The prescriptivist in me (which, as we all know, is about 95% of me) agrees with him. Using the same suffix in reference to genuine fears like acrophobia or agoraphobia AND bigotry like homophobia or xenophobia is both ambiguous and, ultimately, disingenuous. It creates problems like the one we have here: Simply opposing homosexual acts to any extent and on any basis connotes bigotry, which is further exacerbated by the terms non-coincidental derivation from a mental disorder (we have evidently come full circle from the days when society viewed homosexuality itself as a mental disorder. )

It also leaves no room for the situation Jeordam cites of having no personal or other animosity toward a given group of people or their behavior, but strongly disagreeing with them or their behavior. Note: I am deliberatley ignoring the nature v. nurture controversy on homosexuality both because the jury is very much still out on that and, far more importantly, it is irrelevant to behavior, the pertinent issue here. No one cares who is or is not gay until they want to get married or have sex.

Many people believe homosexual sex wrong WITHOUT believing homosexuals should be denied the right to consensual sex and marriage with the partner they choose. Calling them homophobes is, IMHO, a slight, one that serves gay rights about as well as accusing everyone opposed to abortion on demand of wanting women to die in back alleys. Insisting those who do not completely agree on all issues are with the opposition has a way of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.