting normal crimes as hate crimes?  Can you provide some kind of reference that speaks to this?  Do you also believe that this is true for disabled people, blacks, etc. and that the hate crimes statistics for them are flawed?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;--The determination is based upon the discretion of the local investigating officer.  He is not mandated to discern the sexual orientation of the offender, only the offenders race.  Therein lies the statistical flaw.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And secondly, in what state, or in what federal law, are law enforcement agencies mandated to keep statistics of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships?  If we are to contemplate things such as so-called &amp;quot;gay marriage&amp;quot;, then what may be appropriate is to investigate the level of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships.  And I believe, it may be credibly proven, homosexual relationships suffer from a distinctly higher proportion of violence than heterosexual relationships -- and the law may as of now, not take any consideration of this in compiling statistics for us to make a judgmental value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, ''&amp;quot;it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported&amp;quot;''.  It makes no difference what the FBI's &amp;quot;intent&amp;quot; is, the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting.  Therein lies the problem, this legal mandate dictates a statistical and biased error in reporting, which likely is intended to lead the public to a faulty conclusion, i.e. that anti-homosexual violence is solely the responsibility of heterosexuals.  Given what I've stated above, if heterosexuals are to be responsible to insure against anti-homosexual violence, and if a disproportionate degree of reported &amp;quot;hate crimes&amp;quot; are perpetrated by homosexual offenders upon homosexuals, then the heterosexual community deserves accurate reporting on such, '''''before''''' heterosexuals are asked to pass judgment upon recognizing the legal validity of domestic, homosexual partnerships.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], when you say ''the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting'' it seems like you believe that the law requires '''all''' crimes against homosexuals to be reported as anti-homosexual hate crimes.  Do I have this right?  This is not my understanding of the law, and I think all our differences hinge on this one point.  If you are right, then I would agree with much of what you are saying - the FBI statistics would be virtually meaningless.  Or are you making a more nuanced argument?  Something like &amp;quot;police officers may mistakenly perceive any crime against a homosexual as a hate crime, especially if they do not determine the sexual orientation of the offender, thus they may include crimes in the statistics that do not belong there (for example gay-on-gay domestic violence crimes)&amp;quot;.  Am I getting closer to understanding you?  Either way, do you have any references to flesh out your concerns?  --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::As I've stated above, the investigating officer or agency must make a determination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Now, let's marry two threads here.  There has been extensive discussion on several pages about [[Homophobia]], and I believe I have effectively made the argument that many, if not most, &amp;quot;homophobes&amp;quot; who seek psychiatric treatment today are homosexual.  It would not be surprising given this, that there is a certain amount of gay-on-gay anti-homosexual violence, and much may be occurring in gay domestic relationships.  Or it could occur even randomly or anonymously in the gay lifestyle, that is to say a gay person, unhappy with himself for being attracted to members of the same sex, or blaming gays for making him attracted to them, vents his anger at himself and gays for being involved in the homosexual lifestyle.  None of these reporting statistics, mandated by law, be they &amp;quot;hate crime&amp;quot; stats, or domestic violence stats, allow for taking this into account.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I suggest moving all this junk to an article on hate crimes. It doesn't have much to do with homophobia. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:RobS|RobS]], I think I am starting to get your point.  You are saying (do I have this right?), that much of the violence that appears on the surface to be anti-homosexual hate crime is in fact perpetrated by homophobic gays.  I think this is an interesting point, and I don't have a problem with including it per se, however I don't think the article as it is currently written conveys this point well at all.  I think the best approach may be to have a factual paragraph about the FBI stats and then a paragraph putting forth your perspective.  I think that approach will make your points clearer to the reader, rather than having them buried in the stats paragraph.  Can you find some references that will allow us to say &amp;quot;some conservatives are concerned that&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;Such and such author has put forth the idea that&amp;quot; or whatever?  Because we will be able to write a stronger paragraph if it can be backed up with references.  I don't have time to work on this for the next few days, but will try to take a stab at it when I get a chance.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:48, 7 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References for Anti-homosexual violence discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;most common usage&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Though the term can be used for a variety of purposes, its most common usage is to criticize people opposed to homosexuality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I happen to think this statement is correct, or at least is correct as of the last few decades. But I'd like to see sources or evidence presented that confirms it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I think we've proven on this talk page several times over the meaning was corrupted from the git go; it was coined to impugn critics of the APA dropping homosexuality as a mental diagnosis, it has persisted, but the failure of legistlators to criminalize what was alleged to be a mental disturbance has led to the theraputic community dropping the term.  Its ''misuse'' has persisted in popular culture, largely because common people have not got the message that both the legal and threputic professions are dropping the term.  And lastly, the accepted theraputic use of the term was applied most often to homosexuals themselves.  In sum, popular usage never understood what it meant, and has always been misused. It is little more than an attack term, when it originally was invented to make people think opponents of the homosexual agenda were crazy, not criminal, as it is misued today.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::And the citable '''source''' that supports &amp;quot;criticism of people opposed to homosexuality&amp;quot; as its most common use is... what? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::&lt;br /&gt;
::::The term '''homophobia''' describes the aversion of a person to [[homosexuality]]. Unlike other pathopsychological [[phobia]]s (e.g. [[arachnaphobia]]=a fear of [[spider]]s) this phobia isn't primarily about avoiding contact, but the deliberate insulting, humiliation and symbolic annihilation of homosexuals.&lt;br /&gt;
::::Homophobia usually manifests itself through insults, humiliation, threats and violence directed at homosexuals and may also be directed at [[heterosexuals]] perceived to be homosexual by the perpetrator.&lt;br /&gt;
:&lt;br /&gt;
::::[[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]]&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, there are other uses. I happen to think the one here makes a lot of sense. [http://www.henrymakow.com/021101.html] Maybe, someday, we'll all be proud to be homophobic. I'd rather be homophobic than homos-xual any day. [[User:Mathers|Mathers]] 09:52, 19 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks. That kind of fits into the definition above. [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] 10:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I suggest using the definition provided by [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]]. It should start the article. It clealy describes an aversion of a person to [[homosexuality]] and not [[Homosexuals]] as individuals. It certainly doesn't imply that those who object to [[homosexuality]] on moral and religious grounds are being irrational, i.e., literally suffering from a [[mental illness]] but clearly states that the ''phobia'' isn't primarily about avoiding contact, so by the definition above, those who object to homosexuality on moral and religious grounds are are not homophobic if they don't deliberately insult, humiliate or  threaten violence towards homosexuals. They are simply condemning the sin not the sinner, or as some Christians put it ''hate the sin not the sinner''. The rest of the article could then describe how [[gay rights]] an [[liberal]] activists have perverted the meaning away from the objective one above.&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:BenDoune|BenDoune]] 07:31, 9 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::*''activists have perverted the meaning away from the objective''&lt;br /&gt;
::::*(a) This article documents how the term was created with the specific ''intent'' for the perverted meaning you refer to.&lt;br /&gt;
::::*(b) You are dealing with the same issue in [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]], i.e. a term the medical community does not recognize yet nonetheless has currency in the lay community for what is popularly beleived to be a medical condition.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the suggestion [[User:BenDoune|BenDoune]] and [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] is great. Carry on! [[User:RogerDailey|RogerDailey]] 13:33, 12 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Homophobia-phobia&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
This seems to be an unsourced personal essay or opinion by [[User:Jaques]]. No source is cited to show that this term has any significant degree of usage. Only 92 [http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;amp;rls=en&amp;amp;q=Homophobia-phobia&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;oe=UTF-8 Google hits] on the term (hits include both with and without the hyphen), a negligible number (compare 1,490,000 for ''homophobia,'' 34,900 for ''phobophobia'' (fear of fear), 29,200 for ''heterophobia'' (fear of heterosexuals), 14,900 for ''gamophobia'' (fear of marriage), 11,700 for ''theophobia'' (fear of God), 1310 for ''pantophobia'' (fear of everything). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophobia-Phobia===&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the fear of homophobia, some homsexuals develop a phobia of homophobes, and may become paranoid to the point that he/she believe everyone who dislike him/her or say anything negative about homosexuality is a homophobe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophobiaphobiaphobia===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A condition affecting homophobes who are too frightened to admit that they are homophobic because of widespread phobia against homophobes. Not an official mental condition yet but you heard it here first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Actully, Homophobiaphobiaphobia means people who are afraid of those homosexuals who are afraid of homophobes.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 01:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophilia===&lt;br /&gt;
