Gay Day (GET A LIFE PEOPLE)
IIDaRcYII
Seriously....WHO CARES????????????? I am so sick of homophobic people it makes
me want to puke. I have a few gay/lesbian friends and they're no different
from anyone else. So IMHO GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!
Ariel
Zipadidoo
Thanks for your input, Ariel, but the situation DOES go a little deeper than
just homophobia.
Carli,
"There's enough land here to hold all the ideas and plans we can possibly
imagine"-
Walt Disney, talking about Walt Disney World
TDC Zipadidoo, Keeper of the Geosphere
BigLug ®
IIDaRcYII wrote:
> Seriously....WHO CARES?????????????
> I am so sick of homophobic people it makes me want to puke.
Well, obviously, *you* care. Or it wouldn't make you retch...
> I have a few gay/lesbian friends and they're no different
> from anyone else.
Actually, they *are* different. Otherwise, some folks wouldn't
feel the need to treat them differently. Right?
Sorry, but anyone that chooses to stick their penis into someone
else's rectum IS different (IMHO). Sorry if you don't agree...
> So IMHO GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!
Thanks, I have a great one. :)
Have a nice day....
In our next installment, we'll discuss the intellectual vacuity of the
term "homophobe" (hint: "scared of homosexuals?" Think not...)
The Rev. Patrick J. Z. Kucera
> Sorry, but anyone that chooses to stick their penis into someone
> else's rectum IS different (IMHO). Sorry if you don't agree...
Don't be too alarmed when you find out that a lot of straight couples
participate in this activity as well.
The Rev. Patrick Kucera
Brooklyn, NY
TDC High Priest of the WDW Wedding Pavillion and Keeper of the Sacred
Relics Therein
IIDaRcYII
>Thanks for your input, Ariel, but the situation DOES go a little deeper than
>just homophobia.
>Carli,
>"There's enough land here to hold all the ideas and plans we can possibly
>imagine"-
I dont mean to flame or be a b*tch but what's so 'deep' about it?
Ariel
Stew Barnes
> In our next installment, we'll discuss the intellectual vacuity of the
> term "homophobe" (hint: "scared of homosexuals?" Think not...)
Or we could discuss the intellectual vacuity of those that believe the the
suffix -phobe *only* means "scared of".
:)
Stew
Michael Kelleher
BigLug ® wrote in message <356236...@netcene.com>...
>IIDaRcYII wrote:
>
>> Seriously....WHO CARES?????????????
>> I am so sick of homophobic people it makes me want to puke.
>
>Well, obviously, *you* care. Or it wouldn't make you retch...
>
>
>> I have a few gay/lesbian friends and they're no different
>> from anyone else.
>
>Actually, they *are* different. Otherwise, some folks wouldn't
>feel the need to treat them differently. Right?
>
>Sorry, but anyone that chooses to stick their penis into someone
>else's rectum IS different (IMHO). Sorry if you don't agree...
>
>
>> So IMHO GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!
>
>Thanks, I have a great one. :)
>
>Have a nice day....
>
>
>In our next installment, we'll discuss the intellectual vacuity of the
>term "homophobe" (hint: "scared of homosexuals?" Think not...)
Main Entry: ho·mo·phobe
Pronunciation: -"fOb
Function: noun
Date: 1975
: a person characterized by homophobia
Main Entry: pho·bia
Pronunciation: 'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: -phobia
Date: 1786
: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular
object, class of objects, or situation
Main Entry: 1fear
Pronunciation: 'fir
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 archaic : FRIGHTEN
2 archaic : to feel fear in (oneself)
3 : to have a reverential awe of <fear God>
4 : to be afraid of : expect with alarm
intransitive senses : to be afraid or apprehensive
Entry Word: fear
Function: n
Text: 1 agitation or dismay in the anticipation of or in the presence of
danger <living in fear of what the future might hold>
Synonyms alarm, cold feet, consternation, dismay, dread, fright, horror,
panic, terror, trepidation, trepidity (gee any of these seem like SCARED???)
Mike
Michael Kelleher
Stew Barnes wrote in message ...
>In article <356236...@netcene.com>, BigLug ® <mah...@netcene.com>
wrote:
>
>> In our next installment, we'll discuss the intellectual vacuity of the
>> term "homophobe" (hint: "scared of homosexuals?" Think not...)
