If you're ever accused of being a "homophobe" will you have a good line of defense?  Or will you just bite your tongue and let it slide.  If you're up on all the facts, you should be able to defend what you believe with relative ease. 

WHAT IS A HOMOPHOBE?

Recently writer Paul Mulshine did some checking and discovered that "homophobe" has been in use since at least 1978.  But what does it mean?  According to him, not much.  "It is less a word than a political tactic -- a brilliant one, but one with distinctly Orwellian overtones. Lexicographers deduce the meaning of a word by going to its roots. 'Homophobia' has two roots," he explains.  "The etymology of the second is obvious. It comes from the Greek 'phobos,' meaning 'fear.'  But exactly what does a homophobe fear? The dictionary gives two roots for the prefix 'homo.' The Greek 'homo' means 'same.' The Latin 'homo' means 'man.'"

Sound vague?  Mulshine thinks the term is vague for a purpose. He quotes Orwell to make his point: "Never use a long word where a short one will do," Orwell advised. He also advised, "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent."1.  His point made he says, "Of course, there is no English equivalent for 'homophobe.'  And there can't be."

Calling someone a "homophobe" is a political tactic used to bully people.  For instance, if you believe homosexuality is morally wrong, you're labeled a bigot, a hate-monger, intolerant, or worse.  Basically, you're a "homophobe!" 

Frankly, I don't mind being called a self-righteous moralist when I say that a sexual practice is wrong.  Why should I encourage people to get involved more deeply in things that will destroy their bodies?  Homosexuality is extremely risky.  What's more, these risks are inherent to the practice and cannot be made safe.  Granted, there are precautions that can make some sexual practices safer, but not safe.  Unfortunately in many cases the safety measures are not taken.  When they're not, disastrous consequences can result. 

Case in point.  In January of this year there was a study of HIV-infected people in Los Angeles involving 113 HIV-positive bisexual men.  The study showed disturbing trends in behavior that could lead to the rapid spread of the virus that causes AIDS.  According to Mulshine, "It found that 54.5 percent failed to disclose their infection status to sex partners."  He went on to say that 31 percent reported having unprotected sex.

Rising HIV infection rates are the consequences of the unhealthy elements of homosexual and bisexual behavior -- and people who aren't involved in the behavior are affected.  There's a code of ethic that says, "I can do what I want as long as I'm not hurting anyone else."  But this does not apply to homosexuality, because other people are hurt by what they want to do. 

My question is this: If someone has a disease that can cause harm to or even kill another person, and they act irresponsibly, shouldn't they be held responsible for their actions?  Take for example a wife batterer.  If the husband beats her during sexual intercourse, is it excusable because he beat her in a moment of passion?  Even if she were a willing participant, would she not have a right to press charges against her husband?  She most certainly would! 
Turn the page...

Home Page  |  Cool Stories   |  Opinion Archives |  Top of Page