Why hasn't this word been coined? It is technichally and mechanically the opposite of &amp;quot;Homophobia.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;homo&amp;quot; + &amp;quot;phobia&amp;quot; = &amp;quot;homophobia.&amp;quot; Since &amp;quot;Philia&amp;quot; is the literal and exact opposite of &amp;quot;Phobia&amp;quot; it should therefore follow that: &amp;quot;Homo&amp;quot; + &amp;quot;Philia&amp;quot; = &amp;quot;Homophilia.&amp;quot; If no one has any objections I would like to coin and use this word as is applicable.--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is nothing, as it means the same, apparently. Let's try to keep this as jargon free as possible. Oh, and FYI, please edit and sign your post, please.  Unsigned posts are removed. --[[User:TK|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Sysop-&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;TK]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 17:13, 1 July 2007 (EDT) &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;homophilia:&lt;br /&gt;
Another term for homosexuality , the condition in which love and lust are directed to persons of the same sex.  [http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/homophilia]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
okey-dokey--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:18, 1 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: So, if homosexuality=homophilia, homophobia is the opposite of homophilia, and homosexuality is the opposite of heterosexuality, that means heterosexuality=homophobia?&lt;br /&gt;
::Where does bisexualphobia fit in this scheme?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:30, 1 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::It doesn't. I wasn't sure I had a point, but now i have: The opposite of &amp;quot;love&amp;quot; is rather &amp;quot;hate&amp;quot; than &amp;quot;fear&amp;quot; (although Darth Vader might disagree whether that makes a difference), so, grammatically homophilia is not the opposite of homophobia.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Latin is not the issue. &amp;quot;Homophila&amp;quot; is quite synonymous with &amp;quot;homosexuality&amp;quot;, I have heard it before, but usually in comparision to other paraphilias (pedo-, necro-, copro- etc). So, the word &amp;quot;homophilia&amp;quot; should, imho, be used to emphasize homosexuality as a perversion, rather than as form of love. [[User:Eygar|Eygar]] 15:36, 1 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===snarl===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is a 'snarl' word please? [[User:MrSmith|MrSmith]] 16:30, 31 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, I never heard of it either. --[[User:SpudNolan|SpudNolan]] 15:37, 30 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was reading the article on [[Junk science]], and thought, what if I rewrite the definition of &amp;quot;Junk science&amp;quot; to something like this?&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;quot;The term '''junk science''' is a snarl word used by conservatives to verbally tar and feather anyone who dares to oppose a scientific theory (for example, global warming or evolution).&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
I guess that would get me banned in seconds.&lt;br /&gt;
Does anyone get my point? [[User:Eygar|Eygar]] 13:19, 1 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Eygar</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia&amp;diff=326017</id>
		<title>Talk:Homophobia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia&amp;diff=326017"/>
		<updated>2007-11-01T17:23:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Eygar: homophobia=heterosexuality?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{unprotected|1 May|RobS}}&lt;br /&gt;
Archive(s): &lt;br /&gt;
[[/archive 1|01]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[/archive 2|02]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-homosexual violence ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI only reports offender statistics by race; thus it is not possible to measure how much gay-on-gay or gay domestic union violence occurs versus homosexual victims of heterosexual offenders. '' &lt;br /&gt;
:The FBI hate crime statistics ONLY report offenses based on bias.  Domestic violence and other crimes where bias was not an element are not included in these statistics.  (See the various pages of the web site cited in the article.)  I'm not sure if the sentence above is trying to subtract crimes against homosexuals that did not involve bias from the 1171 number (which would not make sense, as all of the 1171 involved bias, otherwise they would not have been reported as hate crimes), or if it was an attempt to gauge how much of violence against homosexuals involves bias by comparing crimes that involve bias to crimes that don't.  Or perhaps it's something else?  I really don't understand what this section is trying to say.  [[User:RobS|RobS]], could you clarify your thinking?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Neither do the statistics include senior citizens, homeless, military personnel, or battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnant -- all known victim classes of hate crime attacks.''  &lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I agree that the FBI doesn't include in their hate crime statistics crimes that include bias against senior citizens, or bias against the homeless, or bias against military personnel, or bias against pregnant women.  They only include crimes that include bias based on race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, disability, and sexual orientation.  I'm not sure, though, why this is relevant?  And wouldn't it be clearer to simply list the categories that *are* included, rather than those which aren't?  Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see why crimes that include bias against senior citizens, for example, are relevant?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Violent crimes are defined as murder...&amp;lt;snip&amp;gt;...and other.  For the general population, the FBI reports a violent crime rate of 20 victims per 1000 US persons &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm Violent Crime Rates]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or 1 in 50 of the overall population. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Over the same time period there were over 32,000 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters reported in the general population.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States], by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005,Table 1. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;''&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I *think* what you are trying to say in this paragraph is that there aren't many hate crimes against homosexuals - do I have this right?  If so, I think you may be mixing apples and oranges here.  The hate crime statistics do not include *all* violent crimes against homosexuals - just those that include bias.  So if a homosexual man gets murdered by his lover because he was unfaithful, for example, it's not a hate crime, and thus will not be listed as an &amp;quot;anti-homosexual murder&amp;quot; in the hate crime statistics, but it *would* be considered a violent crime in the violent crime rate statistics.  Do you see what I mean? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:40, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hsmom, I could kiss you, I really could. Hell, here you go: ''mwah!'' RobS, however, is firmly in denial on this one. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 22:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I have followed her intelligent comments on [[homeschooling]], and I am with you there.  Well, at least, here: hsmom for sysop! [[User:Human|Human]] 22:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Aw shucks, thanks guys - and right before Mother's Day too.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The statistical flaw in the way the FBI compiles statistics, mandated by law, is it creates and defines a &amp;quot;victim class&amp;quot;; then it only defines &amp;quot;offenders&amp;quot; by race.  A classic example of &amp;quot;mixing apples and oranges&amp;quot;, as defined by law.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::[[User:RobS|RobS]], since you haven't answered my concerns here, I've made some changes to the article.  I'm sure you'll have some changes to what I wrote too - please try to add to it or adjust it rather than just reverting to the previous version.  Let's work together to find a version that is clear and well-cited and focuses on the topic at hand (homophobia).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I still do not understand what you think statistics on offender class would do.  I would like to understand your point of view here.  I'm guessing that most of the crimes that include racial bias would be done by someone of one race to someone of another, most of the crimes that include sexual-orientation bias would be done by someone of one orientation to someone of another, etc.  Do you have a different understanding of these crimes?  Can you give a hypothetical example?  I am trying to understand your point of view.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RobS|RobS]], I do not understand why you made changes to the article without explaining your thinking here.  The idea of the talk page is so that different editors can explain more fully their points of view, concerns, etc., so that other people editing the article can understand why certain edits have been made.  I would really like a fuller understanding of your concerns about the hate crime statistics, mainly because I do not think I have the same understanding as you about about which kinds of crimes are included.  I would very much like to understand your point of view about the limitations of the statistics.  Let me flesh out my current concerns about the article:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  I'm OK with this sentence.  (We could cite the number of incidences, or the number of victims, but offenses is fine with me.)  However, I think it's useful to get a sense of how many of the total hate crimes are based on sexual-orientation bias.  If you prefer not to have further information in the article itself, I think a footnote could clarify important points (such as  the fact that a few of these 1,171 offenses were actually anti-heterosexual.)  Thus I would add this reference &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm]  ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.  These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, ...''  Just a grammar detail here - I think it's important to be clear that race, religion, sexual orientation and disability ARE the victim classes / bias motivations, so I'd change it to ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability)..''.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''...the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.''  I'm still not sure I understand your point here.  The FBI also does not report the sexual orientation of victims.  Some but not all of the crimes motivated by sexual-orientation bias were anti-homosexual; a few were actually '''anti-heterosexual'''.  