>
>Or we could discuss the intellectual vacuity of those that believe the the
>suffix -phobe *only* means "scared of".
>
>:)
>
>Stew
Main Entry: ho·mo·phobe
Zipadidoo
I didn't say it was deep, just that the issue goes deeper than just homophobia.
Read the posts; there are issues of crowded parks, special interest groups
being too powerful, etc. I'm not saying I agree with any of it, but you should
realize that homophobia is really just the tip of the iceberg.
"There's enough land here to hold all the ideas and plans we can possibly
imagine"-
Stew Barnes
In article <6jtsf1$lr7$1...@supernews.com>, "Michael Kelleher"
<kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote:
Of course you could have saved yourself some work (and not have had to
repeat essentially the same post three times) by just looking up the
suffix -phobe; using your site (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) we
find a definition of:
Main Entry: -phobe
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: Greek -phobos fearing
: one fearing or averse to (something specified) <Francophobe>
Even if you wanted to go back to the root, "phobia", M-W lists it's use as
a suffix as:
Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing,
from phobos fear, flight, from
phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavonic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>
S
Stew
IIDaRcYII
>I didn't say it was deep, just that the issue goes deeper than just
>homophobia.
>Read the posts; there are issues of crowded parks, special interest groups
>being too powerful, etc. I'm not saying I agree with any of it, but you
>should
>realize that homophobia is really just the tip of the iceberg.
>Carli,
Oh, Okay, Let's invite the KKK to WDW...huh??? talk about special intrest
groups at the park....
Ariel.....
Dennis Metcalfe
On 20 May 1998 16:23:55 GMT, iida...@aol.com (IIDaRcYII) wrote:
<snip>
>Oh, Okay, Let's invite the KKK to WDW...huh??? talk about special intrest
>groups at the park....
Disney did not do the inviting.... a group of people with similar
interests said "Let's get together on such and such day at such and
such place" ... apparently it worked.
Darn near nobody invites the KKK anywhere but if they follow the
rules, they have the same rights as any other group, as distasteful as
they may be to you or me .... at Disney or even on your city streets.
Dennis Metcalfe
Zipadidoo
What are you talking about? I try to clarify the argument for you and you go
off on a kkk tangent?
IIDaRcYII
>What are you talking about? I try to clarify the argument for you and you go
>off on a kkk tangent?
>Carli,
Sorry...I'm just really touchy on this subject. It's like a bunch of
Christian's decide to go to the park one day. All I'm saying is WHAT'S THE
DIFFERENCE???? It's no worse than watching teenage or even adult couples grope
and make out at the park...now THAT'S revolting!!! I mean...get a room people.
:)
Ariel (still putting in her $.02)
Zipadidoo
And I wasn't giving my OPINION- I was just telling you what people were arguing
about.
Stew Barnes
In article <6k06p4$4p6$1...@supernews.com>, "Michael Kelleher"
<kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote:
> Of course I also could have consulted my Psychology text which also states a
> phobia as "an unrealistic fear of a specific situation, activity or thing.
> Then goes on to state that "Some phobias are extremely common such as a fear
> of heights (acrophobia); fear of closed spaces (claustrophobia); fear of
> dirt and germs dirt and germs (mysophobia); and fear of animals, especially
> snakes, dogs, insects and mice (zoophobia). Others are rarer such as fear of
> purple (porphyrophobia), fear of the number 13 (triskaidekaphobia) and a
> fear of interaction with homosexuals (homophobia)." from Psychology Wade
> and Tavris Fifth edition. But I was trying to avoid all that typing.
As well you should, since it doesn't bolster you original point.
Homphobia certainly includes a fear of interacting with homosexuals. It
is a sub-set of the entire definition.
Do you still contend that people who claim Mr. Johnson is a homophobe are
being intellectualy vapid? Do you still contend that homophobia only
refers to a fear of homosexuals?
Stew
Holyamos
> All I'm saying is WHAT'S THE
>DIFFERENCE???? It's no worse than watching teenage or even adult couples
>grope
>and make out at the park...now THAT'S revolting!!! I mean...get a room
>people.
