If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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). |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
There is a great article in the latest New Yorker on the subject. Yes, regretting that liberals don't have an equivalent of Rush Limbaugh--rather forgetting that they've got Heinrich Hertzburg, whose hate-filled diatribes about Bush occupy the leading article in Talk of the Town most every week. The funniest thing about lefties is that they truly believe they're moderates. How many times have you read in the New Yorker or New York Times about right-wing Republicans (answer: most every issue), and how many times about left-wing Democrats (answer: never)? 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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
According to my dictionary, homophobe came into existence (ie: was
made up) in 1975. It literally means fear of homosexuality. Perhaps it's an appropriate term for those showing hatred for gays, but I never did understand the way it is usually applied to anyone who has an opinion that's not 100% supportive of gays. It has always seemed to me that the gay community would have less opposition if they didn’t use that term so broadly. It’s quite interesting to see the response to the combination heterophobe. -- Gene Seibel Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html Because I fly, I envy no one. We should be cautious about posting anything on these news groups. There is no way of convincing the mentally ill that airplanes are not a threat to them, so arguing with them is futile. At worst, somebody in these groups could find out about the rec.aviation news groups. This is a serious matter. rec.scouting.usa, for example, has been completely hijacked by heterophobes and is virtually useless for discussing Scouting. We would not want that to happen here. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Question About Newsgroups | RST Engineering | General Aviation | 1 | January 17th 05 05:59 PM |
Re; What do you think? | Kelsibutt | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 29th 03 06:55 AM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Home Built | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Owning | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |