Gayness and vagueness (1)

Richard A. Micallef's letter (April 29) on confusing "homosexuality and being gay" has highlighted the contrived blurring of the meaning surrounding these and other related terms. As the head of a primary school, way back in the late 1950s, I had obtained for my pupils a reading book with the title Gay Stories of Saints, or something similar. At that time the word "gay" meant "full of mirth" or "carefree". It did not have the overriding sexual connotation that it has today. I accept the inevitable evolution of language, but when a meaning is deliberately changed to suit a particular agenda, at the cost of the authentic meaning, I call that corruption and not evolution. We have now reached a stage where one cannot say that s/he is feeling gay without conveying a sexual message.

Like Mr Micallef, I would like to learn when, how, and by whom the word "homophobia" was created, and what it is supposed to mean. "Homophobia", like "homosexual", is made up of two root words: "homo" meaning "same" and, in one case "phobia" meaning "mordid fear or aversion", while in the other, "sexual", meaning "pertaining to sex". Logically, it would follow that one suffering from, or guilty of, "homophobia" is a person who has a morbid fear of, or aversion towards, a similar person, presumably of the same sex. A "homosexual" would be a person who is attracted to a person of the same sex. I have no qualms with the second terminology.

However, I query the motivation of those who accuse anyone who dares to disagree with the agenda of the active proponents of so called "gay rights" as guilty of homophobia. Such accusations are baseless especially when the term "gay rights" can be stretched to mean anything its proponents would want to give it.

Could it be that this confusion in terminology is symptomatic of a deeper confusion in the realm of values?