In many cases this is true. I've been called a "hate-filled homophobe" by some so-called "gay Christians" simply because I believe God calls homosexuality a sin in the Bible.
Doesn't matter to them that I have gay and lesbian friends who I care about as people...according to them I am still a homophobe who wants gays dead, locked up or in concentration camps. This is of course absurd.
Therefore "homophobe" is no more appropriate a word to use in normal debate on this issue than is "faggot."
Both are equally demeaning and hateful words.
Not necessarily. "Faggot" is a hateful term for those who can be refered to as homosexual or gay.
We can use one of these other terms and avoid being being insulting and demeaning or hateful.
When homophobe is used inappropriately it is also insulting and demeaning...but there are also times when this term is fair and accurately applies to a person's attitude toward gays.
There are some people who genuinely are homophobes. And my point was that when those people get involved in the public debate it is counterproductive.
It actually helps the homosexual cause gain support.
There are some people who genuinely are homophobes.
The label is consistently applied to those opposed to the homo agenda simply for opposing the homo agenda on religious grounds.
For every 1000 times it is thrown about, its only true about once, if that.
Homophobe is a useless, demeaning, and insulting term that should be mocked and derided out of the popular lexicon, just as "faggot" has been, and it is rarely if ever used in any sense that is remotely appropriate.
If we make the common error and assert that the homo in homophobe is a reference to those possessed by the inherently disordered orientation of a small percentage of physically male persons unnaturally attracted to other physically male persons, I still don't see the word as appropriate because those who are their critics hardly "fear" them.
Loathe and despise their chosen activity? Certainly! Desire to build a wall between our children and the perversion that once dared not speak its name and now will not shut up? Absolutely. Desire to absolutely marginalize those who would make anal sex between man and woman, man and man, man and beast seem "normal". With all my heart and soul! Kick them out and keep them out of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church to which I belong? You betcha in spades! FEAR the lavenders????? Not in this lifetime and not in God's lifetime!
The purpose of the word faggot is marginalization. I would marginalize communists, rapists, tax-raising congresscritters, gun-grabbers and I would also marginalize faggots.
The subjective and highly political opinion of the lavenders is their problem and not the problem of normal people. We are the standard. They are the deviation. If their feelings are hurt, tough. So long as they are not doing it in the streets and scaring the horses, they are unlikely to be in any difficulty (just like normal people!).
No one in authority wants them dead, locked up or in concentration camps. Most Americans are more than a little sick of the perpetual lavender campaign to be in our faces 24/7 demanding equality for perversion.
To the extent that you wish to express respect for the lavender queens by calling them homosexuals or "gays" (what on earth is gay about the habitual abuse of the nether end of the digestive sustem?) only, suit yourself. To the extent that you want to marginalize normal folks who marginalize the perversion in question, it is hard to discern a rational excuse for your priorities or how those priorities fit within a conservative rather than a libertine mold.