In addition, someone who is attacked because the attacker thinks they're gay may not in fact be gay.  However, the point of this whole section is to show that there are some people out there who take their views against homosexuality to the extreme of committing crimes, and to get a sense of how widespread this problem is.  The stats aren't a perfect fit for this purpose, so I think you're sensible to express some caveats about them.  I had expanded the caveats, but I would be fine with putting my expansion in the footnotes.  Thus I would add this footnote.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Thus a conclusion that all offenders are heterosexual is faulty, and the methodology does not measure gay-on-gay violence.'' I agree with this statement.  However, I would add to it a little bit to say ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias.''  I think some people mistakenly believe that any crime against a homosexual counts as a hate crime, and thus these statistics include ALL crimes against homosexuals, which is not the case.  There's a lot of misunderstanding about hate crimes, so I'd like to make it clear that incidences of violence against homosexuals that cannot be linked to bias based on sexual orientation (which would include most gay-on-gay violence) are not included in these statistics.  (These stats also include non-violent crime - I'm not sure if we should go into that here or not.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  First, let's be clear that this does NOT mean that only one homosexual person was murdered in 2004.  It means that there was one murder which was motivated in whole or in part by bias against homosexuals.  (It does not even mean that the victim was actually homosexual.)  So we need to say ''anti-homosexual '''hate crime''' murder''.  I think it's important to give the reader a context for this number - the fact is that relatively few hate crimes in general are murders.  By giving this number in the context of the total number of hate crime murders, the reader an get a better understanding of the situation.  (For example, if there had been 300 total hate crime murders with only one being anti-homosexual, that would be quite a different situation.)  In addition, ''...and the FBI has reported none since'' is a bit misleading, because there is only one more year of statistics available, those for 2005.  Still, we don't need to clutter up the article too much, so details can be given in the footnotes.  I think we should say something like ''In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism.  In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So the whole thing would read:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm]  ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.  These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability), the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.''  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias.  In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism.  In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RobS|RobS]], I hope that you will explain your concerns here, so that we can work together to improve this article, incorporating both of our concerns to make the best article possible.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Very simple: my edit points out (a) flawed methodolgy of FBI stats; (b) flawed popular misconceptions based upon flawed methodology; (c) flawed methodology is mandated by law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Recycling explanations of deliberate flawed statistics in hypertext does nothing, except serve the agenda of those promoting perversions in law to advance a biased agenda.  Please look up in the left hand corner of your screen.  You will see this Conservapedia.  Our mission is not to advance disinformation and subversion of our political process by alleging FBI statistics are credible to promote the obvious flawed conclusion, that anti-homoexual violence is perpetrated by hetrosexual offenders.  Our mission is quite the contrary.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:19, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You are either completely missing her point or steadfastly ignoring it.  FBI statistics report based on bias.  Thus, anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual.  A gay on gay attack does not have a bias of this type and is thus not included.  You are trying to argue that the FBI counts every crime against a gay individual as an anti-homosexual crime... if this were true, then your point on need statistics on the perpetrators would be valid, but this is not how the statistics are reported, thus your point (not the statistics) is flawed.  Your stubborn denial of this is nothing more than an attempt to push your point of view into statistics which are neutral.  [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:48, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
*''anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual.''&lt;br /&gt;
:Wrong. Flawed.  A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals, and is not accounted for in FBI statistics, mandated by law.  And your premise underlies precisely ''why'' we cannot accept any further explanation regarding the FBI's flawed methodolgy, because it used to perpetrated a flawed popular misconception, that heterosexuals are solely responsible for anti-gay violence, which we have now '''clearly''' demonstrated, FBI statistics do not measure or account for.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:58, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::''A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals.''  If this is true, then of course I would agree that the statistics are seriously flawed.  From reading the report's methodology, it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported as a hate crime.  The report explains &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;&amp;quot;The FBI collects data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability and are committed against persons, property, or society. Because motivation is subjective, it is difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender’s bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime. If law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, then the incident should be reported as a hate crime.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Methodology. &amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/methodology.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   How do you think this happens?  Is the problem with police departments wrongly reporting normal crimes as hate crimes?  Can you provide some kind of reference that speaks to this?  Do you also believe that this is true for disabled people, blacks, etc. and that the hate crimes statistics for them are flawed?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;--The determination is based upon the discretion of the local investigating officer.  He is not mandated to discern the sexual orientation of the offender, only the offenders race.  Therein lies the statistical flaw.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And secondly, in what state, or in what federal law, are law enforcement agencies mandated to keep statistics of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships?  If we are to contemplate things such as so-called &amp;quot;gay marriage&amp;quot;, then what may be appropriate is to investigate the level of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships.  And I believe, it may be credibly proven, homosexual relationships suffer from a distinctly higher proportion of violence than heterosexual relationships -- and the law may as of now, not take any consideration of this in compiling statistics for us to make a judgmental value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, ''&amp;quot;it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported&amp;quot;''.  It makes no difference what the FBI's &amp;quot;intent&amp;quot; is, the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting.  Therein lies the problem, this legal mandate dictates a statistical and biased error in reporting, which likely is intended to lead the public to a faulty conclusion, i.e. that anti-homosexual violence is solely the responsibility of heterosexuals.  Given what I've stated above, if heterosexuals are to be responsible to insure against anti-homosexual violence, and if a disproportionate degree of reported &amp;quot;hate crimes&amp;quot; are perpetrated by homosexual offenders upon homosexuals, then the heterosexual community deserves accurate reporting on such, '''''before''''' heterosexuals are asked to pass judgment upon recognizing the legal validity of domestic, homosexual partnerships.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], when you say ''the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting'' it seems like you believe that the law requires '''all''' crimes against homosexuals to be reported as anti-homosexual hate crimes.  Do I have this right?  This is not my understanding of the law, and I think all our differences hinge on this one point.  If you are right, then I would agree with much of what you are saying - the FBI statistics would be virtually meaningless.  Or are you making a more nuanced argument?  Something like &amp;quot;police officers may mistakenly perceive any crime against a homosexual as a hate crime, especially if they do not determine the sexual orientation of the offender, thus they may include crimes in the statistics that do not belong there (for example gay-on-gay domestic violence crimes)&amp;quot;.  Am I getting closer to understanding you?  Either way, do you have any references to flesh out your concerns?  --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::As I've stated above, the investigating officer or agency must make a determination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Now, let's marry two threads here.  There has been extensive discussion on several pages about [[Homophobia]], and I believe I have effectively made the argument that many, if not most, &amp;quot;homophobes&amp;quot; who seek psychiatric treatment today are homosexual.  It would not be surprising given this, that there is a certain amount of gay-on-gay anti-homosexual violence, and much may be occurring in gay domestic relationships.  Or it could occur even randomly or anonymously in the gay lifestyle, that is to say a gay person, unhappy with himself for being attracted to members of the same sex, or blaming gays for making him attracted to them, vents his anger at himself and gays for being involved in the homosexual lifestyle.  None of these reporting statistics, mandated by law, be they &amp;quot;hate crime&amp;quot; stats, or domestic violence stats, allow for taking this into account.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I suggest moving all this junk to an article on hate crimes. It doesn't have much to do with homophobia. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:RobS|RobS]], I think I am starting to get your point.  You are saying (do I have this right?), that much of the violence that appears on the surface to be anti-homosexual hate crime is in fact perpetrated by homophobic gays.  I think this is an interesting point, and I don't have a problem with including it per se, however I don't think the article as it is currently written conveys this point well at all.  I think the best approach may be to have a factual paragraph about the FBI stats and then a paragraph putting forth your perspective.  I think that approach will make your points clearer to the reader, rather than having them buried in the stats paragraph.  