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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (53209)	11/10/2006 6:35:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Many of the people who are opposed to allowing gays to marry may not be homophobes I would say that phrasing it that way distorts the issue. It really isn't about allowing homosexuals to do anything, it is about whether the government will formally recognize and support what they do. But I'm sure some of the opponents of gay marriage are just plain old bigots I can buy that, but that isn't enough to support using the term "homophobe" to apply to all opponents. I'm not even sure its a good term to use against bigots who aren't actually phobic, but that has become common. It certainly isn't a good term to use against people who are neither. Brumar pointed out that "homophobe" is used to label the entire set of people opposed to legally recognizing such relationships as marriages (or as he put it "those not supportive of changing the long-established definition of marriage") by judicial fiat. You responded by saying its not just judicial fiat but by votes as well. Thank you for clarifying that you were not supporting the use of the term homophobe to that entire set. ("Many of the people who are opposed to allowing gays to marry may not be homophobes")