Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for December 21, 2010

So let’s just kill the non-critical gay soldiers.

That’s compromise.

Well, my hope for Mel’s dad is shot down. Those that I thought were pre-judging him yesterday were right.

I’m not sure what army he served in, but Mel’s old enough to be my daughter, and he sure didn’t serve in mine.

On second thought, I guess there were some that were kept in the dark and couldn’t figure out on their own that there were gays in their unit.

It’s too soon for the forces of liberty to declare victory, but Eric Rudolph’s side of the culture war took quite a hit this past weekend.

Homophobia’s strongest enemy is shifting demographics. Here’s hoping that homophobic soon becomes the new q u ee r, in the original sense of the adjective: in the numerical minority, affected and peculiar.

I was a nuclear reactor operator on the Enterprise, 1967-71. One of our reactor plant chemists was outted and discharged. He was one of the best, if not THE best, chemist we had, and his departure left a huge hole in our department. We liked and respected him before he was outted, and the revelation didn’t change that. He did his job, and that’s all that mattered. The death of DADT is looooong overdue.

I was in the military before and during DADT. If he thinks there weren’t homosexuals in the military before, he’s deluding himself. Some would marry for a cover. I had a coworker who openly talked about his girlfriend’s husband being gay and not minding their relationship so long as she stayed married to him to continue to provide a cover so the brass wouldn’t find out he was a homosexual. I’m sure this wasn’t very uncommon either.

I figure anyone willing to make the commitment where their life could be on the line to protect our country’s interests should be allowed to. It would still be wise to not “come out” in basic training, but in my opinion we shouldn’t put people out of the military for being gay.

For those of you who are wondering what military Mel’s Dad served – a better question would be: in what military does Trudeau have experience. I never served in the military, and don’t claim to have done so, therefore I don’t pretend to have valid opinions about the experiences therein.

I don’t understand why so many officials think that openly gay Servicemen would suddenly act like a bunch of Naval Aviators at a Tailhook Convention.

Unless they think that’s how ALL Servicemen act.

As someone once said, guys don’t like taking showers with guys who like to take showers with guys! We don’t have private apartments, you know. Are the services to have four sets of quarters: straight male, gay male, straight female, gay female?

That said, the military will do what it always does: bleeep about the air-headed civilians doing social engineering, but implement the policies of our civilian leaders. And I wouldn’t have it any other way.

And for any of you turds out there willing to bash others as “homophobic”, look up the word. Don’t confuse someone’s disgust or belief that homosexuality is immoral with irrational fear.

^They’ve been taking those showers all along! Removing DADT isn’t going to change that. And any serviceman who didn’t know he was taking showers with gay servicemen was either deluding himself or just not that bright.

And it’s not the “air-headed civilians” here - it’s the military itself that said removing DADT wouldn’t make a difference.

And while you’re technically correct that a phobia mean fear, the term homophobia is so commonly used to express disgust or belief in its immorality that they are essentially synonymous.

By the way, NavyRetired97, glad to see you have such a high opinion of the civilians you once promised to protect.

Though I have several members of my family who either are or have served in the military, (luckylouie, my uncle was on the Enterprise at about the same time you were!), I have not.

But I don’t believe this disqualifies me from commenting on DADT in the military. Or on anything else in it - because this is *my* military as much as it is a service member’s. Unless you believe the military is a separate class rather than the servant of the American people, it is your obligation as a citizen to pay attention and have an opinion on what it is doing. And that includes how it treats its members both during and after their service.

Nevermind Trudeau’s military experience, many posters who have served in the military testify that “Mel’s Dad” (a fictional character, we must keep in mind) is full of it.

For myself, I was in Uncle Sam’s Navy for six years during the 1970’s. There were definitely homosexuals onboard the ships I were on – and I’m talking about senior enlisted too. Concerning these guys, it was somewhat the secret that everyone knew. God only knows what they did on shore – and it likely wasn’t as bad as what many of the “straights” did – but on duty and extended cruises they were able to contain themselves. I was in personnel and during my enlistment I processed the discharges of seven crewmen discharged for homosexuality. Each one of them were guys who wanted out and had personality problems transcending homosexuality. It really was true: if you wanted to end your enlistment – and didn’t mind getting a General discharge – confessing to being a homosexual was the quickest way out. If you wanted to stay in, just keep your mouth shut and don’t make any passes onboard the ship.

It is probably true that an aggressive homosexual would be a disruption in a military unit – but that’s really not what we are talking about. An aggressive anything would also be a disruptive member. I judge the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will ultimately prove to be a non-event.

