This is always an interesting word definition to me. Just because someone donated against something, might mean he's against it it, but doesn't mean he's "scared" of it (the definition of "phobia" being "fear").
The equivalence of the two words into it's current meaning has always been interesting to me.
I, too, dislike the "phobe" applied to things - it seems like a dirty bit of rhetoric. But despite the definition, it's pretty clear the meaning of homophobe is someone that dislikes/disapproves of homosexuality.
I know that & get it, but by choosing that word itself, it becomes a loaded & inaccurate word which hurts the argument (because which many anti-gay marriage people can easily refute the accusation by simply saying "that's ridiculous, I'm not scared of gay people").
Your response indicates you've likely spent little-to-none meaningful time with any of the people you're attributing words to. Very few people I've met that hold those views would say that's an accurate view of their beliefs (WBC not withstanding, but they're outliers).
I don't think any time I'd spend with those types of people could ever be meaningful.
Honestly, they can say they're "not scared of gay people" all they want, but the actions of a person who would donate their money or time to get same-sex marriage outlawed speak much, much louder than their words.
> I don't think any time I'd spend with those types of people could ever be meaningful.
That's the same attitude you're accusing them of. It's not helpful on either side of the debate.
There's a difference between being scared & disagreeing. Your refusal to acknowledge the difference says more about your desire to perpetuate your viewpoint of them rather than attempt to understand their background. It's one thing to disagree with someone, it's another to refuse to come to the table with them at all in the first place.
I think we could continue to go back & forth all day, but you don't seem very open to the idea of listening to people with opposing viewpoints :).
Not really, I just think you've done a very poor job of equating "a difference of opinion" with "civil rights". And that's really what it boils down to: the anti-same-sex marriage side is just wrong on this one. And wrong opinions don't deserve respect.
See that's where we fundamentally disagree. I respect all opinions - even if they're wrong, offensive or I disagree with them completely. That's the whole point of free speech
This is a wrong and dangerous interpretation of free speech. The whole point of free speech is that people are allowed to hold differing opinions and the need to respect their right to /voice/ such opinions. It is NOT about respecting the opinions themselves, and certainly not about giving equal weight or consideration to all opinions.
This latter interpretation is how we get creationists demanding equal time be given to teaching their "theory" in schools. They certainly have a right to not believe in evolution, and even shudder to promote that opinion, but that doesn't mean that opinion isn't stupid and somehow deserves to be given equal standing to evolution in the public sphere.
This is always an interesting word definition to me. Just because someone donated against something, might mean he's against it it, but doesn't mean he's "scared" of it (the definition of "phobia" being "fear").
The equivalence of the two words into it's current meaning has always been interesting to me.