On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:07:21 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:


That's also just plain silly. I stand with Gary in his challenge to you.
Document a *single* use of the term "homophobe" to describe "anyone who is
not a homosexual" (i.e. all heterosexuals). It's never been used in such a
broad way.

I think he overstated the case. However, I once took an opportunity to
explain to a (verifiably heterosexual) coworker the details about a
"marriage protection act" under consideration at the Kentucky state
assembly and senate in 1997. (No need to get into it, it resembled
California's Knight Initiative, Prop. 22, I think it was)

I read the summary text of the bill, whereupon he said, "Homophobes!"
and turned away from the conversation.

Of course, no further conversation was possible, because he tossed out
the label describing all the people who might support that bill for
any reason. They were all simply sub-human to him.

That's not as broad a use of the term as C J said, but it is a
remarkably unfair and fallacious brush to use when discussing the
issue.

"Homophobe" and "Heterophobe" are both too easily used as labels of
hatred, as far as I am concerned.

Rob