scared-baby

‘Homophobia?’ Really?

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

Hear Audio Version:

 

Words and their meanings matter (yes, I know:  “Duh, Gina!”)  The Left also knows this and has spent decades hijacking, redefining and creating words to cloak the truth of their anti-Christian, anti-American, freedom-robbing agenda.  One of the areas in which we see this quite clearly is the radical homosexual movement.  The big, little word they have hijacked is “gay.”  Gay has nothing to do with homosexuality.  It means “cheerful,” and I can think of few words that more poorly describe the militant homosexual activist than “cheerful.”  One only needs to be on the receiving end of their vicious vitriol to wonder how they ever got away with hijacking “gay.”

Another of the homosexual movement’s hijacked words is “gender.”  Do you remember the real meaning of gender?  If you attended school back when they were still teaching proper English, with reading, writing, grammar, spelling and—shocker!—even cursive writing, you may recall that gender is a grammatical term.  It is a term used to classify words into categories of masculine, feminine and neuter.  So, in come the wizards of dark to latch on to the word “gender” and use it as a replacement for “sex,” because they know that there are only two sexes, period.  Yes, even accounting for rare birth defects in reproductive organs, people are either male or female.

“Gender” misused is a very malleable word, as we now see!  It can be used to deny reality till the cows come home.  Are you a man with a mental disorder who believes he’s a woman “trapped” in a man’s body?  Boom!  You now have a “gender identity” that just happens to differ from your sex.  What could be easier?  With the hijacking of gender, these people can now create a plethora of genders limited only by their warped imaginations.  They have buried the true meaning of the grammatical term gender under a mountain of deception and bogus psychobabble.

Another deception is the made-up word “homophobia,” which is a prized tool of the radical Left, a bludgeon designed to silence critics of the militant homosexual movement.  A phobia is a persistent, irrational fear.  It implies mental instability.  After all, if your fear is not rational, then there’s something wrong in your thinking, and you are needlessly fearing whatever it is you irrationally fear.

I do not fear homosexuals, irrationally or otherwise.  Anyone who speaks unequivocally of the immoral, unnatural and very unhealthy reality of homosexual behavior is invariably maligned as being “homophobic.”  Superficially it doesn’t even make sense, but when you look a little deeper, it should occur to any thinking man that those of us who speak boldly against this diabolical movement are in reality the opposite of “homophobic.”  If I am unafraid to call a spade a spade, then how can I be accused of being afraid of the spade?  It’s nonsense, but homosexual activists don’t let sense impede their wrong-headed assertions and twisted agenda.

While I do not concede the faulty premise of the sham term “homophobia,” I can tell you that if there is anything close to “homophobia” out there, it is found in people who bow in subservience to the perverse demands of the homosexual movement.  It is the people who run corporations who fear lawsuits by these activists, and who cast aside the rights and concerns of their employees to accommodate the small percentage of deviants who insist on imposing their degenerate bedroom habits on their coworkers and workplaces.

If “homophobia” were a real thing, it would describe the behavior of politicians and managers and leaders of companies, schools, churches and institutions who abandon their moral convictions and compromise their principles in obeisance to what they inherently know is wrong.  Why do they do this?  Their “homophobia” (which, in truth, is just cowardice) directs them, because it is out of fear of media attacks, lawsuits, loss of employment, even fear of the disapproval of others, that they step aboard the hijacked-rainbow express.  But using the term “homophobia” to describe what is simply cowardice isn’t right, because the fact is that “homophobia” is a phony construct of the radical Left.  It is a word weapon with a false meaning.

We have allowed the Left to abuse and distort our language for so long that we may not be able to gain control of the national dialogue.  We are also at a disadvantage in that the powers of the air — the media, entertainment, Hollywood, and the rest — are controlled by leftists, so naturally they determine the “memes” and the terms.  Neither does it help our cause that the younger generations are being dumbed down to the point that many of them leave school unable to write a coherent paragraph, much less have a strong grasp on the meaning of words and why it matters.  But, that’s just the way the anti-American, anti-freedom, Godless Left likes it.  Dumb people are as malleable as the “new” term “gender,” and they can easily be made to proudly and stupidly embrace their chains by the powerful, evil tyrants who have a very good grasp on the English language.

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

  • John

    yawn

    • thisoldspouse

      Out late at the bath houses?

      • vorpal

        Is that really the best you could come up with?

        • thisoldspouse

          Well, there are the homosexual bars, which are the same as bath houses except for being more clothed.

          • Boo Hoo

            Is this personal experience talking? Do tell.

        • Mark Luttrell

          To a “yawn” post? That was pretty good.

  • Matthew T. Mason

    And all God’s people said, “Amen!”