Can you find some references that will allow us to say &amp;quot;some conservatives are concerned that&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;Such and such author has put forth the idea that&amp;quot; or whatever?  Because we will be able to write a stronger paragraph if it can be backed up with references.  I don't have time to work on this for the next few days, but will try to take a stab at it when I get a chance.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:48, 7 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References for Anti-homosexual violence discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;most common usage&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Though the term can be used for a variety of purposes, its most common usage is to criticize people opposed to homosexuality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I happen to think this statement is correct, or at least is correct as of the last few decades. But I'd like to see sources or evidence presented that confirms it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I think we've proven on this talk page several times over the meaning was corrupted from the git go; it was coined to impugn critics of the APA dropping homosexuality as a mental diagnosis, it has persisted, but the failure of legistlators to criminalize what was alleged to be a mental disturbance has led to the theraputic community dropping the term.  Its ''misuse'' has persisted in popular culture, largely because common people have not got the message that both the legal and threputic professions are dropping the term.  And lastly, the accepted theraputic use of the term was applied most often to homosexuals themselves.  In sum, popular usage never understood what it meant, and has always been misused. It is little more than an attack term, when it originally was invented to make people think opponents of the homosexual agenda were crazy, not criminal, as it is misued today.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::And the citable '''source''' that supports &amp;quot;criticism of people opposed to homosexuality&amp;quot; as its most common use is... what? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::&lt;br /&gt;
::::The term '''homophobia''' describes the aversion of a person to [[homosexuality]]. Unlike other pathopsychological [[phobia]]s (e.g. [[arachnaphobia]]=a fear of [[spider]]s) this phobia isn't primarily about avoiding contact, but the deliberate insulting, humiliation and symbolic annihilation of homosexuals.&lt;br /&gt;
::::Homophobia usually manifests itself through insults, humiliation, threats and violence directed at homosexuals and may also be directed at [[heterosexuals]] perceived to be homosexual by the perpetrator.&lt;br /&gt;
:&lt;br /&gt;
::::[[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]]&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, there are other uses. I happen to think the one here makes a lot of sense. [http://www.henrymakow.com/021101.html] Maybe, someday, we'll all be proud to be homophobic. I'd rather be homophobic than homos-xual any day. [[User:Mathers|Mathers]] 09:52, 19 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks. That kind of fits into the definition above. [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] 10:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I suggest using the definition provided by [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]]. It should start the article. It clealy describes an aversion of a person to [[homosexuality]] and not [[Homosexuals]] as individuals. It certainly doesn't imply that those who object to [[homosexuality]] on moral and religious grounds are being irrational, i.e., literally suffering from a [[mental illness]] but clearly states that the ''phobia'' isn't primarily about avoiding contact, so by the definition above, those who object to homosexuality on moral and religious grounds are are not homophobic if they don't deliberately insult, humiliate or  threaten violence towards homosexuals. They are simply condemning the sin not the sinner, or as some Christians put it ''hate the sin not the sinner''. The rest of the article could then describe how [[gay rights]] an [[liberal]] activists have perverted the meaning away from the objective one above.&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:BenDoune|BenDoune]] 07:31, 9 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::*''activists have perverted the meaning away from the objective''&lt;br /&gt;
::::*(a) This article documents how the term was created with the specific ''intent'' for the perverted meaning you refer to.&lt;br /&gt;
::::*(b) You are dealing with the same issue in [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]], i.e. a term the medical community does not recognize yet nonetheless has currency in the lay community for what is popularly beleived to be a medical condition.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the suggestion [[User:BenDoune|BenDoune]] and [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] is great. Carry on! [[User:RogerDailey|RogerDailey]] 13:33, 12 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Homophobia-phobia&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
This seems to be an unsourced personal essay or opinion by [[User:Jaques]]. No source is cited to show that this term has any significant degree of usage. Only 92 [http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;amp;rls=en&amp;amp;q=Homophobia-phobia&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;oe=UTF-8 Google hits] on the term (hits include both with and without the hyphen), a negligible number (compare 1,490,000 for ''homophobia,'' 34,900 for ''phobophobia'' (fear of fear), 29,200 for ''heterophobia'' (fear of heterosexuals), 14,900 for ''gamophobia'' (fear of marriage), 11,700 for ''theophobia'' (fear of God), 1310 for ''pantophobia'' (fear of everything). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophobia-Phobia===&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the fear of homophobia, some homsexuals develop a phobia of homophobes, and may become paranoid to the point that he/she believe everyone who dislike him/her or say anything negative about homosexuality is a homophobe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophobiaphobiaphobia===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A condition affecting homophobes who are too frightened to admit that they are homophobic because of widespread phobia against homophobes. Not an official mental condition yet but you heard it here first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Actully, Homophobiaphobiaphobia means people who are afraid of those homosexuals who are afraid of homophobes.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 01:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophilia===&lt;br /&gt;
Why hasn't this word been coined? It is technichally and mechanically the opposite of &amp;quot;Homophobia.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;homo&amp;quot; + &amp;quot;phobia&amp;quot; = &amp;quot;homophobia.&amp;quot; Since &amp;quot;Philia&amp;quot; is the literal and exact opposite of &amp;quot;Phobia&amp;quot; it should therefore follow that: &amp;quot;Homo&amp;quot; + &amp;quot;Philia&amp;quot; = &amp;quot;Homophilia.&amp;quot; If no one has any objections I would like to coin and use this word as is applicable.--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is nothing, as it means the same, apparently. Let's try to keep this as jargon free as possible. Oh, and FYI, please edit and sign your post, please.  Unsigned posts are removed. --[[User:TK|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Sysop-&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;TK]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 17:13, 1 July 2007 (EDT) &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;homophilia:&lt;br /&gt;
Another term for homosexuality , the condition in which love and lust are directed to persons of the same sex.  [http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/homophilia]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
okey-dokey--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:18, 1 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: So, if homosexuality=homophilia, homophobia is the opposite of homophilia, and homosexuality is the opposite of heterosexuality, that means heterosexuality=homophobia?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===snarl===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is a 'snarl' word please? [[User:MrSmith|MrSmith]] 16:30, 31 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, I never heard of it either. --[[User:SpudNolan|SpudNolan]] 15:37, 30 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was reading the article on [[Junk science]], and thought, what if I rewrite the definition of &amp;quot;Junk science&amp;quot; to something like this?&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;quot;The term '''junk science''' is a snarl word used by conservatives to verbally tar and feather anyone who dares to oppose a scientific theory (for example, global warming or evolution).&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
I guess that would get me banned in seconds.&lt;br /&gt;
Does anyone get my point? [[User:Eygar|Eygar]] 13:19, 1 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Eygar</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia&amp;diff=326006</id>
		<title>Talk:Homophobia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia&amp;diff=326006"/>
		<updated>2007-11-01T17:19:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Eygar: vs junk science&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{unprotected|1 May|RobS}}&lt;br /&gt;
Archive(s): &lt;br /&gt;
[[/archive 1|01]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[/archive 2|02]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-homosexual violence ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI only reports offender statistics by race; thus it is not possible to measure how much gay-on-gay or gay domestic union violence occurs versus homosexual victims of heterosexual offenders. '' &lt;br /&gt;
