Hmm.The term 'homophobia' seems odd to describe a behavior where the supposed 'feared' are beaten and/or killed by the 'fearful'. Soo ... the Nazis engaged in a genocidal campaign against the Jews out of 'fear'? Did the Bolsheviks slaughter kulaks out of a deep-seated inferiority complex and a lack of self esteem?
Furthermore, the issue of 'repulsion' is not only relative, but cultural (and perhaps even biological). The range of attitudes on blatant homosexual behavior span the spectrum, and do not reflect on other attitudes held by the offended/pleased/neutral bystander (In point of fact, there are some repelled by blatant acts of heterosexual behavior. Others pay substantial sums for the experience).
I would think the point here is to acknowledge a political shift. When homosexual behavior was conducted solely by poor, marginal individuals outside of mainstream culture, the act was vilified. Now, with 'queers' in possession of substantial wealth and improved organized political behavior, they are able to change public perceptions to their advantage. In the same way that Ronald McDonald can become the friend of children, so also homosexuality becomes merely a new consumer choice. Meanwhile, the wealth and prestige of the Christian church is in a noticable decline; thus, their opinion on matters secular is increasingly attacked. Wicca, the 'Pepsi' to Christianity's 'Coke', is newer and more aggressive, and is increasing their market share of the religion business (incidentally, the same could be said for Islam - appealing to a more conservative and traditional element, of course).
Is it objectively offensive? Are those that find such behavior repellant 'ill'? My opinion is that the question itself is a tactic. Much as declaring the Muslim prohibition against nudity and alcohol an 'illness', it is more meant as an attack on the groups connected with the attitude than as an honest quandry. A weakness is perceived, the counter-groups possess strength; thus, the weakness is acted upon. The reason that the same issues are not brought up in the Islamic world is that they are liable to cost the petitioner a limb or a life. The questions are themselves patently absurd - it is true that Klansmen are frequently people of low self-esteem, but it is hardly related to their stance on homosexuality, and rather more related to the low status that the Klan holds in society. Those who willingly join weak groups frequently feel they have a low status in society, precisely because they do. During the early portion of this century, this was hardly the case with the KKK, and the esteem of members was much higher (a fact, incidentally, which I find of trivial relevance).
If one wishes to argue the merits of a more tolerant attitude toward sexual preferences and practices, I could see the sense in it. These juvenile attempts to make fagdom 'cool' and Bible-thumping 'uncool', however, insult my intelligence and my sensibilities (much more, I might add, than over-eager male bonding or Jimmy Swaggert ever have). If I thought that this debate had any relevance to what the average person felt, I would be positively appalled. Luckily, the common man is far more rational, and can be depended on to moderate these excesses of the academians.
As for homosexuals, worry not. Capitalism has a way of taking care of the successful and the productive, and they are no exception.
