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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (10953)	4/26/2002 1:23:53 PM
From: E	Respond to of 21057

I have a problem with the co-opting of the word "homophobe" for all negative reactions to homosexuality. It's complex, because I do suspect that most of the determination to discriminate does come from fear. But I don't see the evidence that all of it does, and so don't see the justification, except a socio-political agenda one, for calling all discriminatory positions, or biased individuals, "homophobic." I think the broadening of the application of a word connoting fear to other stances and motivations is a manifestation of PC. It says that if a person expresses a view it is unnecessary to counter the view, but only necessary to call him or her a name. It reminds me of "demolib pinhead." It's a way of changing the subject, and substituting an ad hominem characterization of the speaker for a response to the speaker's content.

To: Solon who wrote (10953)	4/26/2002 3:55:49 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

A reasonable response to my question, Solon. The author of that piece went to lengths, in the excerpt I previously posted, to say that his organization had moved away from defining homophobia by attitude, in favor defining it by overt acts. That led to the point that if one discriminates against gays as in denying them the rights of marriage, they qualify as homophobic. However, as you suggest, consideration of the act inevitably brings one to consider motive. The more the author speculated on that, the more the word "hatred" came up frequently. I think it would be fair to say that the author's thesis was that a "discrimnator" hates gays without necessarily being conscious of it. So that becomes rather circular reasoning concerning attitudes and acts, which both end up in the same place. In any case, we (the general population) do discriminate against "distinct groups of individuals" besides homosexuals. We forbid bigamists or polygamists to practice their beliefs. We place severe restrictions on the right of naturalists (nudists) to follow practices they believe in. I think it would be difficult to argue in these cases that denials of rights available to others, such as marriage or access to public beaches, are motivated by either hatred or fear. I think "repugnance" in all of these instances is more likely motivated by something along the lines of a "standard of decency", which, whether you agree with it or not, does not rise to the level of hate ... not remotely.