@NavyRetired: Yep, bleeep that politician-driven social engineering. Why, I hear there are liberal freaks who think that NEGROES should be officers! Yeah, like a white man who had any pride would take an order from a black man. Never going to happen. And serving in the same unit with them? What white man would SHOWER with one of their kind?

Oops, sorry. Isn’t this the WWII army rant area? Sorry, let me slink off to the Nam rant area where I can whine about hispanics and women as soldiers and officers instead.

One of the most shining examples of a homosexual’s military service is that of Alan Turing’s. Without Turing’s brilliant work cracking the Axis encryption, the Allies might have lost the war in Europe. It can easily be said that he was one of the primary people responsible for saving our way of life from the Nazi regime. After the war, he was harassed into suicide by his own government by way of thanks. Anyone who wants to tell me that homosexuals have no place in military service, I DARE them to study the wartime contributions of the mathematical genius Alan Turing, and then imagine what our world would have been like without those contributions.

I can attest to gays being in the military a long way back. My uncle was gay and he served as a naval medic at Guadalcanal during World War II. I’m sure he kept it to himself but he was there serving and no telling how many sailors might have died without his medical assistance. I imagine there were even gays serving during the Civil War and on back into history.

Well, my dear old home State of Idaho didn’t disappoint in the Senate vote, and neither did my boys from Utah: Bennett voted against repeal, and Hatch… huh, whaddaya know? Hatch took the bold stance of NOT VOTING.

These kids have GOT to get out of the Temple once in a while.

Using the label “homophobic” is just as much of a brainless knee-jerk reaction as is the behavior that it attempts to describe. It’s the kind of word that one uses to try to prove to themselves that they can win a pissing contest by wearing a self-rightous raincoat, but the sad fact is that even when you win such a contest you’re going to be covered in piss in the end anyway.

It seems obvious to me that being openly gay in the military could indeed pose an operational nuisance in some tactical situations, but persecuting them for being who they are is even worse. As has been discussed before, the introduction of any overt sexuality into military situations should be officially frowned upon. Abuses shouldn’t be tolerated, as they should not have been tolerated with Mel.

I had several members of the military in my family. I don’t think that makes me any more qualified to speak about those issues than anyone else. There are a lot of folks who have an opinion about wanting abortion to be illegal who don’t have a functioning uterus, which would seem to be far more important in terms of having an opinion about abortion as opposed to whether or not one serves in the military and the ratification of DADT.

@ravenswing; I admire your comments. They are right to the point. Nowadays, if I want to see if I consider a remark about some group unacceptable, I just translate it to black people and see how that sounds (as you did).

It is very politically uncorrect and absolutely socially unacceptable to make prejudiced remarks about black people. Unfortunately there are still a few other groups that need to be “normalized”: those you mentioned, native people (in Canada we call them the First Nations, and that seems to be ok, but oh, how racist our government is - the way it treats them is disgusting). And the homeless, and alcoholics, and probably more that, happily, don’t come to mind.

montessoriteacher, I agree. Holding a position that is consistant with one’s values does not requre that one actively participate in the topic at hand. On the other hand, as cdward points out, this is our military. We pay for it and elect representatives to lead it and deterine its policy, so perhaps we are active participants after all.

The abortion issue is an interesting example in point. I will never have a functioning uterus, but as an adopted abortion survivor I have had a much larger stake in the issue than anyone else who does. But even were I not, all of society are investors in the issue of both our military and of abortion. If we are all expected to assume the responsibility of our collective decisions, be it through our defense budget or through WIC payments, we must also all have a say in them.

The composer Samuel Barber was gay, but served in the Military during WW II.

I guess the policy then was “Ask, but don’t tell”.

Wow, you are an adopted abortion survivor. I never met one of those before. Gee. I am not saying I don’t believe you but I must say I find this highly unlikely. Sorry. I know a lot of folks in medicine and reproductive health and I do find this highly improbable.

montessoriteacher, I’ll bet you have met several before. There are many different types of abortion survivors. Your statement is akin to Mel’s father’s above when he said that homosexuals didn’t dare enlist. They were there, blinders not withstanding, and in any event you can check meeting at least one off your list of life experiences.

However, the issue isn’t abortion. It is the right to have an opinion even if one is neither gay nor in the military, for which I agreed with you.

Yeah, Daddy’s in denial but, I hear there are no homosexuals in Iran :)

Why do I get the feeling Mel may be about to come out to dear old Dad?

