7
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 87:
Line 87: + + +
→"most common usage": objective
::Well, there are other uses. I happen to think the one here makes a lot of sense. [http://www.henrymakow.com/021101.html] Maybe, someday, we'll all be proud to be homophobic. I'd rather be homophobic than homos-xual any day. [[User:Mathers|Mathers]] 09:52, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
::Well, there are other uses. I happen to think the one here makes a lot of sense. [http://www.henrymakow.com/021101.html] Maybe, someday, we'll all be proud to be homophobic. I'd rather be homophobic than homos-xual any day. [[User:Mathers|Mathers]] 09:52, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks. That kind of fits into the definition above. [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] 10:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks. That kind of fits into the definition above. [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] 10:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::I suggest using the definition provided by [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]]. It should start the article. It clealy describes an aversion of a person to [[homosexuality]] and not [[Homosexuals]] as individuals. It certainly doesn't imply that those who object to [[homosexuality]] on moral and religious grounds are being irrational, i.e., literally suffering from a [[mental illness]] but clearly states that the ''phobia'' isn't primarily about avoiding contact, so by the definition above, those who object to homosexuality on moral and religious grounds are are not homophobic if they don't deliberately insult, humiliate or threaten violence towards homosexuals. They are simply condemning the sin not the sinner, or as some Christians put it ''hate the sin not the sinner''. The rest of the article could then describe how [[gay rights]] an [[liberal]] activists have perverted the meaning away from the objective one above.
::[[User:BenDoune|BenDoune]] 07:31, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
=="Homophobia-phobia"==
=="Homophobia-phobia"==