I fear Beets.

Okay, time for another episode of Ichabod pisses off the lefties:

Homophobia. I'd like to address this ridiculous misnomer, and the silly underlying pack of arguments that it represents. If I might be permitted a bit of a strawman, I will define the term for you:

Homophobia, n. - A term employed by agenda-pushing homosexuals to preclude legitimate argument. The word, like "Anti-choice", is a wonderful example of PC hijacking of language to frame a debate in terms more favorable to their movement and thereby stifle intellectual criticism of their beliefs...(continues) A paradox philologically, the term is a logical farce masked in pseudo-scientific verbiage. This is because it actually refers to aggression or dislike of homosexuality, rather than fear.

It is perhaps the largest perpetration of third-grade-level reverse psychology ever. Let me clear this up for you. People who reject the gay agenda do not fear gays. There are almost no males that I fear less, with the exception of accountants. I suppose that one could say that I do fear the effect that their agenda will have toward the erosion of our culture, but that is quite distinct from the fear on a personal level that is inherent to a phobia. To equate my philisophical concern with a phobia is an overreach at best. Perhaps an analogy is in order: a soldier in a war fears the political and societal ramifications of an enemy victory, but his actions in battle are not the consequence of personal fear, but rather in opposition to it. To call American soldiers in WWII Naziphobes would be rather silly, but ANY defensive measure could be described as a phobia using PC standards. Alas, I fear I have already given the semantics too much of a treatment, because common sense tells us that it is merely an attempt to fight masculine discomfort toward homosexuality with masculine discomfort toward being afraid. It is horribly transparent, but the blue-staters eat the term up.

I take a moment to address the term because my post on the gaying-up of comic books evidently ruffled some feathers... the long and the short of it is that yours truly has been rather unceremoniously branded a homophobe. No response to criticism of homosexuality is complete without employing this, the first line of defense in the rather weak ideological arsenal of the other side of the debate. The second wing of defense is an intentional corruption of other words, such as "hate", "diversity", and "puritanical".

The third (and my personal favorite) tactic used by pro-gay groups is the brilliant employment of the classical "I know you are, but what am I" argument. Basically it asserts that if you oppose their agenda, it is because you secretly repress your own homosexual tendencies. I really like when they throw that one out there because it basically destroys any chance of using the last arrow in their quiver, the "gay is not a choice" argument. You see, if I am repressing the tendencies, well, that implies that I am choosing to be straight. You can't have it both ways, Pier.

It occurs to me that I am trying to argue logic with illogical and emotionally motivated people (something I seem to be unable to stop doing), so there is probably no point in continuing. I suppose I should not be surprised that people so intent on tearing down the foundations of our culture have no qaulms about tearing down language. So I give up. They win; I am a homophobe. For your reference, here are some more argumenta ad hominem that will instantly cause me to concede to an opposing point of view. Use them as required:

Communistophobe
Radical-Islamiphobe
Abortionophobe
Mosquitophobe
Brussel-sproutophobe
Too-small-of-a-shirt-collar-ophobe
GunControlophobe
CDs-being-out-of-orderophobe
Smell-of-cat-urineophobe
Excessively-loud-mufflers-on-underpowered-imported-carsophobe
Blingaphobe
That-Fried-Green-Tomatoes-movieophobe

Please feel free to catalog any personal phobias of yours in the comments.