Homophobic???

January 20, 2014

In the culture war being waged today, words are the weapon of choice.  Those words shape our values; those values, in turn, the moral tenor and direction of our nation.  Therefore, it is of exceeding importance conservatives cede no ground in this war of words.  Unfortunately, that has not been the case.  “Liberals” have been allowed to discard that somewhat tattered and discredited appellation and, instead, morph into “progressives”.  “Pro-abortion” advocates have been conceded the much more generic and less explicit “pro-choice” label.  Most egregiously, the LGBT faction has been allowed to simultaneously demean and discredit those who would oppose their agenda by labelling such opposition as “homophobic”.

I know of no term currently being more scurrilously used in the culture wars than “homophobe”.  If one objects to any tenet of the LGBT agenda, from gay marriage to sexually confused children being allowed to ignore the “boys” and “girls” labels on bathroom doors, such objections are automatically tarred as being rooted in “homophobia”. With the use of this term, objectors are at once painted as irrational and illogical.  After all, if the objections are rooted in a phobia rather than logic, of what possible value could they be?  Why should those with an irrational fear of gay people be given any credibility?  Should they not rather be objects of pity and, perhaps, therapy?

Homophobic has become a pejorative description, its usage carrying with it tones of ignorance and racism.  In the fields of political battle, few wish to be labelled with such an appellation.  In the hands of the LGBT crowd it is a verbal grenade gleefully tossed with regularity the second their agenda or tenets are challenged; its verbal detonation ending many a discussion before it can even begin.  Phil Robertson can explain and qualify all he wants concerning his views on homosexuality.  Because he is labelled as a homophobe, to many his remarks carry the same weight as that of a KKK member discussing race relations.   Ending a debate before it ever starts by “poisoning the well” is a brutally effective strategy.

What is incredibly frustrating is that the term “homophobic” is allowed to be so wildly and inaccurately applied.  In a recent discussion with a friend on the subject of the efficacy of gay adoption, I was warned that my objection to such an arrangement could be deemed homophobic.  Let us analyze that rejoinder.  I believe it will shed light on the misuse and abuse of the term.

People with phobias experience sudden anxiety and fear when they encounter objects or situations which do not normally generate those types of feelings in others.  A person with claustrophobia may panic in an elevator.  An individual who is agoraphobic may find herself hyperventilating in a crowd.   These feelings of anxiety and fear are not rational, but they are definitely real and often debilitating to the one with the phobia.

I have friends and acquaintances who are gay.  I occasionally encounter openly gay people in various social situations.  I have never experienced a panic attack in association with one of those interactions.  I don’t run screaming from the room.  I don’t hyperventilate.  My “fight or flight” response is not triggered by their presence.  In other words, I experience none of the symptoms said to be associated with a phobia.  There is no illogical fear or dread.   I simply have a fundamental disagreement with their sexual lifestyle.  Yet, inevitably, because of that disagreement, I will find myself labelled by the LGBT crowd and their minions as homophobic.

Homphobia implies a debilitating fear.  I may be put off by a man dressing up as a woman, but it doesn’t frighten me.  I may disapprove of two women exchanging a soulful kiss, but I’m not going to panic over it. 

As is the case with many who object to the practice of homosexuality, I don’t fear gay people, I fear for them.  There are very real physical consequences for males actively involved in the homosexual lifestyle.  It is undeniable they have a much higher rate of STD’s and AIDS.  Those higher rates of infection are directly tied to sexual practices.  If there is illogic or irrationality involved, it is in those who would deny such consequences in the face of widely publicized CDC studies.

I have yet to meet my first true homophobe.  That is not to say they may not exist, it simply reflects my experience.  On the other hand, I know many folks who don’t approve of homosexuality.  The vast majority of them would not be comfortable in a gay bar or at a gay parade.  That doesn’t make them homophobic.  They would also be equally uncomfortable at a swinger’s convention.  That’s not the lifestyle they approve or choose.  It’s not illogic panic.  It’s a rational moral choice.  

We need to seize every opportunity to call the LGBT crowd on the misapplication of this incendiary description.   In the case of the discussion with a friend referenced above, when I presented my objections to the use of the term his response was, “I’d never really thought about that.”  Unfortunately, too few have.  There is a very real need for a determined re-education of those who have become comfortable with the misuse of the term.  We cannot hope to have logical, rational, discussions on matters of great moral and cultural import if they can be ended with the simple lobbing of a verbal grenade.

It would also appear a more offensive position could be taken in challenging the use of “homophobe.”  One of the most effective challenges might be to simply mimic their own tactic in reverse.  Would it be invalid to refer to those who are militantly gay as “heterophobic”?  In fact, is that not by their own self-description and practice, accurate?  If a man or woman is disgusted by the thought of a heterosexual relationship, could such repulsion not be considered, perhaps, irrational or illogical – perhaps even phobic?  That is exactly how gays  characterize one repulsed by the idea of a homosexual relationship. In evaluating relationships in this light, would not sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander as well, or whatever LGBT iteration might be involved?

Similarly, would it not be valid to label many of the wildly inflammatory charges homosexuals lay against those who would challenge their right to marry each other and adopt children as “heterophobic”?  Many in the LGBT crowd certainly seem to harbor an irrational fear that those of the heterosexual persuasion are determined to harm them in this matter when such is simply not the case.  How does it logically follow that objecting to two gay men adopting a little girl must necessarily be viewed as inherently vengeful or mean-spirited?  Really?  Could it not be that it simply strains credibility to believe that two men who have vehemently rejected a marital relationship with a female, and have made it clear they can only find happiness with another male, somehow think they can raise a young female with any hope of her having a healthy self-image?  With all the challenges already presented to young females in this culture, do we really need to afflict them with another?  Such a position doesn’t wish harm - quite the opposite.  It desires to protect the vulnerable from harm. 

There are logical, rational reasons for objecting to many aspects of the LGBT agenda.  The objections are not rooted in a phobia.  They are rooted in fact.  Conservatives in this culture war must challenge the slanderous use of terms such as homophobia.  We cannot, and must not, allow in this war waged with words such blatant and abusive misuse of terms.  It places us in a needlessly defensive position and hinders a rational discussion of incredibly important issues.  May we tirelessly battle to see that truth, not inflamed and distorted terminology, rules the day.