I agree that any excessive displays of public affection are rude and
inconsiderate. However, homosexuality, contrary to some suggestions, is not
normal, period. Whether it is caused by environmental factors or you are
"born" gay, it simply is not a normal activity. (although if you look to the
animal kingdom, the "born gay" argument is very weak, most acts of what would
be considered gay activity, is really an intricate way of comunicating
hostility, fear, and social status) Do I fear Homosexuals? No. Do I choose
not to support their lifestyle or want my children exposed to their lifestyle?
No. If this makes me a homophobe, so be it.
Mark Johnson
Well, I for one thing they are being "intellectualy vapid" as you said. By
simply calling one a homophobe, you are excusing the fact that somebody has
a different view, a view in which they are against homosexuality. It's like
yelling fire, when there isn't any smoke. I feel it's a pathetic attempt to
reply to somebody who actually doesn't agree with it. Here's a scenario, in
which I hope I can demonstrate it to you people who yell homophobe at every
corner. I don't like spiders, and I don't like them in my house, but that
doesn't make me an arachnphobe does it? Well the same goes for being a
homophobe. I don't agree with the gay's sexual preferences, and I don't like
them or any group for that matter hanging out in a public place and rallying
to promote their views, but I don't hate them or am scared to be by one.
Perhaps, your own personal defintion of homophobia is different includes the
reasons you have given, but your personal definition means nothing in this
world except to yourself, so keep it to yourself if you plan on applying it
to other people.
-Mark
Stew Barnes wrote in message ...
>In article <6k06p4$4p6$1...@supernews.com>, "Michael Kelleher"
Stew Barnes
In article <6k1tca$77ni$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Mark Johnson"
<Mar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I for one thing they are being "intellectualy vapid" as you said. By
> simply calling one a homophobe, you are excusing the fact that somebody has
> a different view, a view in which they are against homosexuality. It's like
> yelling fire, when there isn't any smoke. I feel it's a pathetic attempt to
> reply to somebody who actually doesn't agree with it. Here's a scenario, in
> which I hope I can demonstrate it to you people who yell homophobe at every
> corner. I don't like spiders, and I don't like them in my house, but that
> doesn't make me an arachnphobe does it?
Yes, of course it does. It's the very definition of the word. You don't
like them. Neither do I. I'm an arachnophobe too. Whether you want to
view that fact as good, bad or indifferent is up to you.
>Well the same goes for being a
> homophobe. I don't agree with the gay's sexual preferences, and I don't like
> them or any group for that matter hanging out in a public place and rallying
> to promote their views, but I don't hate them or am scared to be by one.
> Perhaps, your own personal defintion of homophobia is different includes the
> reasons you have given, but your personal definition means nothing in this
> world except to yourself, so keep it to yourself if you plan on applying it
> to other people.
No, words have very set meanings. That's what a dictionary is for.
Whether or not a label is derogatory is subjective.
Stew
Robert
Who made you god and let you decide what "normal" is? Anyone who thinks
they can decide what is right and wrong for everyone else has a major
problem. I think you need to cool your egotistical head before it explodes.
Robert
DCm63
>However, homosexuality, contrary to some suggestions, is not
>normal, period. Whether it is caused by environmental factors or you are
>"born" gay, it simply is not a normal activity.
By your logic, then, are deaf people not normal? They are a minority due to
environmental factors or are "born" that way. Did you know that many of them
don't want to be able to hear? Would it be wrong for them to try to start a
"Deaf Day?"
>Do I fear Homosexuals? No. Do I choose
>not to support their lifestyle or want my children exposed to their
>lifestyle?
>No.
Could you please explain what the homosexual lifestyle is? And what is the
heterosexual lifestyle? Which one do bisexuals live?
Rende
"Robert" <sk...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>"Who made you god and let you decide what "normal" is? Anyone who thinks they
can decide what is right and wrong for everyone else has a major problem. I
think you need to cool your egotistical head before it explodes."
Normal is not some abstract concept that is not quantifyible. Things that fall
within the norm are normal. Simple statistics speak for themselves. If there
is a tendency to become a heterosexual in adult life, guess what...that's the
norm. Skirting the issue by stating someone is egostical or believe they are
god-like is not going to change the facts, nor is some condescending comment
about who-decides-what-for-whom.
Rende
dc...@aol.com (DCm63) wrote:
>"By your logic, then, are deaf people not normal?"
That would be a logical conclusion. And let's be clear...we are talking about
one characteristic of a person, and not the person as a whole. There are
normal and abnormal behaviors. There are normal and abnormal physical
characteristics. Everyone has normal and abnormal traits about them. I
personally would not get a bunch of people together to celebrate "People Who
Sweat Excessively Day", but that's just me.