  • vorpal

    Gina, instead of speaking from ignorance, perhaps you should do some research as to the etymology of the word “gay” as it applies to homosexuals. The word “gay” has a very long history of also denoting perversion or sexual lewdness.

    From the Wikipedia entry on “gay”, which includes many citations if you’re one of those people who (unjustifiably) thinks that Wikipedia is unreliable:

    “The word may have started to acquire associations of immorality as early as the 14th century, and had certainly acquired them by the 17th. By the late 17th century it had acquired the specific meaning of “addicted to pleasures and dissipations”, an extension of its primary meaning of “carefree” implying “uninhibited by moral constraints.” A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer and a gay house a brothel.

    The use of gay to mean “homosexual” was in origin merely an extension of the word’s sexualised connotation of “carefree and uninhibited”, which implied a willingness to disregard conventional or respectable sexual mores.”

  • vorpal

    Additionally, Gina, the suffix ~phobia does not solely mean “irrational fear of”. It actually means “fear of OR AVERSION TO”. For example, a hydrophobic molecule does not have an irrational fear of water; however, it does have an aversion to it.

    Hence, the term “homophobia” is perfectly applicable.

    • thisoldspouse

      “homo-” means same, so “homophobia” is an awfully juvenile way to say “fear of homos.”

      • Lightning Baltimore

        And “homos” is an awfully juvenile way to refer to gay people.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          I prefer “homosexual.” Don’t care if you don’t like it.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            I don’t have a problem with the word homosexual. “Homo,” however, screams junior high school immaturity.

          • thisoldspouse

            Then why do homosexuals use it?

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Minorities of all types use derogatory words amongst themselves sometimes. When someone not a part of said minority uses it in a pointedly derogatory way, the animus is obvious. Assuming you’re white, do you regularly call black folks you don’t know personally “n*ggers?” I ask since you seem to like to throw around the word “faggot” here.

          • vorpal

            Ascribing that level of maturity to thisoldspouse would be grossly optimistic. When I mentioned that not allowing same-sex marriage was equivalent to treating gay people and their relationships as second class, this piece of human garbage replied with, “No. Think lower. Much, much lower,” or something to that extent.

          • vorpal

            I have never heard a gay person say the word “homo” as a noun.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Why, do you have a fear of abbreviations?

          • Lightning Baltimore

            No, but you appear to have a fear of rational thinking.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            You seem to have such a fear. You claim a word which is a simple abbreviation is somehow offensive.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            I suppose you think it’s also fine to use words like Hebe and Chink; after all, they’re just abbreviations, right?

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Those are not abbreviations. Perhaps you should study those. It might aid in conquering your phobia.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Hebe is short for Hebrew. Chink is short for Chinese. Both are offensive, just like homo.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            You are missing the point.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            No, you are. When someone screams “HOMO!” at an effeminate boy as he is beaten, he is not just saving valuable time by abbreviating “homosexual.”

          • LadyGreenEyes

            The point is that tossing a phobia label on the opposition is a foolish and hateful tactic. Pay attention.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            My initial response was to thisoldspouse. Perhaps you should read what (s)he wrote before attacking me.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            All I see is a description of the term.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Here’s a refresher for you, then:

            thisoldspouse: “homo-” means same, so “homophobia” is an awfully juvenile way to say “fear of homos.”
            Lightning Baltimore: And “homos” is an awfully juvenile way to refer to gay people.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            So, thisoldspouse points out that the term you support is juvenile, so you try and turn it around by calling them juvenile instead? That’s pretty funny.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            The term “homophobia” was coined in the 1960s by psychologist George Weinberg. It’s “juvenile” only to people who refuse to admit that homosexuals are viewed with contempt by a large, but thankfully shrinking, percentage of the population. “Homo,” on the other hand, is a schoolyard taunt that some people never grow out of using.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            The term is flat out foolish. People that disagree with a behavior aren’t afraid if it. Calling that a “phobia” is dishonest.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Please, look up what the word actually means.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      But there’s no such thing as homophobia.

      As I’ve said before: Nobody has to accept homosexuality or the world created around it. But by using this bullhockey made-up word, you assert the absence of reason, of tolerance. It’s, “You will accept us, or there’s something wrong with you.”

      Uh, no. It doesn’t work that way. Ever. Not in our world or yours.

      • docrt925

        Similarly, nobody is required to accept or live by the “beliefs” of another person’s chosen religious lifestyle either, but that doesn’t stop those with the arrogant expectation that everyone must be governed by that dogma anyway (“accept us or there’s something wrong with you”); or those who are intent on denigrating & ostracizing another human being or limiting their place in society simply for who they inherently are.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          Non-sequitur. Please try to stay on point. This is not about religion.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            The writer brought religion into it in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the article!

          • Matthew T. Mason

            She used the term, “anti-Christian.” How does that translate as bringing religion into it? Neither the term nor anything related to it appears in the rest of the article.