Folks miss the point. Politically. Both homo and hetero have insisted that the gay sexual preference be the sole point of identity for someone who makes that choice. heteros see themselves a father or mother, worker or house keeper, leader or follower, all before that accepted preference. Most regular folks simply care that a friend is a friend or a co worker does their job so long as they don’t try to “swing” them one way or the other.

The pols are using a person choice to gain votes because it offends some and using the difference as part of scare tactics to persuade the fearful. BOTH sides use the tactic on guns, abortion, sexual choices, religion.

Everyone on the sides of these issues is a person who’s life shouldn’t be used to gain points or positions and most of the pols crying about these things are doing exactly that: using them as cartoon icons to sell position and gain votes. I don’t mind doons or some of them as much because they are selling something I often agree with and using actually fictional figures instead of reducing real humans to that role. but neither father nor daughter is anything but a talking point here.

DADT, or more correctly, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass” was a band-aid put over the military’s homophobia and discrimination against gays and lesbians. It was meant to protect them from harassment. Removing this band-aid simply re-exposes them to harassment and witch hunts from homophobes in the military. The military needs to be forced to correct itself on the issue of allowing homosexuals to openly serve without abuse, though I’m not hopeful, since they haven’t corrected the fact that 1 out of every 3 women who serve in the military is sexually assaulted.

@Nemesys - Labeling someone a homophobe CAN be a knee-jerk reaction, but sometimes it is an honest assessment, just as racist, sexist, etc can be. It is perhaps more useful to point out someone has made a homophobic statement rather than labeling the person - this puts it on their behavior, not their identity. But to give an example from another sphere - Shortly after our state elected a woman as governor some years ago, I had a man tell me he wasn’t a sexist, he just thought women shouldn’t hold public office. That’s a sexist statement, and deserves to be called out.

@Nemesys - a final thought, you said “As has been discussed before, the introduction of any overt sexuality into military situations should be officially frowned upon.” I’m always bemused when people talk about DADT in this way. It has nothing to do with overt sexuality, but about a person not having to hide who they are. If you think this isn’t trying, I challenge you to go for one week and don’t say ANYTHING that reveals your sexual orientation to anyone else. DADT isn’t about allowing sex in the barracks (or the showers) it means people know - and don’t care - that you have a same-sex partner or dating relationship in appropriate venues. It means everyone gets treated the same, gay, straight or somewhere in-between. And if some guy is worried that some other guy is checking out his junk in the shower, that’s his problem – unless the other person is doing something that is overtly harrassing.

NavyRetard wrote: “As someone once said, guys don’t like taking showers with guys who like to take showers with guys! ”

I guess you never showered in a locker room. Or maybe you hid until everyone had finished up and left. Unless you are a sociopath like that, you have and will continue to shower with gays. Have youbeen badly damaged by the experience? I DIDN’T THINK SO.

Navyretard wrote: ” And for any of you turds out there willing to bash others as “homophobic”, look up the word. Don’t confuse someone’s disgust or belief that homosexuality is immoral with irrational fear. ”

I will summarize this as SIMPLY as I know how (you NEED simple):

Don’t you DARE call yourself American if you are a homophobe.

YOU* are a homophobe. “disgust”, “immorality”, are IRRATIONAL EMOTIONS. Nothing more,nothing less.

I’m with you Doctor Toon, and, to be fair, I take issue with straight people who aggressively flirt and won’t take no for an answer as well. That’s not really about sexuality so much as obnoxious and offensive personality. Jerks are a category unto themselves.

I’m not sure where the problem is. I retired after 25 years in uniform. Any time there was unwarranted touching or attention - gender and orientation were not discriminating criteria - it was dealt with by the chain of command as an assault.

Pre-DADT and during DADT, exceptions to the rule of homosexuality could be made for those whose sexual orientation became known. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html#b

I hope the link works. ….. and the military will write the rules to implement the “Repeal” and there are to be no separate quarters, showers, etc.

I would say that many of those who were terminated from service was because they didn’t like the service and “outed” themselves. ala: Klinger

I’m just glad that Trudeau is showing them wearing their seatbelts.

Let’s see now. In the world according to oppenents of DADT repeal, our honorable brave andservice members share living quarters with closeted homosexuals, and everything is hunky dory. When these same gay personnel acknowledge that aspect of their lives, however, their straight colleagues will become paralyzed by a massive outbreak of heebie jeebies??

Perhaps the armed services now can adopt a DADT policy toward homophoia.