>"They are a minority due to environmental factors or are "born" that way. Did
you know that many of them don't want to be able to hear? Would it be wrong
for them to try to start a "Deaf Day?"
There can be any number of "Days" as there are people in the world...but some
people would like to avoid some "Days" that do not agree with their moral or
religious (or any other) belief. If there were ever a white supremicist day, I
certainly would avoid it...and that is my right. Just because someone feels
strongly about an issue does not grant them rights to trample on other people's
rights (as you can see, this argument works in both directions). If there is
to be respect for the gay community, there must be respect for those who do not
agree with their lifestyle...otherwise the whole issue is one big hypocracy.
Rende
dc...@aol.com (DCm63) wrote:
>"Could you please explain what the homosexual lifestyle is? And what is the
heterosexual lifestyle? Which one do bisexuals live?"
At the risk of answering what I would expect would be a rhetorical and obvious
question, I will reply this way:
The homosexual lifestyle is a lifestyle in which a person (or persons) partake
in sexual relations with members of the same sex; the heterosexual lifestyle is
a lifestyle in which a person (or persons) partake in sexual relations with
members of the opposite sex; and the bisexual lifestyle is a lifestyle in which
a person (or persons) partake in sexual relations with either the same or
opposite sex.
Now that I have stated the obvious, what more clarification is necessary?
Perhaps you are challenging the previous poster's comments about not exposing
his or her children to the homosexual lifestyle. It would be presumptuous to
question a parents' decisions, their right to decide, or to imply that this
sort of avoidance is not proper or normal.
jam...@peganet.com
People against "mixed" or bi-racial marriages are considered "racist".
Since you are "against" homosexuality", and you don't *like* the term
homophobe (even though it fits you to a *t*), I hereby coin a new term
of "homosexualist: one who is against homosexuality".
Perhaps I should get "lude" with you and wait for you to "aversity" me.
Also Mr. Johnson, can you explain the difference between "orientation" and
"preference"? (I'd use another dictionary - your Funk and Wagnall's appears
to be defective). And could you explain to us exactly what a "gay lifestyle"
is? You keep using this term, but I cannot figure it out.
Todd - The Unintelligent, Stupid, Town Drunk
In article <6k1tca$77ni$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
"Mark Johnson" <Mar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I for one thing they are being "intellectualy vapid" as you said. By
> simply calling one a homophobe, you are excusing the fact that somebody has
> a different view, a view in which they are against homosexuality. It's like
> yelling fire, when there isn't any smoke. I feel it's a pathetic attempt to
> reply to somebody who actually doesn't agree with it. Here's a scenario, in
> which I hope I can demonstrate it to you people who yell homophobe at every
> corner. I don't like spiders, and I don't like them in my house, but that
> doesn't make me an arachnphobe does it? Well the same goes for being a
> homophobe. I don't agree with the gay's sexual preferences, and I don't like
> them or any group for that matter hanging out in a public place and rallying
> to promote their views, but I don't hate them or am scared to be by one.
> Perhaps, your own personal defintion of homophobia is different includes the
> reasons you have given, but your personal definition means nothing in this
> world except to yourself, so keep it to yourself if you plan on applying it
> to other people.
> -Mark
>
> Stew Barnes wrote in message ...
> >In article <6k06p4$4p6$1...@supernews.com>, "Michael Kelleher"
> >Do you still contend that people who claim Mr. Johnson is a homophobe are
> >being intellectualy vapid? Do you still contend that homophobia only
> >refers to a fear of homosexuals?
> >
> >Stew
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Michael Kelleher
Stew Barnes wrote in message ...
>In article <6k06p4$4p6$1...@supernews.com>, "Michael Kelleher"
><kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote:
>
>> Of course I also could have consulted my Psychology text which also
states a
>> phobia as "an unrealistic fear of a specific situation, activity or
thing.
>> Then goes on to state that "Some phobias are extremely common such as a
fear
>> of heights (acrophobia); fear of closed spaces (claustrophobia); fear of
>> dirt and germs dirt and germs (mysophobia); and fear of animals,
especially
>> snakes, dogs, insects and mice (zoophobia). Others are rarer such as fear
of
>> purple (porphyrophobia), fear of the number 13 (triskaidekaphobia) and a
>> fear of interaction with homosexuals (homophobia)." from Psychology Wade
>> and Tavris Fifth edition. But I was trying to avoid all that typing.