:The FBI hate crime statistics ONLY report offenses based on bias.  Domestic violence and other crimes where bias was not an element are not included in these statistics.  (See the various pages of the web site cited in the article.)  I'm not sure if the sentence above is trying to subtract crimes against homosexuals that did not involve bias from the 1171 number (which would not make sense, as all of the 1171 involved bias, otherwise they would not have been reported as hate crimes), or if it was an attempt to gauge how much of violence against homosexuals involves bias by comparing crimes that involve bias to crimes that don't.  Or perhaps it's something else?  I really don't understand what this section is trying to say.  [[User:RobS|RobS]], could you clarify your thinking?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Neither do the statistics include senior citizens, homeless, military personnel, or battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnant -- all known victim classes of hate crime attacks.''  &lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I agree that the FBI doesn't include in their hate crime statistics crimes that include bias against senior citizens, or bias against the homeless, or bias against military personnel, or bias against pregnant women.  They only include crimes that include bias based on race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, disability, and sexual orientation.  I'm not sure, though, why this is relevant?  And wouldn't it be clearer to simply list the categories that *are* included, rather than those which aren't?  Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see why crimes that include bias against senior citizens, for example, are relevant?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Violent crimes are defined as murder...&amp;lt;snip&amp;gt;...and other.  For the general population, the FBI reports a violent crime rate of 20 victims per 1000 US persons &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm Violent Crime Rates]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or 1 in 50 of the overall population. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Over the same time period there were over 32,000 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters reported in the general population.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States], by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005,Table 1. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;''&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I *think* what you are trying to say in this paragraph is that there aren't many hate crimes against homosexuals - do I have this right?  If so, I think you may be mixing apples and oranges here.  The hate crime statistics do not include *all* violent crimes against homosexuals - just those that include bias.  So if a homosexual man gets murdered by his lover because he was unfaithful, for example, it's not a hate crime, and thus will not be listed as an &amp;quot;anti-homosexual murder&amp;quot; in the hate crime statistics, but it *would* be considered a violent crime in the violent crime rate statistics.  Do you see what I mean? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:40, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hsmom, I could kiss you, I really could. Hell, here you go: ''mwah!'' RobS, however, is firmly in denial on this one. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 22:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I have followed her intelligent comments on [[homeschooling]], and I am with you there.  Well, at least, here: hsmom for sysop! [[User:Human|Human]] 22:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Aw shucks, thanks guys - and right before Mother's Day too.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The statistical flaw in the way the FBI compiles statistics, mandated by law, is it creates and defines a &amp;quot;victim class&amp;quot;; then it only defines &amp;quot;offenders&amp;quot; by race.  A classic example of &amp;quot;mixing apples and oranges&amp;quot;, as defined by law.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::[[User:RobS|RobS]], since you haven't answered my concerns here, I've made some changes to the article.  I'm sure you'll have some changes to what I wrote too - please try to add to it or adjust it rather than just reverting to the previous version.  Let's work together to find a version that is clear and well-cited and focuses on the topic at hand (homophobia).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I still do not understand what you think statistics on offender class would do.  I would like to understand your point of view here.  I'm guessing that most of the crimes that include racial bias would be done by someone of one race to someone of another, most of the crimes that include sexual-orientation bias would be done by someone of one orientation to someone of another, etc.  Do you have a different understanding of these crimes?  Can you give a hypothetical example?  I am trying to understand your point of view.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RobS|RobS]], I do not understand why you made changes to the article without explaining your thinking here.  The idea of the talk page is so that different editors can explain more fully their points of view, concerns, etc., so that other people editing the article can understand why certain edits have been made.  I would really like a fuller understanding of your concerns about the hate crime statistics, mainly because I do not think I have the same understanding as you about about which kinds of crimes are included.  I would very much like to understand your point of view about the limitations of the statistics.  Let me flesh out my current concerns about the article:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  I'm OK with this sentence.  (We could cite the number of incidences, or the number of victims, but offenses is fine with me.)  However, I think it's useful to get a sense of how many of the total hate crimes are based on sexual-orientation bias.  If you prefer not to have further information in the article itself, I think a footnote could clarify important points (such as  the fact that a few of these 1,171 offenses were actually anti-heterosexual.)  Thus I would add this reference &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm]  ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.  These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, ...''  Just a grammar detail here - I think it's important to be clear that race, religion, sexual orientation and disability ARE the victim classes / bias motivations, so I'd change it to ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability)..''.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''...the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.''  I'm still not sure I understand your point here.  The FBI also does not report the sexual orientation of victims.  Some but not all of the crimes motivated by sexual-orientation bias were anti-homosexual; a few were actually '''anti-heterosexual'''.  In addition, someone who is attacked because the attacker thinks they're gay may not in fact be gay.  However, the point of this whole section is to show that there are some people out there who take their views against homosexuality to the extreme of committing crimes, and to get a sense of how widespread this problem is.  The stats aren't a perfect fit for this purpose, so I think you're sensible to express some caveats about them.  I had expanded the caveats, but I would be fine with putting my expansion in the footnotes.  Thus I would add this footnote.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Thus a conclusion that all offenders are heterosexual is faulty, and the methodology does not measure gay-on-gay violence.'' I agree with this statement.  However, I would add to it a little bit to say ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias.''  I think some people mistakenly believe that any crime against a homosexual counts as a hate crime, and thus these statistics include ALL crimes against homosexuals, which is not the case.  There's a lot of misunderstanding about hate crimes, so I'd like to make it clear that incidences of violence against homosexuals that cannot be linked to bias based on sexual orientation (which would include most gay-on-gay violence) are not included in these statistics.  (These stats also include non-violent crime - I'm not sure if we should go into that here or not.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  First, let's be clear that this does NOT mean that only one homosexual person was murdered in 2004.  It means that there was one murder which was motivated in whole or in part by bias against homosexuals.  (It does not even mean that the victim was actually homosexual.)  So we need to say ''anti-homosexual '''hate crime''' murder''.  I think it's important to give the reader a context for this number - the fact is that relatively few hate crimes in general are murders.  By giving this number in the context of the total number of hate crime murders, the reader an get a better understanding of the situation.  (For example, if there had been 300 total hate crime murders with only one being anti-homosexual, that would be quite a different situation.)  In addition, ''...and the FBI has reported none since'' is a bit misleading, because there is only one more year of statistics available, those for 2005.  Still, we don't need to clutter up the article too much, so details can be given in the footnotes.  I think we should say something like ''In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism.  In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So the whole thing would read:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm]  ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.  These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability), the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.''  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias.  In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism.  In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RobS|RobS]], I hope that you will explain your concerns here, so that we can work together to improve this article, incorporating both of our concerns to make the best article possible.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Very simple: my edit points out (a) flawed methodolgy of FBI stats; (b) flawed popular misconceptions based upon flawed methodology; (c) flawed methodology is mandated by law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Recycling explanations of deliberate flawed statistics in hypertext does nothing, except serve the agenda of those promoting perversions in law to advance a biased agenda.  Please look up in the left hand corner of your screen.  You will see this Conservapedia.  Our mission is not to advance disinformation and subversion of our political process by alleging FBI statistics are credible to promote the obvious flawed conclusion, that anti-homoexual violence is perpetrated by hetrosexual offenders.  Our mission is quite the contrary.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:19, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You are either completely missing her point or steadfastly ignoring it.  FBI statistics report based on bias.  Thus, anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual.  A gay on gay attack does not have a bias of this type and is thus not included.  You are trying to argue that the FBI counts every crime against a gay individual as an anti-homosexual crime... if this were true, then your point on need statistics on the perpetrators would be valid, but this is not how the statistics are reported, thus your point (not the statistics) is flawed.  Your stubborn denial of this is nothing more than an attempt to push your point of view into statistics which are neutral.  [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:48, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
*''anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual.''&lt;br /&gt;