            It remains a non-sequitur. FAIL.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Oh, is Christianity no longer a religion?

          • vorpal

            Haven’t you heard (the “good news”)? It’s apparently a “relationship” with Jesus, which supposedly elevates it above a religion.

            The intellectual dishonesty of some Christians is shocking.

          • Boo Hoo

            “Shocking” isn’t the word I would use, vorpal. “Disappointing”,
            “Depressing”, “Typical”, “Sad”…..something along those lines.

          • docrt925

            oh please, let’s not be obtuse…when the writer begins and ends her piece by defining those who do not think as she does as anti-Christian and/or Godless, her point of view has a foundation in religious ideology. so yes, she did bring religion into it.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Perhaps you should read through the comments here, and take note of all the anti-Christian rhetoric used.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            You mean comments from people replying to an article that calls people with alternate sexual orientations and/or gender identities, and their supporters, “anti-Christian,” not to mention “Anti-American?” When an author begins a piece with an ugly attack, responses that display a bit of anger are to be expected.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            I mean people making negative references to Christians, and claiming that they are looking for a “theocracy”, or claiming they are trying to push what they believe on others, all the while pushing their own behaviors onto the entire world, and demanding that everyone agrees with them, or risk being labeled. Well, the simple fact is that most people don’t care what label you choose to apply, and are capable of thinking for themselves. Any group that wants to force acceptance of their behavior onto everyone, and doesn’t want to allow dissent, is against freedom. This isn’t complicated.

          • Mark Luttrell

            Correct. Not about religion.
            Those against it are ChristioPhobics.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Not about religion at all, yet also completely about religion. Got it.

  • Lightning Baltimore

    Gender is a grammatical term in many non-English languages, yes. In English, however, gender is related to sex, not language, other than pronouns for individuals. Seeing as you start with a blatantly manufactured example, it’s no wonder you have trouble understanding what homophobia means.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      We already know what it is you want it to mean. You keep acting as if it’s something other than. Being disingenuous and intellectually obtuse does not impress.

      • Lightning Baltimore

        You’re quite right. The author’s intellectual dishonesty is, indeed, unimpressive.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          Actually, she isn’t batting around a lie. That would be anyone who pretends to believe the “homophobia” myth.

          I’ve already explained how and why you and others like you are completely full of horse manure. Look around and read up.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Yes, you’ve explained why you refuse to accept reality. That doesn’t mean the rest of us are required to live in your fantasy land where refusing to accept people for who they are is the tolerant position.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            And what is “reality” to you? I’m curious.

          • Mark Luttrell

            Reality is interchangable with fantasy and deception. So for some, reality has options.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            You attack people who don’t support those with no grasp of the realities of their own sex, and say that to someone else? Wow…..

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Would you care to explain what “no grasp of the realities of their own sex” means? I *think* I know what you mean, but it’s so idiotic, I’m just hoping I’m wrong.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Did you not study basic biology in school? People come in two sexes, and two only. XX or XY chromosomes decide this. Anyone that thinks they are something other than what their genetics says has no grasp on that reality.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Actually, some people are XXY and some people are intersex, and, horror of horrors, some people are transgender.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            No one with chromosome differences like that is anything but male or female.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            So intersex people don’t actually exist. Gotcha. I’m done with you.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            People are male or female. It’s not complicated. Mental disorders don’t change biology.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Bless your heart; you don’t know what intersex means, do you?

          • LadyGreenEyes

            I know a lot more than you do, clearly.

  • zacharybynum

    More idiotic drivel from delusional religious fanatic bigots. Rant all you want, Gina. The country has moved on, and you’re left screaming at the altar.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      Actually it is obvious you do or you wouldn’t be commenting.

    • thisoldspouse

      Speaking of ranting…

    • Boo Hoo

      Ahaha…that is the best assessment of this lunatic asylum that I’ve seen yet. Thanks for the laugh! :-)

      • LadyGreenEyes

        Yet here you are…..

        • Boo Hoo

          Indeed. It’s like a train wreck…. you know you shouldn’t look, but you’re compelled to anyway.

          I’ll hang my head in shame later, if you want.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Oh, you’ll most likely be doing that, regardless of my opinion on the matter.

            There is no reason to not look at a train wreck, either.

    • LadyGreenEyes

      Spoken like a true Christophobic liberal.

  • Peter Quebbeman

    You people are nuts, you know that right?

    • thisoldspouse

      You people?

    • Boo Hoo

      No, they don’t know that. Therein lies the fun.

      It’s like fish in a barrel….

      • Mark Luttrell

        Bet u gotta stand on a stool. Those stumpy lil troll legs can’t get u to the top of the barrel.