>
>As well you should, since it doesn't bolster you original point.
>Homphobia certainly includes a fear of interacting with homosexuals. It
>is a sub-set of the entire definition.
>
>Do you still contend that people who claim Mr. Johnson is a homophobe are
>being intellectualy vapid?
I have proven they are using teh term incorrectly.
>Do you still contend that homophobia only
>refers to a fear of homosexuals?
I have proven it as such.
Do you still not know how to read?
>>a fear of interaction with homosexuals (homophobia)."
Are you saying than that porphyrophobia should also be used to refer to
people who just don't like the color purple? That claustrophobia also
applies to people who just want to protect their personal space? It is
obvious from the way the sentence is structured, and the other terms defined
therein, that the text is stating that "a fear of interaction with
homosexuals" is THE definition of homophobia. A phobia is a very serious
condition, one which can cause a person to cease simple normal day
activities just to avoid the thing that causes the phobia. It is obvious
that if Mr. Johnson frequents the Disney and has gay friends (as he has
stated, though I am sure some question the validity of the statement) than
he does not suffer from a PHOBIA. Either that or he has a damn good shrink.
Mike
Stew Barnes
In article <6k35ep$52n$1...@supernews.com>, "Michael Kelleher"
<kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote:
> Stew Barnes wrote in message ...
> >Do you still contend that people who claim Mr. Johnson is a homophobe are
> >being intellectualy vapid?
>
> I have proven they are using teh term incorrectly.
No, you have gone to great lengths to choose your sources, but you can't
contradict the basic meaning of -phobe :fear or aversion. Heck, you were
even kind enough to look up the word at F&W web site; you conveniently
left out the actual definition in order to further your goal. Instead,
you chose to present
> >Do you still contend that homophobia only
> >refers to a fear of homosexuals?
>
> I have proven it as such.
By selective editing of your sources you certainly have attempted to do so.
>
> Do you still not know how to read?
> >>a fear of interaction with homosexuals (homophobia)."
>
> Are you saying than that porphyrophobia should also be used to refer to
> people who just don't like the color purple? That claustrophobia also
> applies to people who just want to protect their personal space? It is
> obvious from the way the sentence is structured, and the other terms defined
> therein, that the text is stating that "a fear of interaction with
> homosexuals" is THE definition of homophobia. A phobia is a very serious
> condition, one which can cause a person to cease simple normal day
> activities just to avoid the thing that causes the phobia.
Really? I guess everyone with claustrophobia has a very serious condition?
You are confusing a medical diagnosis with a common English term.
>It is obvious
> that if Mr. Johnson frequents the Disney and has gay friends (as he has
> stated, though I am sure some question the validity of the statement) than
> he does not suffer from a PHOBIA. Either that or he has a damn good shrink.
No, he does not suffer from a medical condition. He does of course meet
the definition of a homophobe: someone with an aversion to gay folks.
Stew
Stew Barnes
> Stew Barnes wrote in message ...
> >Do you still contend that people who claim Mr. Johnson is a homophobe are
> >being intellectualy vapid?
>
> I have proven they are using teh term incorrectly.
No, you have gone to great lengths to choose your sources, but you can't
contradict the basic meaning of -phobe :fear or aversion. Heck, though you were
kind enough to look up the word at a web site you conveniently
left out the actual definition in order to further your goal. Instead,
you chose to present definitions of the root rather than usage of the
actual suffix. That you conveniently didn't present.
K...@nospam.com
On 22 May 1998 01:49:09 GMT, re...@aol.com (Rende) wrote:
>certainly would avoid it...and that is my right. Just because someone feels
>strongly about an issue does not grant them rights to trample on other people's
>rights (as you can see, this argument works in both directions).
How is anyone trampling your rights by merely going to Disney? No one
said you can't go. No one said you had to go.
Rende
I wrote:
>"certainly would avoid it...and that is my right. Just because someone feels
strongly about an issue does not grant them rights to trample on other people's
rights (as you can see, this argument works in both directions)."
K...@nospam.com wrote:
>"How is anyone trampling your rights by merely going to Disney? No one said
you can't go. No one said you had to go."