:Wrong. Flawed.  A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals, and is not accounted for in FBI statistics, mandated by law.  And your premise underlies precisely ''why'' we cannot accept any further explanation regarding the FBI's flawed methodolgy, because it used to perpetrated a flawed popular misconception, that heterosexuals are solely responsible for anti-gay violence, which we have now '''clearly''' demonstrated, FBI statistics do not measure or account for.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:58, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::''A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals.''  If this is true, then of course I would agree that the statistics are seriously flawed.  From reading the report's methodology, it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported as a hate crime.  The report explains &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;&amp;quot;The FBI collects data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability and are committed against persons, property, or society. Because motivation is subjective, it is difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender’s bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime. If law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, then the incident should be reported as a hate crime.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Methodology. &amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/methodology.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   How do you think this happens?  Is the problem with police departments wrongly reporting normal crimes as hate crimes?  Can you provide some kind of reference that speaks to this?  Do you also believe that this is true for disabled people, blacks, etc. and that the hate crimes statistics for them are flawed?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;--The determination is based upon the discretion of the local investigating officer.  He is not mandated to discern the sexual orientation of the offender, only the offenders race.  Therein lies the statistical flaw.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And secondly, in what state, or in what federal law, are law enforcement agencies mandated to keep statistics of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships?  If we are to contemplate things such as so-called &amp;quot;gay marriage&amp;quot;, then what may be appropriate is to investigate the level of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships.  And I believe, it may be credibly proven, homosexual relationships suffer from a distinctly higher proportion of violence than heterosexual relationships -- and the law may as of now, not take any consideration of this in compiling statistics for us to make a judgmental value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, ''&amp;quot;it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported&amp;quot;''.  It makes no difference what the FBI's &amp;quot;intent&amp;quot; is, the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting.  Therein lies the problem, this legal mandate dictates a statistical and biased error in reporting, which likely is intended to lead the public to a faulty conclusion, i.e. that anti-homosexual violence is solely the responsibility of heterosexuals.  Given what I've stated above, if heterosexuals are to be responsible to insure against anti-homosexual violence, and if a disproportionate degree of reported &amp;quot;hate crimes&amp;quot; are perpetrated by homosexual offenders upon homosexuals, then the heterosexual community deserves accurate reporting on such, '''''before''''' heterosexuals are asked to pass judgment upon recognizing the legal validity of domestic, homosexual partnerships.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], when you say ''the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting'' it seems like you believe that the law requires '''all''' crimes against homosexuals to be reported as anti-homosexual hate crimes.  Do I have this right?  This is not my understanding of the law, and I think all our differences hinge on this one point.  If you are right, then I would agree with much of what you are saying - the FBI statistics would be virtually meaningless.  Or are you making a more nuanced argument?  Something like &amp;quot;police officers may mistakenly perceive any crime against a homosexual as a hate crime, especially if they do not determine the sexual orientation of the offender, thus they may include crimes in the statistics that do not belong there (for example gay-on-gay domestic violence crimes)&amp;quot;.  Am I getting closer to understanding you?  Either way, do you have any references to flesh out your concerns?  --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::As I've stated above, the investigating officer or agency must make a determination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Now, let's marry two threads here.  There has been extensive discussion on several pages about [[Homophobia]], and I believe I have effectively made the argument that many, if not most, &amp;quot;homophobes&amp;quot; who seek psychiatric treatment today are homosexual.  It would not be surprising given this, that there is a certain amount of gay-on-gay anti-homosexual violence, and much may be occurring in gay domestic relationships.  Or it could occur even randomly or anonymously in the gay lifestyle, that is to say a gay person, unhappy with himself for being attracted to members of the same sex, or blaming gays for making him attracted to them, vents his anger at himself and gays for being involved in the homosexual lifestyle.  None of these reporting statistics, mandated by law, be they &amp;quot;hate crime&amp;quot; stats, or domestic violence stats, allow for taking this into account.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I suggest moving all this junk to an article on hate crimes. It doesn't have much to do with homophobia. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:RobS|RobS]], I think I am starting to get your point.  You are saying (do I have this right?), that much of the violence that appears on the surface to be anti-homosexual hate crime is in fact perpetrated by homophobic gays.  I think this is an interesting point, and I don't have a problem with including it per se, however I don't think the article as it is currently written conveys this point well at all.  I think the best approach may be to have a factual paragraph about the FBI stats and then a paragraph putting forth your perspective.  I think that approach will make your points clearer to the reader, rather than having them buried in the stats paragraph.  Can you find some references that will allow us to say &amp;quot;some conservatives are concerned that&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;Such and such author has put forth the idea that&amp;quot; or whatever?  Because we will be able to write a stronger paragraph if it can be backed up with references.  I don't have time to work on this for the next few days, but will try to take a stab at it when I get a chance.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:48, 7 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References for Anti-homosexual violence discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;most common usage&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Though the term can be used for a variety of purposes, its most common usage is to criticize people opposed to homosexuality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I happen to think this statement is correct, or at least is correct as of the last few decades. But I'd like to see sources or evidence presented that confirms it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I think we've proven on this talk page several times over the meaning was corrupted from the git go; it was coined to impugn critics of the APA dropping homosexuality as a mental diagnosis, it has persisted, but the failure of legistlators to criminalize what was alleged to be a mental disturbance has led to the theraputic community dropping the term.  Its ''misuse'' has persisted in popular culture, largely because common people have not got the message that both the legal and threputic professions are dropping the term.  And lastly, the accepted theraputic use of the term was applied most often to homosexuals themselves.  In sum, popular usage never understood what it meant, and has always been misused. It is little more than an attack term, when it originally was invented to make people think opponents of the homosexual agenda were crazy, not criminal, as it is misued today.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::And the citable '''source''' that supports &amp;quot;criticism of people opposed to homosexuality&amp;quot; as its most common use is... what? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::&lt;br /&gt;
::::The term '''homophobia''' describes the aversion of a person to [[homosexuality]]. Unlike other pathopsychological [[phobia]]s (e.g. [[arachnaphobia]]=a fear of [[spider]]s) this phobia isn't primarily about avoiding contact, but the deliberate insulting, humiliation and symbolic annihilation of homosexuals.&lt;br /&gt;
::::Homophobia usually manifests itself through insults, humiliation, threats and violence directed at homosexuals and may also be directed at [[heterosexuals]] perceived to be homosexual by the perpetrator.&lt;br /&gt;
:&lt;br /&gt;
::::[[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]]&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, there are other uses. I happen to think the one here makes a lot of sense. [http://www.henrymakow.com/021101.html] Maybe, someday, we'll all be proud to be homophobic. I'd rather be homophobic than homos-xual any day. [[User:Mathers|Mathers]] 09:52, 19 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks. That kind of fits into the definition above. [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] 10:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I suggest using the definition provided by [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]]. It should start the article. It clealy describes an aversion of a person to [[homosexuality]] and not [[Homosexuals]] as individuals. It certainly doesn't imply that those who object to [[homosexuality]] on moral and religious grounds are being irrational, i.e., literally suffering from a [[mental illness]] but clearly states that the ''phobia'' isn't primarily about avoiding contact, so by the definition above, those who object to homosexuality on moral and religious grounds are are not homophobic if they don't deliberately insult, humiliate or  threaten violence towards homosexuals. They are simply condemning the sin not the sinner, or as some Christians put it ''hate the sin not the sinner''. The rest of the article could then describe how [[gay rights]] an [[liberal]] activists have perverted the meaning away from the objective one above.&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:BenDoune|BenDoune]] 07:31, 9 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::*''activists have perverted the meaning away from the objective''&lt;br /&gt;
::::*(a) This article documents how the term was created with the specific ''intent'' for the perverted meaning you refer to.&lt;br /&gt;
::::*(b) You are dealing with the same issue in [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]], i.e. a term the medical community does not recognize yet nonetheless has currency in the lay community for what is popularly beleived to be a medical condition.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the suggestion [[User:BenDoune|BenDoune]] and [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] is great. Carry on! [[User:RogerDailey|RogerDailey]] 13:33, 12 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Homophobia-phobia&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
