"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message news:FjM%

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
I doubt that there are any homophobes, but too many
activists use the term to describe anyone who is not a homosexual.

...Please cite a single documented instance
anywhere of an activist using the term "homophobe" to describe "anyone
who
is not a homosexual"

I don't think you'll find any.

That was my point; thank you.

The term "homophobe" has been usurped by
homosexual activists to refer to anyone who does not specifically support
the homosexual activist agenda;

"Usurped"? The word was coined by gay activists; it had no prior usage to
usurp. (Yes, the term is used in reference to those who oppose an
equal-rights agenda, even if those opponents are not literally fearful.)

...an explicitly
anti-gay agenda--that is, an agenda that denies gay people a variety of
rights that are taken for granted by straight people

No, an anti-homosexual agenda would be one that actively and aggressively
persecutes that group, which is not happening in any sort of general way.

I see. So if blacks or Jews were excluded by law from marrying or from
serving openly in the military, that would not qualify as an anti-black or
anti-Jewish agenda, because it would not constitute an "active and
aggressive persecution" of those groups "in any general sort of way"?

Homosexuals that are US citizens
have the same guaranteed rights as all citizens of the US.
Privileges,
benefits, and other desirable sorts of positionings not guaranteed to
anyone...
That is the debate currently
ongoing, a part of which I support. But, for God's sake, you serve no
cause
well by *******izing the language and redefining terms to suit your
purpose.

I'm using the terms "rights" and "anti-" with regard to gays exactly as
those terms are used in reference to all other groups. I submit that you
are the one who is redefining the terms in unusual ways.

--Gary