Any idiot with a keyboard can make a Wikipedia entry/edit. Wiki is not a valid source.

See for those of us with the intelligence and cognitive capacity to "read between the lines", that IS quite an f'd up thing to say to an individual.
I understand from previous exchanges that you indicated things have to be "specifically" stated for you to understand them, so for you to infer hat there were other meaning behind what was said, once again shows you are either lying about not understanding the decidedly anti homosexual bent of the Bible, or you are just a liar. Or you could just be stupid...But that would be mean to say. I'll stick with liar.

oh, brother ... you must be the only person who feels that I'm incapable of writing exactly what I mean. Most people find my words to be quite straight forward and clear.

And, weren't YOU the one yesterday (or the day before) whining because people were reading things into your posts that you didn't write?

pot meet kettle

I'm confused by your post

Are you implying that there are words that aren't/weren't made up?!

Did they just come about by osmosis?

That wasn't my point. I was merely showing that it HAS been coined before.
Maybe I should have specifically stated that. Instead of relying on the intelligence of the reader to understand. It looks like that "specifically say" disease is running rampant here.

No I said that THAT word, was coined in 1965, by a professor who thought it up without any consideration for it being grammatically correct or really making much real sense. Just like heterophobia. Here's a nice little ditty with a very c@p able section.
Is there such a thing as homophobia?
We have all heard it used countless times but does this word, homophobia, have any actual meaning? I believe that it does not; at least in the sense in which it is commonly used. It is rarely applied to those who actually fears homosexuals. Most often it is administered as an epithet to anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda or finds humor in their disposition and lifestyle.
One can be called a homophobe nowadays due to asking questions like, “So what exactly is the point of this parade?” or “What are you guys proud of here?” Just by asking a few questions (of which there are no easy answers) one can receive the same generic label that was applied to the vile murderers of Matthew Shepard. It has been my personal experience that merely disagreeing with some of the more vehement gay activists results in one quickly being grouped into an axis of hate. It doesn’t seem to matter what the specifics of the argument happen to be as, regardless of what you say, they’ll trolley out the same stale, cookie-cutter, accusation of homophobia. Perhaps if they changed the name of their insult to “gaytotalitarianaphobe” there might be some merit to their claims.

I realize vagueness and hyperbole are two of your debating tools but some of us prefer accuracy. We're kinda quirky like that.

What's vague? Especially THIS far down in the discussion? My intent should be crystal clear by now. If you don't understand heterophobia as I used it in my post, I can't help but come to the conclusion you are missing a few brain cells.

it was understood

and rejected