About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
| "C J Campbell" wrote in message
| ...
| rec.scouting.usa, for example, has been completely hijacked by
| heterophobes
|
| Heterophobes? Somehow, I doubt that. Sounds like a term made up by
| homophobes.
|
|

Heterophobe is intended to be a response to the defamatory and over-used
term homophobe. I doubt that there are any homophobes, but too many
activists use the term to describe anyone who is not a homosexual.

"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.

What a ludicrous accusation. Please cite a single documented instance
anywhere of an activist using the term "homophobe" to describe "anyone who
is not a homosexual" (as opposed to describing those with 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).

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

...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. The term "homophobe" has been usurped by
homosexual activists to refer to anyone who does not specifically support
the homosexual activist agenda; fear of homosexuals (which is what the word
means) has nothing to do with it. In similar fashion, the words "gay" and
"holocaust" have been pre-empted to apply to groups or events that have no
connection whatsoever with the meaning of the word in use.


...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.
Rights are not granted, they simply exist, and are enumerated by our
founding documents and subsequent laws. 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
may be earned, or granted, or withdrawn by governments, agencies, employers,
schools, clubs, or organizations, etc., based on that group's perception of
the greater good for the society as a whole. 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.

JG

"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

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:56:09 GMT, "Gary L. Drescher"
wrote:

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.

Its original usage was to describe those people and groups who feared
a homosexual because of what he or she "is". The bitter hateful
criminals who murdered Matthew Shepard, for example, were "homophobes"
under that usage.

Today, however, (and I think this really began almost as soon as the
word was coined) one sees the label thrown out in order to stop
someone from taking a chance to reason about an issue involving
homosexuals, gay marriage, military service, or whatever happens to be
the issue of the day. No tolerance of that opposing viewpoint seems
acceptable among many gay activists, and among those people who agree
with them, all of whom would rather call you a "homophobe" than
respect the right you might have, for example, to assemble with
like-thinking people in a public place, to respect the right you might
have to *say* why you think a multimillenial and multicultural
institution should not be changed, or, most importantly, to actually
listen to your side of the issue.

It's happened to me once or twice, but thankfully not around here on
RAP. With a single unnamed exception I've only met reasonable people
here.

Rob, who thinks the "left-right" political division is a false and
damaging dichotomy

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

...if blacks or Jews were excluded by law from marrying or from
serving openly in the military,

Two entirely separate issues. If we awoke tomorrow morning and the entire
world population were Black, or the entire world population were Jewish,
lots of people would be "____________" (fill in your own response). But
ultimately, the world would carry on. If, on the other hand, we awoke
tomorrow morning and the entire world population were homosexual, in the
routine course of events the human race would cease to exist within one to
two centuries. Therein lies the crux of the issue that makes it such a
thorny one to debate. And the more difficult and crucial the issue of
debate, the more important it is that language be used accurately and
impartially, insofar as possible.


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.

I disagree. Rights are one thing, benefits another. Over the last thirty
years or so many groups have succeeded in turning certain government
benefits into perceived "rights", but the fact is that most people realize
what a base canard that really is. The "anti-" prefix is used by many
groups for a variety of purposes. It seems to be generally used by
homosexual activists to denote not only persons who are specifically opposed
to their agenda, but also persons who do not specifically support their
agenda. These are two very different positions, and it is a basic
innacuracy to characterize them this way. It is done, I believe,
intentionally. The language is the language, and twisting it to your
purposes does not change anything, or serve you well in the long run.

JG

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

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

...if blacks or Jews were excluded by law from marrying or from
serving openly in the military,

Two entirely separate issues. If we awoke tomorrow morning and the entire
world population were Black, or the entire world population were Jewish,
lots of people would be "____________" (fill in your own response). But
ultimately, the world would carry on. If, on the other hand, we awoke
tomorrow morning and the entire world population were homosexual, in the
routine course of events the human race would cease to exist within one to
two centuries.

