No, you're using words wrongly and not in a way I'm familiar with. Still, Shaker's put you right. You'll know for the future.
The fact that you, or anyone here isn't familiar with the way a word is used, doesn't make its use wrong. For instance, a prize example of what you are getting at is the word 'homophobia'. This was coined by supporters of gay rights in the late 1960s as a way of making out that people feared homosexuals, thus making out that they had mental condition. More recently, in his 1980 book "
Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: Gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, John Boswell cited the etymology of homophobia - the union of
homos and
phobos - as the basis for his criticism of the term and for his suggestion in 1980 of the alternative
homosexophobia. Then, again in 1980, in their article "
A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality 5. pp. 357–72. doi:10.1300/J082v05n04_02. ISSN 0091-8369. OCLC 115532547. PMID 7204951, Hudson and Ricketts coined the term homonegativism for their research in order to avoid homophobia, which they regarded as being unscientific in its presumption of motivation.
Down the decades thare have been other attempts to do away with the term, because of its lack of clarity and/or clinical validity.
As for your 'body of evidence' bollockery, let me help you out. We don't need one for 'heterosexual relationships' or 'homosexual relationships', just 'relationships', the benefits of which are self-evident. There is no distinction that needs to be made.
OK, perhaps you want to let Gordon and one or two of the others know this. I have been asked by such folk to present evidence for the validity of heterosexual relationships. Furthermore, there must necessarily be a body of evidence to support the claim by the likes of Shakes that 'homosexual relationships' are acceptable.
In other words, I'm simply using the terminology that I am being challenged with.
Finally, since hoo-l relationships have a host of differences to hetero- ones - biologically, psychologically, etc - I'm not sure that one can legitimately bundle them into the same category.
