Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (22786)	8/17/2001 3:59:34 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I agree. One can have an anti-gay agenda for any of a number of reasons. They can be personal, religious, irrational, carefully thought out, or perhaps merely to prevent another group from gaining protected status ahead of one's own group. I still don't know exactly what Poet meant when she used the term, and so far she's refused to return to define it for us.

To: Bill who wrote (22786)	8/17/2001 4:09:04 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

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