        • Boo Hoo

          Thinking about my legs, Marky? Dirty, dirty boy…

    • LadyGreenEyes

      Oh, wow…. do you have a phobia? it sounds like it!

  • Greg

    Whenever I hear the homosexuals, often said, “we’re moving on” or “civilization is progressing”, all I think of is, ya, right toward your ultimate destruction and taking us all with you. Just as in all great civilizations in the past that have tried going this route.

    • vorpal

      What blithering nonsense. Have you heard of the logical fallacy of “post hoc ergo propter hoc”?

      All great civilizations come to an end. Blaming this on homosexuality is invalid. Indeed, by your own logic, it makes far more sense to posit that approval of homosexuality gains one’s nation cosmic favour: the nations that are the most accepting of homosexuality and that allow same-sex marriage are amongst the most successful in the world (note that the US is not in this category). Additionally, many of the nations that most strongly condemn homosexuality are economic disasters and cesspools of political corruption.

    • Boo Hoo

      Now, hold up just a second…. I thought all you book thumpers wanted the end of the world? Aren’t you all longing for the Rapture so you can go be with your Lord? By all means, correct me if I’m wrong…

  • Alencon

    According to Merriam-Webster:

    Gender 1: Sex, 2: the behavioral, cultural or psychological traits typically associated with one sex.

    So, no, “gender” is NOT a grammatical term other than in languages where nouns are categorized as masculine or feminine (or neutral as in German).

    Homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals or homosexuality.

    So, you’re wrong on that one as well.

    How hard is it to look things up BEFORE you make a fool of yourself?

    • WXRGina

      Hey, kiddo, why don’t you try looking up the definition of “gender” in dictionaries published back in the good old days, say, before the stupidly “politically correct” world took over–not that long ago, actually. You might be surprised at what you learn, though I’m not holding my breath.

      • Lightning Baltimore

        How far back does one need to go to find a dictionary uninfected by “political correctness?”

        • David Mora

          Until you find one that agrees with her, obviously.

        • LadyGreenEyes

          In this case, thirty years would do it.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Depends on the dictionary. Please, see the scan I provided on this page of a 1934 definition from Webster.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            None of that negates the point made, that the term is used to avoid using “sex”, which means male or female.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            In other words, you have your own “truth,” facts be damned.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            No, I have the facts, which you want to avoid. People come in male and female. That’s basic biology. Did you fail, or simply not go to those classes yet?

          • Taskmasterendgame

            LadyGreenEyes
            Yes thank you for your service.
            Many civilians are not familiar with military life and do not understand spouses of military members who dedicate their lives and support
            to their dedicated military spouses
            and yes thank you for your service
            you no less have served
            your country and your spouse !

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Appreciate that!

      • Alencon

        From the Etymology Dictionary.

        gender (n.)
        c.1300, “kind, sort, class,” from Old French gendre (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) “race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species,” also (male or female) “sex” (see genus) and used to translate Aristotle’s Greek grammatical term genos.

        Yes there is a thing called “grammatical gender” in linguistics, which I acknowledged in my original post, but you’d have to go back to the Greek for “genos,” to find a term solely used to categorize masculine and feminine grammatical terms.

        Of course in ancient Greece there were no Christians so it must it must have been a happy time indeed!

        • WXRGina

          I’m not sure what your point is. Taking “gender” back to Old French or the original Latin meaning of “kind” or “sort,” does not disprove the fact that in the 20th Century, the word’s primary meaning was grammatical. I have three different dictionaries (from the 1980s, 1970s, and 1960s), and all three (Webster’s) define “gender” as a grammatical term. In one of them, secondarily, as sex, AND obsolete usage TO PROCREATE.

          Your equivocation does not disprove the point in the column that the Left has used “gender” as a substitute for the strictly male/female word “sex.”

          • Lightning Baltimore

            I posted a scan of my Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition (copyright 1934) here and definition 1 was “sex, male or female.” My Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition (copyright 1995) defines gender as 1: a grammatical term and 2: sex. Again, though, definition 1 relates to languages that assign genders to inanimate objects and concepts. English does not do this, other than in the case of gender-specific pronouns, so definition 1 does not really apply in English-speaking countries.

          • WXRGina

            *sigh*
            Again–none of this equivocation disproves the fact that “gender” has been hijacked by the Left as a replacement for the word “sex,” and its meaning has been perverted and expanded beyond the truth of male and female sexuality.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Except, of course, that that is a blatant lie. Thanks for playing, though.

          • WXRGina

            HAHAHAHAHA!!! There you go! A “blatant lie” you can’t disprove. Sure thing.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            You’ve been given plenty of proof. You simply choose to claim it is irrelevant. Go figure.