First of all, that's not at all true. Gay people frequently reproduce
(either the old-fashioned way, or by less intimate techniques), and would
presumably do so a lot more if everyone woke up gay tomorrow. People would
not stop reproducing, although *unintended* reproduction would certainly
plummit. Reproduction as an accidental side-effect of sexual desire is a
survival-necessity only for a species that can't figure out where babies
come from. If all *chipmunks* were gay, their species would indeed be in
trouble; but humans could do fine.

Secondly, even if (contrary to fact) it were true that universal
homosexuality would lead to human extinction, how would that bear even
remotely on the question of equal rights before the law back here in
reality? By analogy, if everyone were sterile, then humanity would soon be
extinct; but people who are sterile (whether voluntarily or involuntarily)
are not (and should not be) denied equal access to marriage or to the
military.

Therein lies the crux of the issue that makes it such a
thorny one to debate.

You'll have to state the problem more explicitly; it's eluding me
completely. It almost sounds like you're afraid that there's such a strong
natural preference for being gay that unless it's held in check by legal
barriers to equality, everyone will become gay and stop reproducing. Look,
when some men have vascetomies, you don't worry about what would happen to
the human race if *every* male had a vasectomy. Why, similarly, is there
any reason to be concerned about what would happen if everyone became gay?
There's not the remotest chance of everyone doing either thing, so what on
earth does either imaginary scenario have to do with legal rights in the
real world?

And the more difficult and crucial the issue of
debate, the more important it is that language be used accurately and
impartially, insofar as possible.

I concur. But we differ as to what usage is in fact acurrate.

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.

I disagree. Rights are one thing, benefits another. Over the last thirty
years or so many groups have succeeded in turning certain government
benefits into perceived "rights", but the fact is that most people realize
what a base canard that really is.

You have not yet explained why excluding blacks and Jews from marriage or
the military would be anti-black and anti-Jewish, and a denial of their
rights, yet excluding gays from those institutions is supposedly not
anti-gay, nor a violation of their rights. You cited a purported difference
having to do with a bizarre imaginary scenario, but so far you've offered no
explanation as to how that difference bears in any way on rights, or on the
"anti-" prefix, or on any other aspect of the real world.

--Gary


JG

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
[...] If, on the other hand, we awoke
tomorrow morning and the entire world population were homosexual, in the
routine course of events the human race would cease to exist within one to
two centuries. Therein lies the crux of the issue that makes it such a
thorny one to debate.

So I suppose you believe that no one that is unable to reproduce should be
allowed to marry? Marriage is a benefit that should be granted only to
those people who are creating new humans themselves?

You may well hold that belief, but IMHO sexual reproduction is a red herring
and irrelevant to the question of marriage rights.

Pete

Gary & Peter....
You both make my point for me, and quite well, thank you very much. I took
no position as to whether homosexuals ought or ought not be granted the
benefits of legally sanctioned marriage, or military membership, or any
other position. I offered an opinion and explanation as to why I see this
issue as one so difficult and convolute as to warrant a most careful and
accurate use of language. You both impute to me opinions and positions I
did not state, thus demonstrating and supporting my premise in far better
fashion than could any continued debate. Q.E.D.

JG

Actually, the suffix "phobe" has long been used to mean "hate" rather
than "fear".

Vide Anglophile for a lover of things British, and Anglophobe for one
who disdains them.

Or in the current political climate, Francophile and Francophobe.
(Oops! I almost typed Francophone, which is a chevaux of another
color.)

For pretty obvious reasons, the pejorative Homophobe isn't matched by
its logical opposite, Homophile.

But you're right: the word has been hijacked to suit a political or
social agenda. I immediately tune out anyone who uses "homophobe",
since it's a nonsense term anyhow. Homo of course means same, as in
homogenized or homonym; it has nothing to do with "man" as many seem
to assume--a matter of Greek derivation, not Latin. So Homophobe would
have to mean a fear or hatred of people just like oneself, just as
Homosexual means a sexual attraction to people of the same sex as
oneself.

End of English lesson. Regard it as thanks for all the flight lessons
I have received here.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com