Author's Response:
Is there such a thing as homophobia?
We have all heard it used countless times but does this word, homophobia, have any actual meaning?
I believe that it does not; at least in the sense in which it is commonly used. It is rarely applied to those who actually fears homosexuals. Most often it is administered as an epithet to anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda or finds humor in their disposition and lifestyle (stevenherman and opieandanthony).
One can be called a homophobe nowadays due to asking questions like, “So what exactly is the point of this parade?” or “What are you guys proud of here?” Just by asking a few questions (of which there are no easy answers) one can receive the same generic label that was applied to the vile murderers of Matthew Shepard.
It has been my personal experience that merely disagreeing with some of the more vehement gay activists results in one quickly being grouped into an axis of hate.
It doesn’t seem to matter what the specifics of the argument happen to be as, regardless of what you say, they’ll trolley out the same stale, cookie-cutter, accusation of homophobia.
Perhaps if they changed the name of their insult to “gaytotalitarianaphobe” there might be some merit to their claims.
Actually, there is more strategy in the labeling of straights as haters than one might presume. It appears to be a deliberate tactic as a means in which to get the straight population to cower before the demands of the gay agenda. Anne Hendershott explained this angle in The Politics of Deviance:
“Desensitization techniques are even more powerful when combined with jamming, defined by Kirk and Madsen as moving people to a different opinion about homosexuality through a form of operant conditioning. The ‘trick’ of jamming, according to Kirk and Madsen, is to make the homophobe feel a sense of shame ‘whenever his homohatred surfaces.’ They wrote that ‘propagandistic advertisement can depict homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and a**holes– people who say not only faggot, but n***er, kike and other shameful epithets. In the redefinition of defiance, then, anyone who dares to question the morality of gay sexual behavior is labeled a ‘homophobe.’”
There is great truth in her analysis.
Disagreement is not indicative of mental illness or suggestive of one being a well-spring of endless hate.
To deter questioning, activists accuse inquisitive straights of being monsters. Jamming is a mechanism for disabling free inquiry and thereby closing the marketplace of ideas.
Does laughter=hate?
This is the crux of the homophobia position.
Often when one is called a homophobe it is due to finding humor in gay behavior.
Yet such a presumption rings false. One almost never derives laughter from what is hated or feared. I fear great white sharks and do not consider them to be a particularly interesting topic for jokes. The same could be said of piranhas or global warming. It is also true regarding nazism and communism as I hate them both and find no levity in discussing them. With gays it is entirely a different matter.
The titles of various gay bars and restaurants can be absolutely hilarious. In my old neighborhood there were taverns called “The Man Hole” and “The Cockpit.”
Now that is funny stuff indeed.
A few months back, my friend Yakov told me about a new bar by him called “The Piledriver.” How can one not see the humor in such a name?
Isn’t that why they decided to name it as they did?
Clearly, Nazis marching through Nuremberg with torches in their hands evoke few giggles, but the sight of a grown man walking down the road in a pair of black combat books and a G-string is another matter.
Why shouldn’t we laugh?
It’s hysterical.
Really, the real burden falls on those who dress in such a manner.
If one doesn’t want to be satirized then they shouldn’t wear thongs in public. If you do, it’s your business, but there’s nothing wrong with the rest of us cracking up.