          • WXRGina

            What proof? I’m tired of repeating what’s already been said. “Gender” has been hijacked, period. I’m not sure why that bothers you so, but, apparently it does.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Using a generally accepted meaning of a word, especially one that *matches* the dictionary definition, is not “hijacking” it. You are aware that words can have multiple meanings, right? Or have you not yet gotten to the study of homonyms in school?

          • Nameless Cynic

            Shouldn’t say “homonym: around here. Makes people nervous.

    • Mark Luttrell

      Look up ‘phobia’

      • vorpal

        Phobia: irrational fear of OR aversion to.
        Not that complicated.

        • Mark Luttrell

          Exactly . A homosexual relationship is not for me. That is not aversion.
          -As in your molecular example, I dont step away from homosexuals because he or she is there. I don’t have a fear of it either. Its not contagious.
          You’re good with knowledge, and making terms work to your advantage, but rarely apply it to wisdom.

          • Boo Hoo

            Oops, he admitted that it wasn’t contagious. Doesn’t that go against the Christian anti-gay agenda’s rhetoric?

            I guess we’ll be cleaning up after they’re done ripping you apart for that, Mark. You know you’re supposed to maintain the status quo….shame on you!

          • Mark Luttrell

            No. You’ve proven every point I made.
            Every
            Single
            One
            Lol. No really.
            And then some.

          • Boo Hoo

            You made points?

            Oh, sorry, I didn’t notice…

          • Mark Luttrell

            Who ever said it was contagious? The christian antigay rhetoric. Can you direct me to which half of Last century it was used. ?
            Still typing slow for you, boohoo. You’ll catchup.

      • Alencon

        Phobia: an extremely strong dislike or fear of someone or something.

        So what’s your point?

        • Mark Luttrell

          Exactly as you said. The term dsnt fit. I live in TN now 20 + yrs. Havnt seen any extremely, strong, dislike, nor fear towards anyone gay. In my line, been around lotta large groups for extended periods. HeII I’ve even seen old rednecks joking w/ the younger dudes (including gay) about dates, home, family, and personal subjects only guys might converse about. I’m talking about Inclusion.

          • Alencon

            It may not fit you or the people you know. One can be averse (as in a feeling of distaste or repugnance) to homosexuality or homosexual acts without being homophobic.

            It crosses into homophobia when one refuses homosexuals equal protection under the law, discriminates against them in housing or employment, makes public statements that homosexuals prey upon children because homosexuality equates to pedophilia or that the stoning or jailing of homosexuals is a good idea.

            Where exactly is the line? That’s a good question. Like all political issues both sides tend to exaggerate.

    • LadyGreenEyes

      Did you even read the article? The author stated that the original meaning of “gender” has been distorted, which includes in dictionaries. She is correct in that it used to refer to words, NOT to sex. No one, when I was in school, used the term as it is used today.

      A phobia is, as she stated, an irrational fear. People that speak against homosexuality are NOT possessed of any irrational fear.

      All you have done is proven that the brainwashing works for a lot of people.

      • Lightning Baltimore

        Please, see the scan I provided here of a 1934 dictionary that gives the definition of gender as relating to sex *before* the definition regarding grammar.

        • LadyGreenEyes

          Same answer twice?

      • Alencon

        And etymology entries trace the meaning of gender as group, type or sex back to the middle ages and the French le genre.

        Enjoy that bubble of delusion you live in.

        • LadyGreenEyes

          The only reason for the word to be used to describe people in this case is to pretend that there are more than two sexes, and to deny basic biology.

          • Alencon

            Sex is not the same thing as “gender.” Sex refers only to your physical attributes. Gender includes “sex” but also your cultural identity and role.

            Even Native Americans recognized there were more than the basic two genders. Google “Two-Spirit” if you want to learn more.

            Human sexuality is far more complicated than the two buckets of male and female that 95% of the population fits into.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Only in the twisted construction your side has created to avoid the facts. Your statement totally confirms the claims of the author, as well. The simple fact is, they are the same thing. Trying to rewrite the terms, after refusing to label mental problems for what they are, doesn’t change the reality.

          • Alencon

            Uh-huh. Christians, champions of ignorance. Go back to your bubble of delusion. It’s dangerous out in the real world where you might actually learn something.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            I see. You ran out of anything with which to refute the facts, so you resort, as usual for your side, to ad hominem attacks. Since you lost, feel free to quit any time.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Don’t get too frustrated. LGE has already tried to dismiss intersex people as merely having a mental disorder.

  • Theodore Fenton

    This woman has some problems. She must have been spurned at some point by a gay man.

    • Matthew T. Mason

      Oh? How do you know this? Or are you just trolling?

      • Mark Luttrell

        Trolling.

    • LadyGreenEyes

      Is your bridge safe while you are in here messing around?