This seems to be an unsourced personal essay or opinion by [[User:Jaques]]. No source is cited to show that this term has any significant degree of usage. Only 92 [http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;amp;rls=en&amp;amp;q=Homophobia-phobia&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;oe=UTF-8 Google hits] on the term (hits include both with and without the hyphen), a negligible number (compare 1,490,000 for ''homophobia,'' 34,900 for ''phobophobia'' (fear of fear), 29,200 for ''heterophobia'' (fear of heterosexuals), 14,900 for ''gamophobia'' (fear of marriage), 11,700 for ''theophobia'' (fear of God), 1310 for ''pantophobia'' (fear of everything). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophobia-Phobia===&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the fear of homophobia, some homsexuals develop a phobia of homophobes, and may become paranoid to the point that he/she believe everyone who dislike him/her or say anything negative about homosexuality is a homophobe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophobiaphobiaphobia===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A condition affecting homophobes who are too frightened to admit that they are homophobic because of widespread phobia against homophobes. Not an official mental condition yet but you heard it here first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Actully, Homophobiaphobiaphobia means people who are afraid of those homosexuals who are afraid of homophobes.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 01:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophilia===&lt;br /&gt;
Why hasn't this word been coined? It is technichally and mechanically the opposite of &amp;quot;Homophobia.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;homo&amp;quot; + &amp;quot;phobia&amp;quot; = &amp;quot;homophobia.&amp;quot; Since &amp;quot;Philia&amp;quot; is the literal and exact opposite of &amp;quot;Phobia&amp;quot; it should therefore follow that: &amp;quot;Homo&amp;quot; + &amp;quot;Philia&amp;quot; = &amp;quot;Homophilia.&amp;quot; If no one has any objections I would like to coin and use this word as is applicable.--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is nothing, as it means the same, apparently. Let's try to keep this as jargon free as possible. Oh, and FYI, please edit and sign your post, please.  Unsigned posts are removed. --[[User:TK|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Sysop-&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;TK]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 17:13, 1 July 2007 (EDT) &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;homophilia:&lt;br /&gt;
Another term for homosexuality , the condition in which love and lust are directed to persons of the same sex.  [http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/homophilia]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
okey-dokey--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:18, 1 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===snarl===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is a 'snarl' word please? [[User:MrSmith|MrSmith]] 16:30, 31 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, I never heard of it either. --[[User:SpudNolan|SpudNolan]] 15:37, 30 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was reading the article on [[Junk science]], and thought, what if I rewrite the definition of &amp;quot;Junk science&amp;quot; to something like this?&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;quot;The term '''junk science''' is a snarl word used by conservatives to verbally tar and feather anyone who dares to oppose a scientific theory (for example, global warming or evolution).&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
I guess that would get me banned in seconds.&lt;br /&gt;
Does anyone get my point? [[User:Eygar|Eygar]] 13:19, 1 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Eygar</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Disease&amp;diff=325924</id>
		<title>Disease</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Disease&amp;diff=325924"/>
		<updated>2007-11-01T14:51:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Eygar: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''disease''' is an condition where the [[body]] does not function correctly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Diseases have often been believed to be a [[punishment]] from [[God]], but in modern times, most diseases are explained through [[medicine]]. The disease is caused by the body being overwhelmed by [[toxic]] substances beyond its ability to eliminate them in a normal way. Toxic materials may accumulate from unexpelled body wastes that are generated as a part of metabolism or from external materials that are ingested and retained due to the body's inability to eliminate them.  Disease also refers to [[bacteria]]l and viral infections of the body.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The etymology of the word comes from the English ''dis-ease''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:health]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Eygar</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Prime_number&amp;diff=324752</id>
		<title>Prime number</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Prime_number&amp;diff=324752"/>
		<updated>2007-10-30T00:09:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Eygar: more on unique factorization&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Prime numbers''' are those [[natural number]]s that are divisible by only 1 and itself.   The only even prime number is 2.  There is no upper limit to the quantity of primes, but there is no known formula for deriving the nth prime.  [[Leonhard Euler]] once commented: &amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
''Mathematicians have tried in vain to this day to discover some order in the sequence of prime numbers, and we have reason to believe that it is a mystery into which the mind will never penetrate.''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The probability that a random integer N is prime is roughly 1/ln(N), where ln(N) is the natural logarithm (base ''e'') of N.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/primes.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  This is a formulation of a more general statement known as the [[prime number theorem]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Prime Numbers==&lt;br /&gt;
The smallest prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13... .  An example of a [[composite number]] is 6, which is evenly divisible by both 2 and 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is easy to prove that there are an infinite number of primes using [[Euclid's second theorem]].  If there were a finite number of primes, you could multiply them all together and add 1.  The resulting number would show the existence of a new prime, since it would not be divisible by any smaller prime (it would always have a remainder of 1).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To construct a table of all prime numbers less than ''n'', you would use a method called the [[Sieve of Eratosthenes]].  Simply write down an ordered list of all counting numbers greater than 1.  Beginning with 2*2 = 4, cross out every second number:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:2 3 &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt; 5 &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt; 7 &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt; 9 &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt; 11 ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
then beginning with 3*3 = 9 cross out every third number:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:2 3 &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt; 5 &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt; 7 &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;8 9 10&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt; 11 ...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beginning with 5*5 = 25, cross out every fifth number, then repeat for the primes 7, 11, 13, etc. until &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sqrt{n}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Unique Factorization==&lt;br /&gt;
According to the [[fundamental theorem of arithmetic]], proven by [[Carl Friedrich Gauss]], states that every positive integer has a unique factorization into prime numbers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This means that every integer larger than 1, can be expressed as a product of one or more [[prime|primes]] in one unique way. For example, 132 = 2 * 2 * 3 * 11. There is no other product of primes that equals 132.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no effective algorithm for finding a certain integer's unique factorization, and finding the prime factors for large numbers can take considerable time (millions of years) even with the most advanced computers. This is referred to as the prime factorization problem, and it is believed to be NP-complete.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Primality testing==&lt;br /&gt;
To determine whether a number is prime, you can use the trial division method, provided the number you are testing is not too large.  Let ''N'' be the number being tested and ''s'' be its square root.  Divide ''N'' by each number in the prime table, beginning with 2.  If there is no remainder, stop--N is composite.  Otherwise, test again with the next largest prime in the table.  If the next largest prime is greater than ''s'', stop--''N'' is prime. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For larger values of ''N'', a method based on Fermat's theorem can be used, though it usually requires a computer.  Start with the number 1, and double it ''N-1'' times.  Divide this number by ''N'', keeping only the remainder.  If the remainder is greater than 1, ''N'' is composite.  Unfortunately, the converse is not true--if the remainder is 1, ''N'' is ''probably'' prime, but not necessarily.  Algorithms which improve on this method exist, and primality testing is today an active subject of mathematical research.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Largest Known Prime==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The largest known prime is ''2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;32582657&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;-1''; it was discovered by the '''Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search''' ('''GIMPS''')&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mersenne.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, a distributed computing project launched by George Woltman in early 1996.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://primes.utm.edu/largest.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mersenne Prime==&lt;br /&gt;
A '''Mersenne prime''' is a prime number ''M'' that is of the form ''M =  2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;n&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; − 1'', where ''n'' is some [[prime number]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MersennePrime.html Mersenne Prime] from Wolfram&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  As of April, 2007, only 44 Mersenne Primes have been found.  The largest known prime ''2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;32582657&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;-1'', is a Mersenne Prime.  The concept of a Mersenne Prime was discovered by the French theologian, philosopher and mathematician [[Marin Mersenne]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Riemann hypothesis==&lt;br /&gt;
Most mathematicians believe a proof of the [[Riemann hypothesis]] is the best hope for discovering some pattern in the distribution of prime numbers.  ''The Clay Mathematics Institute'' has offered a one million dollar prize for a proof of the Riemann hypothesis.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann_Hypothesis/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Cryptography==&lt;br /&gt;
The security of [[public-key cryptography]] schemes such as [[RSA]] depend on the difficulty of prime factorization, if a pattern in the distribution of prime numbers is discovered, then such cryptographic schemes could become vulnerable to attack.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
