"Homophobe" is an epithet commonly used by gay activists to describe
anyone who objects to the practice of homosexuality or the gay rights
movement. On the other hand, the term is routinely dismissed by people
who consider it to be part of the ranting of the small minority who
engage in homosexuality and want to force society to accept
homosexuality as normal.
The term grew out of the word "homophobia," which -- if broken down
to its root words -- means fear of sameness. Homophobia is an ambiguous
term. It has no agreed-upon definition. The 1989 book, "Sex and
Morality in the U. S.," put out by the Kinsey Institute, referred to the
term as "erroneous" (page 294). The book goes on to say that "the
assumption that 'anti-homosexuality' is a phobic response, (is) a
conclusion that lacks convincing support."
According to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, who has practiced psychoanalysis
and psychiatry for more than 23 years, "It was coined to mean both a
worry about being homosexual as well as to refer to an opinion that
homosexuality is not good." Satinover, a former Fellow in Psychiatry
and Child Psychiatry at Yale University, says that in recent years the
word has appeared in some federally funded studies without being
satisfactorily defined as a medical condition. "This use is a pure
corruption of the medical process," said Satinover, "Opinions are not
diseases except to dictators."
Unfortunately, that is about to change. The Centers for Disease
Control, the official health arm of the federal government, used the
word for the first time last month with an implied definition that would
please the most radical members of the gay community. Dr. Paul Cameron,
the psychologist who heads the Family Research Institute in Colorado
Springs, stumbled upon this passage in the CDC's "Morbidity and
Mortality Report" for the week of Jan. 14. On page 10 of this
publication, under the heading "HIV/AIDS Among Racial/Minority Men Who
Have Sex with Men," we have this revelation:
TRENDING: To DEI for
- Race/ethnicity itself is not a risk factor for HIV infection.
However, among racial/ethic minority MSM (men who have sex with men)
social and economic factors, such as homophobia, high rates of poverty
and unemployment and lack of access to health care, are associated with
high rates of HIV risk behavior.
The definition of homophobia, as it is used here, came farther
down in the passage:
- Within racial/ethnic minority communities, the stigma attached to
acknowledging homosexual and bisexual activity may inhibit racial/ethic
minority MSM from identifying themselves as homosexual or bisexual and
they may be more likely to identify with their racial/ethnic minority
community than with the MSM community.
When you put these two paragraphs together, you have the
complete picture the CDC is presenting here: Those with homophobia do
not accept homosexuality. Homophobic people, therefore, present a
health risk. This is not the first time this term as been used or
implied by a federal agency. During the seven years of the Clinton
administration, we have seen it pop up now and then, but this is the
first time it has been used by the Centers for Disease Control, which
has dictatorial powers on life and death matters.
The implication for churches, religious broadcasters and faith-based
groups like the Boy Scouts, which hold to traditional Judeo-Christian
morality, are huge. Robert H. Knight, director of Cultural Studies at
the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., believes the problem is
two-fold: "If conservatives don't pick up on this assertion that
homophobia is a private and public health problem, churches could lose
their tax exempt status, religious broadcasters could lose their
licenses. The CDC also is paving the way for making mere opposition to
homosexuality to be deemed a hate crime."
Look at what happened at Bob Jones University. The IRS revoked its
tax-exempt status because of the school's policy on interracial dating.
This shows that a religious exemption can be overridden for any reason
the government finds compelling. What could be more compelling than a
health risk?
More recently, a D.C. court ordered Georgetown University to fund
homosexual clubs on its campus. Georgetown made the religious freedom
case but the court rejected it, choosing instead to elevate the D.C. gay
rights law as the binding authority. Knight points out that the law
often has to choose between competing rights. In fact, every civil
rights claim is made against someone else's claim of equal justice under
the law. "For over two centuries, religion was accorded the highest
respect, because this right was considered inalienable, but that is
changing," said Knight. "With the advent of gay rights laws, including
hate crime laws, gay activists assert that their claims trump religious
freedom and they are starting to make headway."
Dr. Satinover characterized this move by the CDC as utterly absurd:
- The CDC is looking at minority poor homosexuals and they are
saying that the addition of homophobia in that small group increases
members risk of AIDS. In that case, we also should look at
"homophobia" in the population as a whole. We'll find a lower incidence
of AIDS in the "homophobic" group than in the "non-homophobic" group.
So by their own reasoning, the CDC ought to report that for the general
population homophobia protects against AIDS. Then, following what is a
routine epidemiologic procedure, we should be inculcating the opinion
"homophobia." After all, we give polio vaccine to protect the general
population, even though it seems a small percentage of people who
receive the vaccine develop polio from it.
What the CDC is trying to do is characterize anyone who has an
objection to homosexuality as disturbed and a public health threat.
This is a bullying tactic. The important thing to remember is that most
bullies are cowards. These people back down when there is an
appropriate amount of outrage. We saw it last summer when the American
Psychological Association backed off a study that said sex between
adults and children might be positive for "willing" children. We
witnessed it just two weeks ago when the Federal Communications
Commission reversed a December ruling that threatened religious
broadcasting. This threat is every bit as dangerous as the other two
and may be more far-reaching, having been initiated by the Centers for
Disease Control.
Let the outrage begin!