[QUOTE=Subterraneanus]
Um, you lost me. But that’s OK. As you were.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s get you found. It’s a discussion about the term “homophobia.”
Prelude: Some discussion about being homophobic vs. believing homosexuality is wrong, with the response that believing homosexuality is wrong is homophobic.
Reloy3: “…I don’t equate believing that something is wrong equals having a phobia about it.” [Having a phobia means having an irrational degree of fear, and often being “whateverphobic” means having such fear of “whatever.”]
lissener: "…the suffix -phobia refers to aversion, not just fear. And the word ‘homophobia,’ as defined by most dictionaries, means discrimination against homosexuals, not necessarily fear. [In respect to my comment just above, often - but not always.]
“Keep in mind that a protein molecule can be hydrophobic or hydrophilic, and no one gets their undies bundled over it.” [Meaning no one thinks that protein molecules literally fear or love water, as an illustration that the suffix “-phobia” has a range of meanings, unlike the stand-alone word “phobia.”]
You: “This is a crazy argument. Protein molecules aren’t free to be other than what they are, so they can’t be held responsible for what they are…People exhibit moral autonomy; mere things do not.” [Apparently thinking that lissener’s comment was about the concept of homophobia, rather than about the linguistics of the suffix.]
lissener: “Um, no; it merely demonstrates that the suffix “-phobia” has more than one meaning.” [Briefly explaining his line of thought, but apparently not clarifying the situation.]
So you and lissener were not talking about the same thing, even though you were talking about the same sentence.