The rights in question (in my case) is not whether or not I have the right to
go to the Disney parks, but whether I have the right to object to behaviors
based upon my moral or religious beliefs. It is hypocritical to say that the
gay community has the right to believe whatever they want but I am not allowed
to believe that their behavior is unacceptible based upon my moral or religious
beliefs.
Holyamos
>>However, homosexuality, contrary to some suggestions, is not
>>normal, period. Whether it is caused by environmental factors or you are
>>"born" gay, it simply is not a normal activity.
>
>environmental factors or are "born" that way. Did you know that many of them
>don't want to be able to hear? Would it be wrong for them to try to start a
>"Deaf Day?"
I would really like to meet a deaf person who does not want to hear. I think I
could safely say that all deaf people would like hear. While your argument is
correct that deaf people are not normal, most would gladly like to hear, if
there was a cure....I could but will not, follow that logic to Homosexuals. I
responded to this thread simply to point out my opinion and not nessisarily to
bash gays.
K...@nospam.com
On 22 May 1998 15:50:56 GMT, re...@aol.com (Rende) wrote:
>The rights in question (in my case) is not whether or not I have the right to
>go to the Disney parks, but whether I have the right to object to behaviors
>based upon my moral or religious beliefs.
Who's stopping you? Are there some gay folk at your house who stick a
cattle prod in your ribs everytime you think a bad thought? You can
object with anything you want, you just can't make other people suffer
for your personal beliefs. Your rights stop where other's begin.
Still, what's this have to do with a bunch of gay people in the park?
From someone who is there every day, gay day is not the ONLY time
there are gay people in the park. What do you want, for Disney
security to stop any potential gays before they come in? The park
won't run too well with less than half of it's cast members plus I'd
love to see the "test" to prove that you are straight.
kodo...@nyx.net
In article <barnesw-2105...@barnes-mac5.rockefeller.edu>,
bar...@rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Stew Barnes) wrote:
>
> In article <6k1tca$77ni$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Mark Johnson"
> <Mar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, I for one thing they are being "intellectualy vapid" as you said. By
> > simply calling one a homophobe, you are excusing the fact that somebody
has
> > a different view, a view in which they are against homosexuality. It's
like
> > yelling fire, when there isn't any smoke. I feel it's a pathetic attempt
to
> > reply to somebody who actually doesn't agree with it. Here's a scenario,
in
> > which I hope I can demonstrate it to you people who yell homophobe at
every
> > corner. I don't like spiders, and I don't like them in my house, but that
> > doesn't make me an arachnphobe does it?
>
> like them. Neither do I. I'm an arachnophobe too. Whether you want to
> view that fact as good, bad or indifferent is up to you.
>
I'm not getting into the middle of this argument. I'm just going to explain
what was meant by the poster's analogy. The poster doesn't care for spiders.
They don't want them in their house. That does not make them an arachnophobe.
To be an arachnophobe, you have to be a person like me. I'm terrified of
spiders. I don't simply have a dislike for them, they make me truly
afraid. My memory blanks whenever i see them. Whoever is with me has to
describe my actions to me after the incident. Mostly they involve a lot of
screaming in utter fear, flinging objects at the spider, etc. That is fear of
spiders, which fits the literal translation of the word aracnophobia. The
"arachno" part of the word is derived from the Greek "arachne" meaning spider.
The "phobia" part of the word is from the Greek term, "phobos" meaning fear.
I'm not saying that everyone who has arachnophobia has severe reactions like
mine, but its a bit more than a dislike for those nasty beedy-eyed 8-legged
creatures. *yuck*
The poster is using this analogy to express the view that Homophobia is a fear
of homosexuals (not that people with this fear black out and fling objects at
them or anything, but they would have a genuine fear of them). Personally, I
think the term has more political meaning than that and another term for the
phenomenon should be found in order to adequately express its intended
meaning. Just thought I'd put my two cents in. I wouldn't want a bunch of
people classifying anyone as an arachnophobe when they simply have a dislike
for spiders....same goes for any other fear....
Mark Johnson
First of all, Stew, your posting shows you are a little paranoid and
suspicious of somebody editing it to make it sound like it's to their
benefit (the definition). You're wrong, and Mike is not going to waste his
time making definitions up just for this agrument, I doubt anybody will.
