Originally Posted By: Faldage
 Originally Posted By: The Pook
I object not only to the absurd etymological construction of the word, but also to the way it is popularly used. I know I'm touching on politics here, but it is also a case of word abuse.

Allowing for a moment its valid use to mean fear of homosexuals, and by extension hatred also (since hatred often comes from fear), there is a kind of person that is truly homophobic because they are suppressing their own homosexual tendencies (like the next door neighbour in the film American Beauty). However, it is now used as a pejorative term to describe anyone who opposes the homosexual lobby in any way. Even if someone is not afraid or, or does not hate homosexuals, if they say anything against homosexual practices or lifestyles, they earn this label. If you do not agree with the beliefs of homosexual lobbyists you are automatically considered "homophobic." That is a great language coup by the homosexual lobbyists that is rarely commented on because to do so is to become homophobic. It's a bit like speaking against a conspiracy theory - in the mind of those who hold it you become part of it.


 Originally Posted By: The Pook
Language is not static in its forms or meanings or usage. Either in time or in place (dialects). It is a fluid, living, ever changing creature. It creeps, downwards, upwards, and sideways.



There's no inconsistency there. I'm only objecting to the disingenuous use of the word. It is not generally accepted as meaning simply opposed to homosexuality or homosexual practices. Its generally accepted meaning is a pejorative one. This is someone with something wrong with them, someone who is suffering some kind of mental problem or paranoia. That's fine if that's what it has come to mean. But applying the word 'homophobic' with all those negative connotations to someone who simply opposes or criticises something to do with homosexuality or particular homosexuals the clear implication is that any criticism of things Gay must be inherently psychologically unhinged. It thus stymies objective debate about Gay issues and is simply namecalling as a substitute for rational counterargument.