Interfaith Group
In reply to the discussion: Richard Dawkins: Atheism’s asset or liability? Post 20 has a new story from RNS. [View all]Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)First, the link you give makes no even remotely vague reference to the use of the term "baby" as even slightly homophobic in regards to gay males (and I didn't even know Justin was gay).
Second, I think the fact that the article that you linked to takes exception with the use of the term homophobia when that is a term you use is hilarious. Though I'm a sucker for irony. YMMV. I'm quite sure you don't see it as so funny.
Third, you made a claim that the post "was downright homophobic" because it used the term "baby" to describe a gay man. I asked you to educate me and show me a link to something that explained why that was "downright homophobic." If it is that "downright homophobic," I would expect you could easily find something explaining that. You clearly can't. I even checked what some think is a great dictionary--Urban Dictionary--and it wasn't listed there as an "anti-gay slur." In short, I'm calling BS on your claim that the post was "downright homophobic." Which leads me to...
Finally, the SOP of this group is
I think calling someone's post "downright homophobic" when you can provide nothing to back up that claim to not be in line with the SOP here. I would imagine that there are many others that could come in here and incorrectly throw around the homophobic label and they would be blocked from the group. Yet you seem to be getting a pass from all but me. Which is interesting. I think you need to either show how that phrase is "downright homophobic" or apologize for doing so which would be in line with the SOP in this safe haven.