  • milwaukeeprogressiveexaminer

    The writer of this piece is right. No word changes or evolves (yes the dreaded evolve word) over time. We speak the same exact language as William Shakespeare, no, Chaucer. After all, I always use the word “thou” instead of “you” when referring to someone.
    Sigh, the word gay has been used for over 100 years to mean someone who isn’t heterosexual. Unless the writer is very, very old then the term for those who are homosexuality is older then her. Can we stop worshiping the dictionary?

  • Sterling Ericsson

    This article is incredibly sad, but also hilariously comical at the same time. I just imagine a five year old writing it trying so hard to understand what words mean and not getting it in the slightest.

  • Lightning Baltimore

    Below is a scan from my Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition. Please, note that the sex-related definition of gender comes before the grammatical one. In addition, the grammatical definition states, “in Modern English practically all grammatical gender has disappeared.”

    I am curious as to how old Ms. Miller thinks her readers are? The copyright on this dictionary is 1934. Does she honestly think more than a minuscule number, if any, of her readers were learning English grammar prior to 1934? Of course, it’s quite possible that the First Edition defines gender the same as the Second, so 1934 may be a bit late in the game for insisting that gender was primarily a grammatical concept prior to the “wizards of dark” “hijack[ing]” it. Or does Ms. Miller think homosexuals have the ability to bend time and space and, therefore, change events that occurred before their births?

    • Boo Hoo

      I think she does believe that.

      Clearly, she’ll believe anything.

  • Mark Luttrell

    Phobia, no. I dont step away from someone if I recognize them as a gay individual. I have no fear of them either. I am a male, and thoughts of sex with a guy don’t ever enter my mind.
    Maybe if I wanted to dominate someone and desired an orgasm it would, but that would make me deviant.
    Maybe if I didn’t want the constraints of a traditional relationship and want a handy hole, it would. But that would make me deviant.
    If I were deviant, I would seek others. Find a group. Because alone, is lonely. There’s strength in numbers.
    But never have I desired or considered a male to male relationship. I see no purpose in it. Even a godless evolutionary belief has no purpose for it. Its as if ‘thumbing your nose at evolution’ to be gay.

    • Boo Hoo

      Ha! Your views are interesting, Mark. Hilariously interesting. So, all it took for my “gayness” to come out was for me to not want a “traditional relationship” and the desire for a “handy hole”. That’s rich! But, wait a minute…. I was heterosexually married for 2 years and HAD a handy hole….

      Hmmm….there goes that theory….

      Back to the drawing board, Mark. No worries though…if you keep pounding them out, you’ll eventually get there, just like a monkey on a typewriter will eventually write Shakespeare.

      • Mark Luttrell

        There you went and proved my point. Read the other posts.
        My entire post is about my personal experience, about me entirely, about what it would take maybe for me to turn gay. Read it again and tell me where I challenged you or your opinion.
        -that’s a dare-
        -Opiniophobic you are.
        But you didn’t JUST counter or disregard my opinion, you verbaly stomped on it and compared me to a monkey. Seek domination much?
        You said yourself, you turned away from a traditional marriage.
        Heterophobic fits you well.
        Were you gay before you married? Just got married because that’s what the others did? Or are you bisexual? Had u told ur wife to be previous to engagement? Or Did you change during or after the marriage?

        • Boo Hoo

          You are a monkey, Mark. If you disagree, then you must be opinionphobic, too. See? I can play crazy, too. :-D

          I didn’t “turn away” from anything, Mark. You Christians…so much dramatic flair in your words!

          I got married because I wanted to be like everyone else on the planet. Unlike, and quite the contrary to, the Christian agenda rhetoric, I couldn’t choose to change my orientation, despite trying. She never knew. But, I knew…and didn’t want it. So much for choosing it, eh? That’s why every time one of you keyboard monkeys say that “it’s a choice”, I know for a fact that you’re full of it. I have life experience….all you have is opinion based on bunk.

      • Mark Luttrell

        Read again, s l o w e r BooHoo troll.
        Ya the post is talking about me. What would make me be homosexual,
        Well surely, I dont know what its like.
        But you do. Granted.
        And you either chose it in your adulthood
        OR you went along with heterosexual marriage because you’re 5spineless enough to want to appear “normal”
        -I’m typing slow so you can keep up boohoo

        • Boo Hoo

          Yes, you already stated that…saying it twice doesn’t make me believe it even once. You’re making a condemnation about gay people using yourself as the reference point. I got it. If you are incapable of understanding what you wrote, that’s your problem.

          • Mark Luttrell

            Said it twice? Well this mini browser didn’t update . I thought It got edited.
            But anyway youask what’s my prob?
            Stupid fuqers like you trolling around looking to solely to argue. I know what I posted. Who pops in with an argument, with the name Boo hoo.
            A troll.
            Go back to yer wife n kids dumas. You’re a pseudogay anyway.
            Look. Rhymes.

