In the cultural battle between those who oppose and those who approve of homosexual behavior, homosex advocates often describe their ideological opponents as “homophobic” and label them as “homophobes.” In addition to the fallacious nature of such an argument (commits the ad hominem fallacy), the charge itself is false. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. Those who suffer from arachnophobia have an irrational fear of spiders. Those who suffer from claustrophobia have an irrational fear of small spaces. Would it be accurate, however, to describe those who disapprove of homosex as having an irrational fear of homosex or homosexual persons?
In all my years of trafficking among people who oppose homosex, I have yet to meet a single individual who is genuinely fearful of homosex and/or homosexual persons. While such individuals may exist, surely their numbers are exceedingly small, and thus they should not be used to characterize opponents of homosex generally. It is not fear, but a sense of moral disapproval and/or personal revulsion to the act of homosex that drives most anti-homosex proponents. This is the same basis on which most homosexuals would oppose incest and pedophilia. In the same way that their opposition to these sexual practices should not be labeled incestophobic and pedophiliophobic, those who oppose homosex on moral or personal grounds should not be labeled homophobic. It is a misuse of language.
Indeed, I can’t think of any other morally debatable behavior in which those who oppose the behavior are said to have a phobia (or to be guilty of “hate”). Many people have moral or personal qualms against drug use, adultery, and polygamy. Would we label such individuals drugophobes, adulterophobes, or polygamophobes, or say that they are driven by hate? Clearly not. Having a moral opposition or personal revulsion to some behavior does not make you fearful/hateful of that behavior and/or those who participate in it.
While homosexuals and homosex advocates may not like the fact that others do not support the behavior, distorting their opponents’ view and calling them names will not persuade any one, nor help advance the debate.
Thinking to Believe 
February 15, 2011 at 7:05 am
Jason,
It’s just an example of the Left’s unwillingness or even inability to consider viewpoints that differ from their own. Nobody who disagrees with them is “wrong,” as that would mean there are two sides to the issue. Instead, there is only one tenable position and anyone who dob’t take that position is modivated by fear or hate. It reminds me of Obama explaining that the reason people claim to support gun rights and religion is because they are bitter (hateful) and they cling (fear) to guns and religion. Leftists are often heard wondering why people “vote against their interests,” as there is no question that Leftist policies are in your best interest, as proven by the NYT editorial page. The idea that there could be other viewpoints has honestly never crossed their minds. (NPR said it, I believe it, that settles it, amen!) If you oppose surrender to violent jihad, you are islamophobic. So on and so forth.
The other possible explanation for disagreeing with Leftists is economic conspiracy theories. So tax cuts are sought by large corporations out of greed. Bush invaded Iraq not because his policies are wrong, but to take their oil. Etcetera.
It would be fun to call them polgyophobes or incestophobes, as they claim to support any behavior between consenting adults. But the real issue is deeper: an ignorance of the other side of any issues.
Arthur
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 11:56 am
Arthur,
You said it well. It is annoying that the Left tends to align the Right’s motives rather than engage their ideas. The Right is demonized rather than shown to be wrong.
Jason
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Well said. Great post Jason.
LikeLike
February 15, 2011 at 11:29 pm
I hear the words of Christian “homophobes” quite often. A xenophobe is probably more accurate. We’ve caricatured homosexuals, created imaginary stories about them. Our church youth groups are filled with endless, hate-filled jokes. Even our conference speakers will slip a few hate bombs in. It’s part of the Evangelical, and even Pentecostal culture. Want to get a group going? Hate on a homosexuals. That’ll usually do it. Everyone will feel like they “beat up the devil” and feel a little more righteous about themselves.
This isn’t about political lefts vs. right nonsense. I’m surprised a poster brought that up. I’m a conservative, born-again, spirit-filled Christian. Yet I feel the majority of those who camp within that bubble are GOP-faithfuls who drape their flag too quickly over His cross.
It takes a lot of denial to deny the homophobia rampant in churches. How many would have dinner with an openly gay man? Invite him into their home? No, it’s usually just, “thank God I’m not like this man a publican (fill in the blank)” self-righteousness.
We don’t have to raise our voice or put much effort into making sure people know we hate homosexuals..err.. I mean homosexuality. That message is frankly loud and clear to the world around us. We’ve given Jesus a bad rap with sinners… that’s for certain.
LikeLike
February 16, 2011 at 12:03 am
Greg,
I agree with some of what you’ve said, but I think it is irresponsible to label what you have described as “homophobia.” Even these Christians you describe are not afraid of homosexuals. Dislike them? Possibly. Afraid of them? I think not.
Jason
LikeLike
February 16, 2011 at 1:51 am
Jason,
While what you have said is true, what you haven’t mentioned is that our fight is not with flesh and blood, but the powers of darkness.
There is no way around the fact that the war against christian groups by the militant homosex advocates is driven by the devil for why would homosexual couples want to be “married”, or worse, be married in the temple of God? (which is what the UK govt are proposing to force on the church!)
LikeLike
February 16, 2011 at 2:26 am
Scott,
That wasn’t the point of the post, but I would agree with you that part of this battle is a spiritual battle. The other part is the fleshly appetites and moral rebellion of mankind.
As for the U.K., I only briefly read about the issue today. As I understood it, the civil union law the UK passed in 2005(?) forbade the unions from being formalized in churches or by clergy, and the new bill is merely allowing church groups who want to rent out their facilities or officiate the ceremony. No?
Jason
LikeLike