A word on the “word” “homophobe”. It’s a silly word, generally used by silly people. It was invented a few years back for no other reason than to serve as a pejorative, to dismiss a whole sector of people (the majority of Americans, depending on who’s counting) as cranks, hatemongers, insensitive, intolerant, blah blah blah. There is never any reason to use that word in serious discourse–never. And yet it is employed with regularity by silly people like Barney Frank in order to smear. Period.
The reason this is true, of course, is that the etymology of the word, of course, suggests a “fear of homosexuals”. This is ridiculous, certainly, but that fact is of no concern to the silly people. The truth is that the word is used to shut off debate, to squelch opposition to the homosexual agenda, a substitute for serious dialogue (and hence my contention that it is employed by the silly, not the serious). “Homophobia” is advanced, in this case, as the reason Justice Scalia rules as he does. The problem is that Mr. Frank, silly and reprehensible as he is, knows that this isn’t the case, because say what you will, Barney Frank is an intelligent man. This means, of course, that he’s simply lying–willfully–when he attributes Justice Scalia’s actions to “homophobia”. He knows Justice Scalia’s judicial philosophy, that a judge’s responsibility is to do precisely the opposite of what Silly Barney is suggesting, to rule on any given case on its merits as determined by an appeal to the original intent of the framers of the United States Constitution: nothing more, nothing less. A judge who knows what he is supposed to do sets aside his own personal biases and simply asks, “what does the law say?” That doesn’t mean it’s always simple to determine what the framers meant; sometimes, people of good faith can disagree on that point, of course. But the very idea that the animus behind Justice Scalia’s rulings is “homophobia” is laughable; Silly Barney knows this; Silly Barney is lying about it, plain and simple.
And the same is true for most of us labeled as “homophobes” (I dare not say “all”; there are likely some folks who are fearful of homosexuals). I hold the Bible to be the Word of God; no serious student of the Bible can find justification for homosexual practice (note I’m not lumping homosexual temptation into this category; being tempted is not sinful in itself). I must oppose any advance to suggest that homosexual practice is anything but sinful, oppose the rapid-paced march toward acceptance of homosexual practice as anything but sinful. Now, my libertarian viewpoint allows for a lot of room for people to live as they please; I’m not for the government concerning itself with the freely-chosen activities of individuals. But even there, as a matter of law, the question is, what does the Constitution say? And if it allows for homosexual practice to be regulated, then it’s incumbent upon those who disagree to legally amend the Constitution. And if the Bible condemns homosexual practice, as it does, it’s up to me to hold forth that standard, not out of hatred for those who struggle with the sin of homosexuality, but out of love for them, wanting to see them delivered by Jesus, just as I do the same with anybody else who is tempted in whatever way.
Homophobia? No. Silly concept invented and used by silly people. Like Barney Frank.