Who will replace those wet’sho can’t cope? L

Who will replace those who can’t cope? Let’s hope that DoD can find replacements with less lily in their livers.

Justice22: I worry that the DADT repeal will be used to prepare the nation for the return of the draft. We know, courtesy of WikiLeaks, that our middle eastern “friends” like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and yes, Israel (funny to see those three names together, eh?) have been trying to pressure us into invading Iran. I’m not particularly confident that President Pushover will resist them too much longer. Such an invasion would almost certainly be met with enough popular resistance to require a draft.

Back in the Vietnam days, it wasn’t unheard of for people to claim they were gay in order to avoid the draft (see Arlo Guthrie’s “Alice’s Restaurant Massacre”: “if two people walk into the shrink’s office, sing a bar of ‘Alice’s Restaurant’– in harmony –the shrink might think they’re both [British term for cigarettes] and not take either one of ‘em…“). In those days, publicly stating you were gay could jeopardize your job prospects and generally mess up your life, so relatively few people actually faked homosexuality to avoid the draft, though many talked about it.

These days, announcements of sexual orientation provoke a yawn from most people, so there wouldn’t be any great social penalty to avoiding a draft by claiming to be gay. And so the military has to get that loophole plugged before any attempts to re-instate a draft.

I have no idea if this is what was going through the generals’ and politicos’ heads when they decided it was time to repeal DADT, but it could very well be an unintended consequence.

It seems to me, that for most people, to refer to someone as homophobic is to declare them aggressively anti GLBT. This is understandable. Aggressively anti GLBT people by nearly all standards must be homophobic.

Perhaps this equation, homophobic=anti GLBT is appropriate. Certainly anti GLBT=homophobic. I’m not sure there is an agreed upon meaning.

My question is this:

For those of us who value and appreciate our Gay and Lesbian friends and equally our Straight friends and hope the best for them and despise attitudes and actions that denigrate any of them, how do we honestly share those feelings of ours that do not conform to our “better selves.”

How can I say I am homophobic and not be labeled by many supporters of GLBT folks as anti GLBT?

Members of Alcoholics Autonomous introduce themselves at meeting thus: Hello I am so and so and I am an alcoholic.

These AA folks better selves hate their alcoholism and yet they claim the label because to not do so would be a dangerous denial of the truth.

I hesitate to say that I am not homophobic because that could be a denial of the truth. As long as homophobic means only that I harbor (to my dismay) fears of GLBT folks then it would be a denial.

If the meaning of homophobic extends to hatred of GLBT folks then I’m not homophobic. That still leaves me wondering what to call my real though irrational fears.

My fears do not conform to my “better self.” There may be much that I can do to undo those fears. I consider it my obligation to reduce or eliminate those fears. Meanwhile those fears remain real. I therefore have a further obligation to overcome those fears while they remain. Denying that I have them is, however, not an option.

We may need descriptors better suited to the task of describing our fears that we don’t like and don’t trust and yet still have. I would hope for something better than recovering homophobic.

So again, how do I name my fears and how do I refer to myself as long as I have them? Present and various uses of the term homophobic remains confusing.

@jimcracky

Not liking someone or something is not a psychological defect. Phobias are diagnosed by psychological professionals. Unless accompanied by such validation, labeling someone as such is just name calling, like calling someone who doesn’t understand or agree with you a “retard”. The use of such terms is much more revealing of the person who uses them than it is about the person they are attempting to describe.

You misunderstood the other statement, since it was made in context with others made in previous days. Other posters had commented that the military takes a dim view of mixing sex with service in any context, save displays of affection by family members before/after deployment.. My comment merely reflects my belief that this won’t change.

By the way, leering at body parts (in the shower or otherwise) is considered by the EEOC as harassing workplace behavior.

plus4, can you suggest an appropriate, concise alternative to homophobia (and its derivative adjective) to describe strong antipathy toward same sex coupling and/or those who practice it?

Those of us on the tolerant side of the debate do often regard this antipathy as irrational, but I am open to using less provocative verbiage.

Well, I tried. In any event, thank you for illustrating my about the irrationality.

I try to avoid the unnecessarily inflammatory word “bigot”, but your use of the phrase “sexual confusion disorder” brings you within the narrow (minded) class for whom bigot is entirely appropriate.

Can anyone other than plus4 suggest an appropriate, concise alternative to homophobia (and its derivative adjective) to describe strong antipathy toward same sex coupling and/or those who practice it?

