Replies

What am I missing here? Homo is the Latin word for man in the sense of mankind as opposed to vir which is used exclusively to mean male persons. A phobia is a fear. Hence homophobia is a fear of mankind. Hence homophobe might reasonably be applied to someone who fears mankind. I have never even once seen this phony word "homophobe" used to describe one who "fears" mankind.

If we make the common error and assert that the homo in homophobe is a reference to those possessed by the inherently disordered orientation of a small percentage of physically male persons unnaturally attracted to other physically male persons, I still don't see the word as appropriate because those who are their critics hardly "fear" them.

Loathe and despise their chosen activity? Certainly! Desire to build a wall between our children and the perversion that once dared not speak its name and now will not shut up? Absolutely. Desire to absolutely marginalize those who would make anal sex between man and woman, man and man, man and beast seem "normal". With all my heart and soul! Kick them out and keep them out of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church to which I belong? You betcha in spades! FEAR the lavenders????? Not in this lifetime and not in God's lifetime!

The purpose of the word faggot is marginalization. I would marginalize communists, rapists, tax-raising congresscritters, gun-grabbers and I would also marginalize faggots.

The subjective and highly political opinion of the lavenders is their problem and not the problem of normal people. We are the standard. They are the deviation. If their feelings are hurt, tough. So long as they are not doing it in the streets and scaring the horses, they are unlikely to be in any difficulty (just like normal people!).

No one in authority wants them dead, locked up or in concentration camps. Most Americans are more than a little sick of the perpetual lavender campaign to be in our faces 24/7 demanding equality for perversion.

To the extent that you wish to express respect for the lavender queens by calling them homosexuals or "gays" (what on earth is gay about the habitual abuse of the nether end of the digestive sustem?) only, suit yourself. To the extent that you want to marginalize normal folks who marginalize the perversion in question, it is hard to discern a rational excuse for your priorities or how those priorities fit within a conservative rather than a libertine mold.

Your etymology is a bit off. The homo in homosexuality is a reference to sameness, think homogenized. The term homophobia is merely leftist agitprop nonsense that apparently some so-called conservatives feel compeled to use.

To which your friendly neighborhood sodomist would reply:

Shut up, you homophobe. :-/ </s a r c a s m>

Would Sodomite be more appealing to the masses? :)

Regards...

The subjective and highly political opinion of the lavenders is their problem and not the problem of normal people. We are the standard. They are the deviation. If their feelings are hurt, tough.

Good post.

What am I missing here? Homo is the Latin word for man in the sense of mankind as opposed to vir which is used exclusively to mean male persons. A phobia is a fear. Hence homophobia is a fear of mankind. Hence homophobe might reasonably be applied to someone who fears mankind. I have never even once seen this phony word "homophobe" used to describe one who "fears" mankind.

Right. And you will not see it defined this way in the average dictionary either.

So when we speak of a "homophobe" you can therefore assume the definition is that of one who has an extreme fear or dread of homosexuals...which is of course normal accepted usage of the term.

No one in authority wants them dead, locked up or in concentration camps.

I never said they did.
What I did say was that I, and others who shared my beliefs, were repeatedly accused of wanting gays dead, locked up or in concentration camps because of our convictions that the Bible was accurate in describing homosexuality as sexual immorality and a sin.

Most Americans are more than a little sick of the perpetual lavender campaign to be in our faces 24/7 demanding equality for perversion.

I don't know where you live, but I have not been aware of any 24/7 "lavender campaign" demanding "equality for perversion".

But then maybe it's because I am not as obsessed with this issue as some others seem to be.

I am aware of and agree with equal rights under the law for gays as well as all Americans...this is not the same as supporting the normalization of homosexuality...and in any case I still don't see this issue being shoved in my face 24/7.

To the extent that you wish to express respect for the lavender queens by calling them homosexuals or "gays"

Let me see;
I believe homosexuality is a sin and a bioliogical perverion of the created intent by God for human sexuality...yet you claim the term homosexual is a title of "respect"????? Huh?

(what on earth is gay about the habitual abuse of the nether end of the digestive sustem?)

I don't know. But a simple search of the internet will bring up far more heterosexual sites dedicated to the abuses you describe above, than it will homosexuals sites.

To the extent that you want to marginalize normal folks who marginalize the perversion in question, it is hard to discern a rational excuse for your priorities or how those priorities fit within a conservative rather than a libertine mold.

What on earth are you talking about?
I'm not even going to try to untangle the above convoluted sentence....but I don't see how you can dispute that belief in the Biblical definition of homosexuality as a sin in God's eyes does not fit perfectly with conservative Christian views.