:[http://www.mersenne.org/ ''Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search'' project website]&lt;br /&gt;
:[http://primes.utm.edu/ Prime Number resource Archieve]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Mathematics]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Eygar</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Integer&amp;diff=324749</id>
		<title>Integer</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Integer&amp;diff=324749"/>
		<updated>2007-10-30T00:04:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Eygar: unique factorization&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;An '''integer''' is any whole number, positive, negative, or 0.  More precisely, the set of all integers consists of all natural numbers {1, 2, 3, 4, ...}, their negatives {-1, -2, -3, -4, ...} and 0.  A formal definition is that it is the only [[integral domain]] whose positive elements are well ordered and in which order is preserved by addition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An integer is a term that describes the amount of something. An integer may be even (divisible by two) or odd (not divisible by two), positive (more than nothing) or negative (less than nothing), whole (undivided) or fractional (divided into smaller parts), and various other classifications, such as prime (only divisible by itself and one).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every integer larger than 1 has one unique [[prime]] factorizarion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some examples of integers: 1, 10/5, 98058493, -87, -3/3, the square root of 9, and 0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following numbers are not integers: 5/10, the square root of -9, 8.75, and [[pi]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:mathematics]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Eygar</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Metallica&amp;diff=324735</id>
		<title>Metallica</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Metallica&amp;diff=324735"/>
		<updated>2007-10-29T23:55:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Eygar: their main genre is thrash metal, not heavy metal&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Metallica''' is an American [[thrash metal]]/[[heavy metal]] band known for establishing the thrash metal genre along with [[Slayer]], [[Megadeth]], and [[Anthrax]] known as the &amp;quot;Big Four.&amp;quot;  First formed in 1981, in Los Angeles by James Hetfield and drummer Lars Ulrich&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.metallica.com/Band/history.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, they have become one of the most popular in-concert bands while selling about 90 million total records.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artist/2q8c/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They have released a total of eight studio albums, the most well known being &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;Ride the Lightning&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;, &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;Master of Puppets&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;, and &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;Metallica&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; and plan to release a ninth in February, 2008&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.metallica.com/index.asp?item=14828&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Bands]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Eygar</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Four_Horsemen&amp;diff=324732</id>
		<title>Four Horsemen</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Four_Horsemen&amp;diff=324732"/>
		<updated>2007-10-29T23:53:14Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Eygar: metallica reference&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The '''Four Horsemen''' were four [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] Justices during the 1932-1937 terms of the Court, during the Administration of President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]. These four Justices were [[Pierce Butler]], [[James McReynolds]], [[George Sutherland]] and [[Willis Van Devanter]].  In the middle of the Court were Chief Justice [[Charles Evans Hughes]] and Justice [[Owen J. Roberts]].  On the [[liberal]] side were Justices [[Louis Brandeis]], [[Benjamin Cardozo]], and [[Harlan Fiske Stone]],  Hughes often sided with the liberals, while Roberts often agreed with the Four Horsemen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Court unanimously invalidated the [[National Industrial Recovery Act]] in May 1935.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States'', 295 U.S. 495 (1935)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  But the following fall, the [[liberal]] Justices moved in favor of upholding other aspects of the [[New Deal]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Four Horsemen, together with Roberts and Hughes, invalidated key parts of the [[New Deal]] during the 1935 term.  They struck down the [[Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''United States v. Butler'', 297 U.S. 1 (1936)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; regulations of the [[coal]] industry,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Carter v. Carter Coal'', 298 U.S. 238 (1936)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and the New York [[minimum wage]] law for women and children. and in , the Four together with Roberts voided legislation regulating the coal industry, and the same line-up voided a New York minimum wage law for women and children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Morehead v. New York'', 298 U.S. 587 (1936)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Four Horsemen were known to commute to the Court together as they worked out their arguments. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
President Roosevelt's response was to propose his [[court-packing scheme]], which Congress and the American public rejected.  This cost Roosevelt much in the way of credibility.  But the retirement of Van Devanter in June 1937 and President Roosevelt's replacement of him by the liberal Justice [[Hugo Black]] terminated the power of the Four Horsemen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other uses==&lt;br /&gt;
''Revelation 6:1-8'' describes four horsemen who will ride a white, red, black, and &amp;quot;pale&amp;quot; horse respectively, and are often said to refer to [[pestilence]], [[war]], [[famine]], and [[death]]. They are often referred to as &amp;quot;the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.&amp;quot; Ronnie, the Fifth Horseman, however, left before the group became famous and now works as a milkman. He is ''always'' on time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A popular movie of 1921, &amp;quot;[[The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse]],&amp;quot; which starred [[Rudolph Valentino]], may have popularized this particular phrasing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Four stars of the Notre Dame football team in the 1920s were referred to as the &amp;quot;Four Horsemen.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 1984 song by American [[Thrash metal]] band [[Metallica]] is called &amp;quot;The Four Horsemen&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: United States History]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Eygar</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Olivia_Newton-John&amp;diff=324728</id>
		<title>Olivia Newton-John</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Olivia_Newton-John&amp;diff=324728"/>
		<updated>2007-10-29T23:45:58Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Eygar: removing irrelevant (imho) links, correcting album info&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Onejo.jpg|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Olivia Newton-John''' (1948 - ) born in [[Cambridge]], [[England]], is an English-born [[Australia]]n singer, songwriter and actress. She is most known for starring in the hit film musical ''[[Grease]]'' with [[John Travolta]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Her 1981 record ''&amp;quot;Physical&amp;quot;'' was her most successful studio album, going double platinum.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Newton-John is a breast cancer survivor, and an cancer awareness activist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Links==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000556/ IMDB database]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Newton-John, Olivia}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Actresses]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Musicians]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Eygar</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glass&amp;diff=324718</id>
		<title>Glass</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glass&amp;diff=324718"/>
		<updated>2007-10-29T23:20:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Eygar: mention of quartz sand&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Glass is an inorganic product of fusion that has cooled to a rigid state without crystallizing.  According to the Center for Glass Research at the New York State College of Ceramics at Alfred University:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://cgr.alfred.edu/facts.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Glass is typically hard and brittle and has a [[conchoidal]] fracture.&lt;br /&gt;
*A glass may be colorless or colored. It is usually transparent, but may be made translucent or opaque.&lt;br /&gt;
*When a specific kind of glass is indicated, such descriptive terms as flint glass, barium glass, and window glass should be used following the basic definition, but the qualifying term is to be used as understood by trade custom.&lt;br /&gt;
*Objects made of glass are loosely and popularly referred to as glass; such as glass for a tumbler, a barometer, a window, a magnifier, or a mirror.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Is Glass Solid or Liquid?==&lt;br /&gt;
There are four basic states of matter: [[solid]], [[liquid]], [[gas]], and [[plasma]].  In a solid, molecules are ordered in a structured way, called a lattice.  In a liquid, molecules are disordered and they are not rigidly bound.  In a glass, however, we have the unique characteristic of a solid whose molecules are not ordered yet they are still rigidly bound.  This situation has caused some chemists to refer to glass as a &amp;quot;supercooled liquid&amp;quot; rather than a solid.  This would be a different state of matter than, say, freezing water; as water passes below the freezing point and becomes ice it forms a crystal and exhibits the properties of a standard crystalline solid.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Manufacture==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glass is produced industrially by melting a mixture of calcium carbonate (limestone), sodium carbonate (soda), and silicon dioxide, which is a major component of sand. Quartz sand, which is rich in silicon dioxide, is the most commonly used type of sand. The subsequent product, once cooled, is glass.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:industry]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Eygar</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>