Still, "anti-gay-agenda" has nothing to do with "homophobia" IMO.
This thread sure is putting a lot of energy into definitions. Perhaps that's an avoidance technique.
I agree with you, which is why I offered bigot. I think it's important to separate prejudice against any group from advocacy of the group's agenda. We often fail to do that. Politically, groups tend to want attribute prejudice to what is merely non-support of their agenda. Racist is used inappropriately, IMO, a lot.
Prejudice: <<c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics>>
I have seen people who are probably true homophobes. I've seen people physically react--get the "creeps" or feel sick to their stomachs at the prospect of being around gays. I don't mind using that label, though, to apply to those who are merely prejudiced against gays, if for no other reason than that there's not a better word. If a person reacts more than a quick blink of the eye to the news that the person who bought the house next door or is moving into the next office is gay, I'd say that person was prejudiced. I don't care if his reaction was caused by suppressed homo-erotic feelings or his church's teachings. I don't find such prejudice acceptable.
Karen |