Second of all, you don't seem to understand that an aversion is when you
can't stand to be by something, not a hatred. I don't fit the quliafications
of a homophobe. How hard is that to get to your thick head? A homophobe is
one who doesn't like to go near gays due to their extreme fear of aversion
to them. I'm not scared of being by them, and I don't have an aversion to
being by them. I just don't agree with the lifestyle, and I don't agree that
any group should hold a day in a public place where tens of thousands of
people go each day to promote and force their views on everybody else. Say
what you want, but when you wear a shirt or a sign showing what religion you
are, what sexuality especially when it's a large group, you are forcing the
rest of the population to hear what you are saying and see your shirts. Some
might say it's not forceful.. but it is. If it were a gathering that you
went by choice, such as a political rally at a college auditorium, or any
auditorium, you go there by choice because you agree with this person's
views. It's not like they are holding it at the mall where everybody who
goes is subjected to hear and see what this person's views. The same should
be done here, especially for large groups at a public place who represent a
very contrversial issue nowdays. They should hold it at a convention center,
or a park that they can rent out for the day for themselves. Then there's
the argument about the gay agenda.. and it does exist in some extent. The
gay day website's has this agenda that by going to Disney World they will be
fighting bigotry and making the world better. How are they going to do that?
Are they going to threaten everybody that those who oppose will be
anihilated like some futuristic movie or like the Nazis did? I mean those
who don't agree won't change their views. This day has gone way further than
just a gathering of gay people enjoying the park.. it's now a political way
they can force people to listen to them to follow through with their hopless
agenda. People will never agree to homosexuality this way, if these pride
groups keep doing this. The current status will always be the same. You have
to learn that people don't listen when they're being shouted at... you have
to talk to be heard in reasonable terms, at least that's they way I and most
of the population feels or else homosexuality would be more widely accepted.
-Mark
Stew Barnes wrote in message ...
>In article <6k35ep$52n$1...@supernews.com>, "Michael Kelleher"
Rende
K...@nospam.com wrote:
>"Who's stopping you? Are there some gay folk at your house who stick a cattle
prod in your ribs everytime you think a bad thought? You can object with
anything you want, you just can't make other people suffer for your personal
beliefs. Your rights stop where other's begin. Still, what's this have to do
with a bunch of gay people in the park? From someone who is there every day,
gay day is not the ONLY time there are gay people in the park. What do you
want, for Disney security to stop any potential gays before they come in? The
park won't run too well with less than half of it's cast members plus I'd love
to see the "test" to prove that you are straight."
Overexaggeration is not necessary. Besides, I am attempting to take a neutral
position in this argument. My reasoning should apply to either side of the
discussion.
This discussion came about because so many people have stated that homosexual
behavior should be accepted and/or ignored, and that it is improper for anyone
to actually stand up and object to it. I have not stated my opinion on the
homosexual issue one way or the other...I have simply stated that just as gays
have the right to speak their mind, so does the other side...without being
branded as prejudiced, homophobic, or promoting hate (although we cannot rule
these out completely).
People's behavior does not occur in a vacuum, and it affects people around
them...like it or not. Whether we are talking about loud people in movies,
aggressive drivers, religious zealots, etc...other people have to react to
behavior (good or bad) and make decisions about how they will act themselves.
If someone says that displays of affection by same sex couples causes stress,
anxiety, confusion, etc. within their family, isn't that causing the suffering
that you are referring to?
Okay...a thought to ponder. What happens when a same sex couple kisses in
public? They have made their statement that they are not going to follow
society's views about what is appropriate for public behavior. Now, can
someone go over to them and tell them that their behavior contradicts their
moral and/or religious beliefs? If you say no, then there is the stoppage you
suggest. If you say yes, then you are acknowledging that it is okay to express
themselves, which may cause a conflict with the other side.
You can't have things both ways. If people behave overly affectionate or
sexually in public (whether straight or gay), we have the right (and possibly
the obligation) to alert them to their conflict with accepted behavior, right?
If not, then the only ones with free speech are the ones that have perpetrated
the act in the first place.
Michael Kelleher
Stew Barnes wrote in message ...
>
>Really? I guess everyone with claustrophobia has a very serious condition?
True claustrophobia, yes they do!
>You are confusing a medical diagnosis with a common English term.
It seems to me as if people have taken a medical diagnosis and applied it to
whateve