"Homophobic" rendered meaningless

The word "homophobic" has had a three-stage history.

Early in the twentieth century, "homo" was from the Greek meaning "the same." Homophobic meant fear of the same, that is, fear of boredom.  Apparently ennui was a major concern at that time.  Oscar Wilde described it (ennui) as "the one sin for which there is no forgiveness." According to engram, the word disappeared from common use.

In the mid-1930s, it reappeared, this time in its Latin derivation of "homo" meaning "man." For a short while, homophobic referred to a woman who feared men.

The use of the word since the 1970s should be rendered "homosexualphobia."

Beyond fear, the word is currently used as a pejorative to castigate any questioning or disagreement with homosexual behaviour in public such as walking naked on our main streets or simulating sexual acts many consider lewd.

The word has now used so broadly it has no definable meaning.

Name-Calling is not Argumentation

Bravo Richard Gwyn (Sir John A. wasn't a racist, Toronto Star, Feb 7). The term "racism" must be limited to the true ideologue whom Gwyn defines. He speaks out against an overly-developed sense of righteousness and political correctness. 

A comment or disagreement too often results in one being labelled  a racist, homophobe, bigot, prejudiced etc. Such compartmentalized thinking stifles free expression. It ignores the possibility that the other person may have a valid point, however disagreeable. Name-calling is not argumentation.

Democracy demands the right to disagree even to the point of offence and insult. Only the Criminal Code can set the standard when expression becomes harmful.

Both Sides of the Argument

The British House of Lords is currently debating a law requiring school children, as young as five to receive "non-judgemental" information on abortion and homosexuality. Promoters of the law claim that children must receive "both sides of the argument."

One wonders why legislators do not require abortionists to provide "both sides of the argument" before doing their work. Why is it that only those who believe in preserving life must plead their case?

I would like to know why legislators do not require "both sides of the argument" when homosexuals are permitted to parade naked down our main street while simulating anal sex and masturbation.

The common media would have us believe that any expression of disagreement with such behaviour constitutes hatred and "homophobia." (That dreadful word now designates anyone who expresses any disagreement with the ever-expanding homosexual agenda.)

Politicians in the United Kingdom and some in Canada are caught in the threefold trap set by the media, well-funded homosexual activists, and the abortion lobby. None of this trio represents democratic opinion. Just one per cent of Canadian say they are homosexual.*  The vast majority find abortion morally wrong.**  As for media, the public consistently ranks its journalists near the bottom of any survey of esteem for the various professions.***

Two reasons for the common opinion about the media have just come to hand. The Globe and Mail did not report the poll on abortion mentioned above. While the March 13 Toronto Star buried "abortion" in a mountain of words, preferring to massage the story into one of "values" and left-leaning ideology. This constitutes yet another example of the media reporting only what they want the public to know.


* The Globe and Mail, June 16, 2004. The other "side of the argument" claims five to 10 per cent. Even that small number wields an unjustified influence in our courts, human rights commissions and legislatures.

** 75 per cent of Canadians deem abortion morally wrong, according to a February 2010 poll by Allan Gregg of Harris-Decima and Dr. Andre Turcotte of Carleton School of Journalism. Other polls that produced similar results: Angus Reid January 2010, Harris-Decima March 2010, Ipsos Reid July 2012, Ipsos Reid June 2014.

*** The Pew Research Center reported in September 2009 that 60 per cent of the U.S. public believe news coverage to be inaccurate and biased. That's up from 45 per cent in 1985.