"In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible."
-George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language"

Earlier this month John Aravosis at AMERICAblog weighed in on an interesting poll:

CBS just found that if you ask Americans how they feel about "gay men and lesbians" serving in the military, a large majority support it [about 70%]. But if you ask people whether "homosexuals" should be allowed to serve in the military, support drops [to about 60%].

Bottom line: Homosexual is a nasty, clinical-sounding word with nasty connotations for far too many Americans. It's what I've argued for years, and have been routinely beaten up by some in the gay community who claim I'm nuts -- namely, that no one should use this offensive word and we should correct anyone who does. It now appears I'm not so nuts after all.

Does Aravosis have a point? Would more Americans support full or fuller equality for U.S. GLBTQ citizens if activists and advocacy organizations simply banished the word "homosexuality" from their day-to-day vocabulary? I'm not sure.

In any case, there is a much larger issue here, and it has to do with the language of politics and the politics of language. In the very first place, how are such terms appropriated? How do such terms get stolen and semantically corrupted?

A long time ago, the adjective and noun "liberal" was broadly seen as a label that most anyone could admire, or at least respect. The philosopher John Stuart Mill was a foundational free-market capitalist, feminist, and all-around freedom lover. And he was an unabashed liberal.

Nowadays, though, a large segment of America hears or reads "liberal" and thinks of godlessness, getting taxed to death, and other evil things. If you didn't know better, you'd think that a liberal was that guy hanging out with the devil in Dante's innermost circle.

Of course, language is ultimately nothing more than language. It is the plaything of culture and society -- the briefly agnostic Lego set that can be (gradually or instantaneously) turned into something attractive or something hideous. So, to any of you who think that rights activists should be using "gay" and "LGBT" instead of "homosexual," I completely understand your point. We should all be political pragmatists. What if avoiding the term "homosexual" translated into an election win for a pro-marriage equality candidate? Would we criticize this person?

George Orwell was right then and he is right now: "political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." To this, though, I would add: we have a moral responsibility to tell the truth nested behind the words. In his seminal essay "Politics and the English Language," Orwell writes that "the whole tendency of modern prose [including political prose] is away from concreteness." When some bigot warns about the consequences of the "homosexual lifestyle," it is our responsibility to be concrete in our responses. In truth, these lost souls who you demonize are couples who have long loved each other. They are kids who shouldn't be tricked into believing that they house a festering mortal sin. And they are soldiers who would lay their lives down for their country in a heartbeat.

Whether you call them gay or homosexual, they are who they are: citizens who deserve an equality that is already owed to them under the law. No amount of boogeyman marketing or spin should ever hide this core fact. And no amount of perceived pragmatism on our part should make us afraid to describe unflinchingly why we're fighting and organizing for basic human rights.