Watch Your Phraseology!
There is a growing movement toward redefining the words “homophobia” and “homophobic” to mean a person who hates or disapproves of homosexuals and homosexual behaviour. As an arbiter of correct grammar and proper diction (word choice), I believe that it is incumbent upon me to correct this common mistake before it takes root and becomes a kudzu formation of brobdingnagian proportions.
The fact that a person does not approve of marriage between two persons of the same gender or of sexual relationships between two persons of the same gender does not make that person “homophobic.” The word homophobic means “afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality.” It does not mean “one who hates or disapproves of homosexuals or homosexuality.” The Greek root from which our word phobia derives specifically means “fear of.” The suffix –phobic, likewise, means “fear of.”
There are those who are legitimately described as homophobic. People who will not sit on the same chair as a homosexual for fear of contracting a disease, who will not talk to homosexuals or socialize with them, who run away when a known homosexual approaches — when the reason for their behaviour is fear of the homosexual and his/her lifestyle, then you may legitimately refer to that person as a homophobe.
However, a person who merely disapproves of homosexual behaviour, or a person who hates those who engage in such behaviour, is not afraid of homosexuals, but is, rather, is rejecting their actions. That is his right, and it is just as legitimate as rejecting milk chocolate for dark. What is unacceptable is rejecting the person who is homosexual, especially in an employment situation. It is, however, acceptable for people to choose not to associate with those whose behaviours they disapprove of. As Christiaan Barnard said in his autobiography One Life, “…All men were created to have equal rights. It include[s] the freedom to mix — but also the freedom to not mix.” There is far too much disregard of that second right — the right to choose not to associate.
It is also important to distinguish that a person may disapprove of homosexual behaviour without hating homosexuals, just as a person may disagree with a person of another political persuasion without hating the person. Disapprobation does not equal hatred.
If our society is to continue to grow and to flourish, it is crucial that we remember to acknowledge these fine distinctions, for the fact is that our lives are governed far more by small differences than by large ones.
6 Comments
as usual you always come up with interesting posts!
There y’go.
Maybe we need to have Dan Rather or someone use a new word that describing the hatred of homosexuals enough times for the rest of the media to bring it into fashion. Let’s see: a misogynist does not like women, and misanthrope does not like men. Misogamy is a hatred of marrieage. Misology is a hatred of reason. Misoneism is hatred of change. The roots of these words are all Greek.
Not knowing Greek (it’s all Greek to me) I figure we could start with “mis” for hatred, whatever the Greek word for “same” or “self” is, and “eros” for sexual love. That ought to work.
Editormum…
What is your input? You start your second paragraph with “The fact that a person…” According to a journalism professor I had, the fact is not that, rather it is the point you are making. The statement would then be, “The fact a person…” He was always harping on this and I hear and see it everywhere. Was that just his interpretation or was he correct. I am not picking on you, after all, he could have been wrong or usage may have changed. I enjoy your grammar tips.
Your Journalism prof was incorrect. In the phrase “the fact that,” the word “that” introduces a restrictive clause … Analyze it this way, it makes it easier:
The fact — what fact? This fact: “a person does not approve of marriage between two persons of the same gender or of sexual relationships between two persons of the same gender.” (all of this is ONE fact.)
All of the words between “a person” and “same gender” belong to a clause which describes (restricts) the nature of the specific fact being discussed. Thus, the word “that” is necessary to conjoin the simple subject of the sentence in question with its rather lengthy modifying clause and to indicate the restrictive nature of said clause.
While the word “that” may be omitted in some cases, in this particular case, it is crucial that it remain. I’ll make a note to discuss this topic at length some time soon, as it is one that gives even professional writers and grammarians cat-fits.
Xeno, Editor, Food et al:
I’m no expert on the English language, but I can say that historically the word “that” was invariably used in any literate piece of prose. It was journalists and editors who adopted the pernicious and incorrect deletion of it, and as always, most of us follow like sheep. We live in an era of cliche-ridden, sloppy, and often baffling modes of speech.
yes you are correct. the word “homophobic” is used too liberally to describe those people who approve of such sexual orientation.
although I, myself, do see homosexuality as natural and not condemned as others do, I think that the debate is obscured when such a term is used without specificity. both sides of the debate need to see the other side more clearly.