  • Boo Hoo

    Oh, look. Someone gave crazy Gina a platform in which to spew her lunacy. Does this make you a journalist now, Gina? Well, I guess it was just a matter of time, since you jump on every anti-gay issue as the Christian right creates them. I do sure hope you received a good editor, though. We both know you don’t really care enough about words and their proper usage and spelling, despite your little diatribe.

    • Mark Luttrell

      Just like choosing the name “boo hoo” makes you a troll.

      • Boo Hoo

        Your tears sustain me, Mark.

  • Mark Luttrell

    Heterophobic, christaphobic, opinionphobic, how many names can one think up. If any one of you talk progay, ever, the the first name applies to you. If you ever had sonething to say about someone’s salvation, or church going, the second is yours

    • Lightning Baltimore

      So if someone is vocally supportive of homosexuals, he or she is automatically heterophobic? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that notion is?

      • Mark Luttrell

        Exactly. YOU NAILED IT!
        I’m a guy, not gay. I dont know or care if you are . If I say gay isn’t for me. And why. Then I’m homophobic. I just exchanged a few notes with a male, born gay individual Who finds sex w/ a femle repulsive. That’s ok. But I can’t say that about sex w/ my own gender. Maybe a long stay in prison would make me think about it. Dunno. But ya, The trolls here ARE heteroPhobic. Its an observation and experience.

        • Lightning Baltimore

          No one is homophobic simply for saying they’re not gay. When you refer to gay folks as “deviants,” however, and make denigrating remarks such as gays just want a “handy hole” without the “constraints of a traditional relationship,” you sound very much like a homophobe.
          By the same token, you accuse anyone who is actually gay, or simply supportive of gays, of being heterophobic, in other words, having an irrational fear of or aversion to heterosexuals. That’s patently absurd. I see no behavior here from anyone identifying as either gay or an ally of the gays making any anti-straight comments. Or is the simple state of being gay in-and-of-itself anti-straight in your eyes?

          • Mark Luttrell

            True. But , as I dont know what gay is, how many gays know what straight is. For Me, something would have to go drastically wrong, severly, medically, or a life sentence in prison.
            Otherwise, thanks for a truly decent disagree ment. Much appreciated. I see u have some character. No matter what ur lifestyle includes or excludes.
            Truly the comments and descriptions in that post is not what I think of gays. Dont read btween the lines.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            BULL. Anyone that ever makes a comment not in support of homosexuality, anywhere online, automatically gets that label, and others, assigned to them by the militant homosexuals and their sycophants.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Please, reread what I wrote. Slowly. If you still have an issue with it, feel free to quote exactly what is incorrect and explain how.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            I don’t need to reread it. You claimed that people aren’t called homophobic for stating they aren’t gay, and that isn’t true. Anyone that states they aren’t, and that they disagree with that as a choice, gets that label.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Rather than quote me, you added a clause to what I wrote to try to make it look like I was being untruthful. You have proven your dishonesty. FAIL.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            I stated what you did, and then I commented on that. There is no dishonesty, and your repeated attempts to label all that disagree with you as dishonest are quite transparent. Ad hominem attacks are the sign of someone on the losing side of a debate.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            You stated what I wrote, *then added to it* in an attempt to prove me wrong. That is intellectually dishonest.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            I commented on the intent of your statement, which was clear.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            The intent of my statement was calling a person a “homo” is juvenile. It would appear that you disagree.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            I think it’s juvenile to call someone “homophobic” because they disagree with you.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            And where did I do that?

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Scroll up. You can’t handle that many people believe the behavior is wrong, so you apply a label.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Where did I call anyone homophobic on this page?

          • LadyGreenEyes

            You stated that it is acceptable under certain circumstances.

            This is becoming beyond pointless.

          • Lightning Baltimore

            Of course, it is, *when it’s warranted*. In fact, I specifically pointed out certain things that were written here that give the impression that the writer is likely homophobic. There’s a difference between simply not understanding or not approving of homosexuality and being a homophobe.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            As I stated, you defend using the term, and are thus a good example of what the author points out in the article. You lost. Get over it and move on.

          • Boo Hoo

            That’s because it isn’t a choice, Ms. Green Eyes. Oh, and spare me your ideological, Christo-centric opinion, because your opinion is irrelevant when put up against life experience. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You have ZERO reference points. Period. If you want to keep flapping your gums over how it’s a choice, by all means, have at it. But spare us the crybaby routine about a label you have (self) righteously earned through your own thoughts and behaviors, ok? No one buys it.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Ah, name-calling; the tactic of one still losing the debate.

            As for the rest, you are the one with a weeping moniker, not I, so perhaps you should take a look at yourself. I think the silly label is foolish and, frankly, uneducated, but it doesn’t hurt my feelings. It isn’t my side that whines and complains and calls names, because they are too sensitive to handle anyone disagreeing with them. That’s your side.

