One of the general definitions to the word homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.
It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people or sexual behaviour. Choosing two words from this definition - disapproval and hatred, which meanings are eons apart - it is easy to realise the danger that the majority of the population, that is heterosexual, is facing.
The accusing word homophobic is slapped in your face, just because you express a differing opinion and in addition the Gay Rights Movement is progressively demanding that all homophobic actions become criminalised.
There is a fundamental difference between being a homosexual and being gay. The former is a homosexual (whether the carrier of a condition or out of choice) while being gay is a "coming out" and publicly showing one's condition to be recognised as such before society.
So far I have no qualms, although I do have some reservations about certain gay pride marches in EU countries that verge on the obscene, to say the least. I also agree with legislation against discrimination at places of work etc.
However, I cannot agree with UK legislation that obliges Roman Catholic adoption agencies to allow gay adoptions, subject to their being charged with a crime in default.
During the election campaign, reference was being made by the smaller parties to the necessity of a new government discussing and implementing matters relating to homosexuals and gay rights among other matters. One of the articles appearing in The Times of February 19 quoted that the AD party is "closest to gay aspirations" and that the Gay Rights Movement is requesting to have homophobic and transphobic (a newer word) bullying, criminalised.
This is another case of the bad interpretation being given to the word homophobic. Kenneth Zammit Tabona in his opinion of April 22 exalted Spain's Zapatero government for introducing divorce (called divorce express since in two months you are guaranteed a divorce - my words), abortion, gay marriages, gay adoptions (my words) and the entire shebang of "civil liberties" and "human rights" "that are, in this day and age, taken to be the norm in any civilised and enlightened society".
He also takes to task John Dalli for not having started discussions on matters that, in my opinion, will take us on the same ruinous road that Mr Zapatero is taking Spain. How far from the real truth is calling this civilised and enlightened? In 1982 at Fatima, Pope John II stated that in the past a sin was called a sin, but in the past decades, what was considered a sin has now acquired "citizenship" through the enactment of many laws. Thus it is now legal to abort, kill old parents, call a union of two males or females a marriage, allow homosexuals/lesbians to adopt children and so on.
The pendulum is now swinging in the opposite direction. From a starting position of one's "coming out" the word homophobic is now being twisted and legislated to mean, in practice, that any person expressing his opinion that the homosexual act is morally wrong (I am not talking about the Church's teaching only, but what God implanted in man, that is natural law) is being accused of being homophobic - with the connotation more close to hate rather than disapproval.
I have rights as much as any other person whether he is heterosexual like me or homosexual like some others. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
It is my firm conviction that no EU lobby has the right to classify Malta as a homophobic country, just because it still values what is for the better good of our society. Let alone legislate to have a minority's interests override common sense and fair justice.