The Uses of “Hate”

Accuracy in Academia ^ | September 16, 2010 | Joe Sobran

[Academiadotorg]

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA— A reader who says he usually likes my columns took strong exception to the one I wrote criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court for striking down the Texas sodomylaw.

He charged me with “bigotry” and added that I sounded like “a bitter homophobe.”

Since I hadn’t written about homosexuality as such, or even about the merits of the Texas law, I wondered how he got that impression. It’s possible to disapprove of sodomy *and* the Texas law *and* the Court’s ruling, and I do. But no matter how clearly you try to write, you can’t stop people from reading their own notions into your words.

Needless to say, it’s very common these days to respond to an argument by addressing not the point the writer is making, but his supposed feelings about the subject. Was it always so, or has the world taken a turn for the worse lately? I can’t say, but few would say we live in an age distinguished by logical thinking. If you reject a political claim made in the name of any category of people, you can expect to be accused of hating all the people in that category.

This kind of thinking has gotten especially silly in the area of “gay rights” and “homophobia,” terms too blurry to mean much. It’s not that I want to plead not guilty to the charges; I merely want to point out how unrealistic the charges are on their face.

[Neoliberalnot]

Only the views of outspoken homophiles will be accepted by the community of perverts. There is no room for opposing sexual deviants—that is the game they play and with the help of homowood they have been quite successful.