Recently, an occasional, vitriolic commenter made another of his vicious verbal raids on my blog. His tiresome tirade included the following observations about me: "... can you see the hypocrisy in your homophobic prejudice, your ingrained hatred for oppressed homosexual communities..."
I found these observations curious given that I don't know the whereabouts of any oppressed homosexual communities. Do you? As well, some of the people who support my blog and whose blogs I support are homosexual. They'd hardly come to Seeking Utopia if it was a hotbed of homosexual prejudice, would they? And a few months ago, during a personal low point, two homosexual men were the first to offer me support which I gladly received. And I have owned an accommodation business and gays were among my repeat customers, etc!
Anyway, putting his incorrect observations aside, I wonder whether the issue of homosexuality is being put in the same basket as as Semitism? If you dare raised a question about the actions of the Jewish people in Israel or offer a criticism, the first accusation thrown at you is that you are anti-Semitic.
Does the situation now exist where any criticism or questioning directed at homosexual behaviour and say its relationship to the HIV issue, or the social impact of lowering of the age of homosexual consent, or the adopting of children by same sex couples, or whether gays should be able to marry in the full heterosexual sense, or making some mention of a few tasteless aspects of the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras, etc, automatically earns you the title of homophobic?
If I said that most heterosexual couples were rather clueless about raising children should I rightly be called heterophobic? Should any group (race, gender, religion, age, wealth, political persuasion, intellectual ability, sexual preference, indigenous background, etc) be free from scrutiny, from comment? Surely all issues concerning society in a democracy should be able to be discussed openly and courteously without people resorting to name-calling and personal attack both as a weapon and a debate-stifling device.
But it also must be accepted that people cannot always see everything from another person's point of view. For example, I am not wired to be a homosexual so I cannot possibly understand how a gay man can feel the way he does about another gay man. All I can do is to be tolerant and accepting of our differences.
The commenter, to give him his due, did offer a slight slight about me being fallible (not himself of course). As a human being, that's something I freely admit to.
Only the Pope is said to be infallible. But I don't believe that!
P.S. Does that make me Popephobic?