As for reinstating the draft, I am for it. Why should we have only the sons and daughters of our more unfortunate citizens pounding sand while the richer folks kids are having a great time partying in their frat houses? The truth is that our nation needs to suffer some like during WWII so that we may not make mistakes like Iraq. — Granted, that didn’t help in Viet Nam. It did create a resistance to that war though.

We have had operations ongoing in Iran for almost 10 years that I know of. (not Wikileaks)

@Nemesys - yes, I know what a psychological “phobia” is and I think the widespread use of the term homophobia is unfortunate for that very reason. I prefer the term bigot. A bigot is one who views others as inferior to themselves based upon an immutable characteristic of the other, e.g. race. (I’m not calling you or anyone else a bigot, I’m merely saying that’s what they exhibit when they view others as their inferiors.) No one gets up one day and says “What a great day to become gay and exponentially complicate my life while becoming a social pariah in some circles.” People come to realize they have a same-sex attraction and desire both romantic and sexual union with those of their sex - just like heterosexuals desire with the opposite sex. Knowing this about a person tells you nothing else about them – their skills, competence, personality, charitable or stingy nature, kind or selfish, or anything else. All the gay community is asking is to not be judged on an immutable characteristic that has no bearing on their ability to do their job – in whatever setting.

And yes, I’m aware that staring at body parts is considered a form of harassment by the EEOC. My point is, those in the military are already showering and living with gay/lesbian people and those gay/lesbian people are already acting appropriately in those settings. This won’t change for the very reason you site - it’s inappropriate and gay people are just as capable of being socially appropriate as the next person. And when they’re not, they should be called on it.

plus4, that you continually refer to homosexuality as a “disorder” shows that you’re simply outside the range of discussion here. That was the image of it 50 years ago, but extensive medical, social, and psychological research since have indicated that it just isn’t so. You have had certain experiences and observations which seem to confirm you in your opinions, but far more of us (myself included) have had experiences and observations to the contrary. I’m not inclined to question your own experience and say “You’re simply wrong”, but neither can you give your opinions as “facts”.

If you say “I have met some gays and lesbians who are such-and-such”, fine. I’ve met some gays and lesbians who are such-and-such as well. If you say “All gays and lesbians are such-and-such”, you’re overreaching by a long chalk.

As far as anybody finding homosexual practices “gross” or “unnatural”, every sexual act that a man can perform with a man or a woman can perform with a woman can also be performed by a man and a woman, and are done constantly; in terms of total frequency of occurrences, they are done far more often by heterosexuals than by homosexuals, simply because there are more heterosexuals to do them.

I suspect that most people find contemplation of anybody else’s sexual practices and pleasures “gross” if they’re in any way different from our own. It disturbs me to think of my parents having sex, but I wouldn’t be here at all if they hadn’t.

Whatever gets you through the night, it’s all right, all right.

U.S. Army, 66-69, Viet Nam 66-67, we had lesbian and gay folk around, no real problem. Now if there was somewhere I’d feel endangered “dropping the soap”? it would be in an NFL locker room. All the behaviors of these “jocks” on the field in the tight pants uniforms and groping- THAT would make me nervous.

JohnHerbison said, 43 minutes ago

Can anyone other than plus4 suggest an appropriate, concise alternative to homophobia (and its derivative adjective) to describe strong antipathy toward same sex coupling and/or those who practice it?

John,

I would suggest that you introduce yourself as “John” and let it go at that. If a person is interested in actually knowing you, the conversation will evolve. If the subject of sexuality comes up, tell them you are (insert “name” here) and that you question what to call yourself in description of how you feel. While I am comfortable with a pass being made at me, by any orientation, I am made uncomfortable be persistence in that action, and I have no fear in saying so. “Im straight, but flattered that you think that way of me,” type of statement worked for me.

It’s really simple. Unless you are sleeping with, or about to sleep with, another person, their prior sex life is none of your business. It is shameful to rate a human being on sexual orientation rather than the whole person.

Want to talk about gays in the military, let’s discuss Sgt. Virgil Fox (U.S. Army)! He served (stateside) during WWII.

While it is true that Gates, Mullen and team mislead the public and the rest of Congress on what the military survey actually said - that we stand to lose up to 50% of our professional military because of this ruling. We can’t let that happen, but as long as people keep voting in Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and team, then we will get what we get in politics.

Even in my active duty time in the USMC 1961-1967, there were homosexuals serving and the dirty secret is that a lot of people knew it. However, these people adhered to the rules, no public displays of affection while in uniform, everyone wears the same uniform, etc., etc. So there was no problem for the most part and the military members went their own way and did their duty.