            Reference points? Case studies, people I have have known who were homosexual, and stated why, and more? You just prove that you can’t handle anyone not agreeing with you, and you resort to name-calling, which is exactly the behavior this article addresses. Nice of you to confirm it so well for the author.

          • Boo Hoo

            Post these “case studies”, or you’re full of it. I know more gay people than you do, so spare me your one or two friends who probably can’t stand you. As I stated, you have nothing. It’s not that I can’t stand people disagreeing with me; it’s just that I find liars offensive and intellectually wanting. That would be you, dear.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            I am not posting detailed case studies on a discussion thread. The simple fact is that the studies show facts, even though some groups are known for misrepresenting the actual data, or obscuring things that don’t fit their agenda. That’s the sort of thing you use to support your agenda; lies and misrepresentations. Like it or not, those are the facts. Deal with it. You have offered literally nothing, save insults and opinions. Where is the intellect in that? I am not seeing any.

          • Boo Hoo

            Yes, yes. Studied you won’t even link to “prove” what you’re saying. Typical.

            Are you sure you’re eyes aren’t brown? Because you’re full of it.

            See ya around, “Green Eyes”.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Coming from you, the remark, “Typical” is practically a joke. The simple truth is that I could post links to a thousand studies, and you would still claim they weren’t valid, or whatever. Now, go troll elsewhere.

  • climate3

    You really don’t understand why you are considered homophobic? Really? Really? Well it is that thing about linking gays to Satan in your last column. I don’t think you were doing it out of the kindness of your heart.

  • Clint Batterton

    Perhaps Gina should have read her own screed of March 18 before declaring that she has no irrational fear of gay people, or her December comment that marriage equality is a plot by Satan to murder “Christians” (fundamentalists? 80% of us identify as “Christian”). Sure, nothing irrational or paranoid there. Losing the so-called “culture war” that they started seems to have unhinged some folks, who spend all of their time now attacking gay people just for being gay. Now Gina claims that those evil, “unnatural” gay people have somehow transformed our language and have intimidated those who support gay and lesbian civil rights (making them the “real” homophobes?). Of course, gay civil rights supporters include the Fortune 500 corporations, not exactly wimps, who universally have adopted and enforced nondiscrimination policies protecting their gay and lesbian employees, and (for over 30 years) the mainstream Protestant churches, such as the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ or the United Church of Christ. Where is the evidence that they were motivated by fear of the small gay minority? Here’s a modest alternative theory – today we all know that LGBT Americans are leading ordinary, normal and productive lives in every corner of society and in our military, where they put their lives on the line to protect us. They are our co-workers, neighbors, friends and relatives. They are not “immoral,” “unnatural” or “unhealthy,” and those would not be legitimate reasons to deny civil rights under our Constitution anyway. Should we deny civil rights to the obese or to adulterers? No. LGBT Americans deserve the same civil rights as everyone else under our Constitution, and the same right to be treated with human dignity as everyone else under Christ’s Golden Rule. So, just maybe, corporate America and our mainstream Protestant churches have not been bamboozled by the term “homophobia” or intimidated by anyone, but base their opinions on traditional American concepts of fairness and equality, not to mention traditional Christian love. But hey, I don’t want to interfere with the right-wing outrage machine, which has a new theory, unsupported by any evidence, or a new addition to its enemies list every week (just what is this secret “cultural Marxist” conspiracy anyway?). You can always switch your attention to one or more of those other bogeymen of the right – racial and ethnic minorities, feminists, communists, Marxists, Muslims, foreigners, immigrants, terrorists, street criminals, “Red China,” the Illuminati, Free Masons, the UN (and the list continues). If it would please you, Gina, we could substitute “ignorant bigotry” for “homophobia,” although all bigotry seems to be ignorant. Increasingly, I have to wonder what the difference is between far-right politics and paranoid schizophrenia.

  • LadyGreenEyes

    You know this article hit the nail right on the head, because of all the trolls that have flocked in to try and denounce it. Excellent analysis.

    • Lightning Baltimore

      Disagreement does not equal trolling.

      • LadyGreenEyes

        There is a difference in logical disagreement and comments offered to inflame and insult.

  • Lightning Baltimore

    I see your penchant for intellectual dishonesty goes unabated. I did not realize at first that you were the author of this ridiculous piece of tripe.

    • LadyGreenEyes

      Her points are carefully proven, whereas yours are not.

  • chewyourfood

    …I felt my IQ drop while reading this. Ms. Miller, can you find nothing better to do with your life than cluttering up the interwebs with your garbage? Maybe one day you will join the rest of us I’m this century…and leave your beliefs where they belong- with your outdated dictionaries in the 1960s.

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!