If we accept the common wisdom about Homosexuality, that a person is “born” with the tendency, then as a society, we have to accept that there is a naturally occurring phenomenon with which we must deal. That this may be a genetic defect that only occurs in a small percentage of people should not matter - they are US Citizens and don’t deserve scorn, ridicule or oppression. Yes they should be able to serve their country, and do so without reservation. But they must adhere to all the social rules, and the military culture, traditions and unit loyalty that is in place today. There can be no “special accommodations” to their sexual preferences. As military, they must be responsible for their behavior, and be punished the same way any other soldier would.

Just because they are “gay” there will not be an outbreak of homosexual rape, harassment, or other inappropriate conduct, just as there isn’t for heterosexuals (heterosexual rape, and harassment are common today so we can’t be hypocritical!). That’s just not logical. People who are gay will have to serve with a modicum of decorum, respect and adherence to the UCMJ. There is no other alternative, since Politicians, for better or worse, set the rules and the military obeys. Talk of a “revolution” or “coup” is just wrong. Get out there and run for office, or work to get those you think would repeal the decision elected if you want it changed. Change the system.

@plus4 - Speaking as a mental health worker and someone who specializes in addictions I can tell you and everyone else here there is no “sexual confusion disorder,” no “same-sex attraction disorder” and most certainly no “same-sex addiction.” In fact your use of the term “addiction” goes to show how divorced you are from the actual mental health field which long ago abandoned the fuzzy term “addiction” for a more clinical and less perjorative term of “dependence.” You can manufacture “disorder” terms until the cows come home, but that doesn’t make them real or pathological. Throughout nature, and especially among mammals, a certain percentage engage in same-sex bonding and sexual activity. It is a natural, if minority, condition and people should not be viewed as “disordered” or in any other way judged because of it. They should be judged as all of us are on the content of our character as displayed in our behaviors. To create policies that do anything else, and most especially to judge them based on unchosen and unalterable characteristics, is unfair, biased and bigoted.

Referring to discrimination against gay people as a phobia is probably one of the best uses of language I’ve yet seen. Discriminatory behavior IS generally based on fear, after all. Perhaps racism and sexism would be better dealt with if a word was coined to encompass the particular type of xenophobia (which is only occasionally a fear of Xena, Warrior Princess) being manifested.

If someone can be a kamikaze survivor, why not an abortion survivor? Not trying to say, “surviving an abortion is pro-choice …”

Hey, all.

NavyRetired97 said, about 16 hours ago …. That said, the military will do what it always does: bleeep about the air-headed civilians doing social engineering, but implement the policies of our civilian leaders. And I wouldn’t have it any other way. —— Like several others here, I disagree with almost everything NavyRetired97 had to say. Just pointing out that the excerpt above is probably a realistic assessment, and endorses rather than repudiates (as some seemed to suggest in response) our system of civilian control of the military, “social engineering” and all.

Best to all, QT

The distribution of homosexuality is consistent with that of any recessive gene.

I’m reminded of a conversation about sexuality between Wojo and Barney Miller on that show, where Barney argues that everyone has fantasies that others may find offensive or disgusting, including him. Wojo asks, “It’s not anything weird or perverted is it?” Barney says, “Not to me.”

I’m not a fan of the word “homophobe” either. Although you can certainly hate what you fear, fear is not necessary to hate. I hate parsnips, but I do not fear them.

I assume the word was coined by the gay community. I think that there would be a feeling of empowerment to say “yes there are people who hate us, but it’s only because they fear us.” Once people start to take ownership of a word, its definition can transcend its Greek root words. I notice the online dictionaries use “hate” and “contempt” as well as “fear” in their definitions.

I don’t know if plus4 hates or fears gays, and I’m willing to give him the benefit of doubt, and not suppose he does. What he has proven is that he clings stubbornly to a discredited and largely abandoned belief that homosexuality is a mental illness. I have to wonder why.

I say the following as someone who hopes all people can be treated respectfully regardless of their sexuality or political beliefs.

@Coyoty - There’s no evidence that sexuality is determined by any single gene and the argument for genetic determinism is pretty weak. There’s some suggestion that male homosexuality may correlate very slightly with a female tendency to have large numbers of children. (whatever causes that.) Despite claims to have found the cause of homosexuality, studies almost universally rely on survey data rather than objective criteria.

As for a neutral term for those who are opposed to homosexuality on an ideological rather than emotional basis, “heteronormative” seems most apt.