I'll try. Payne is mixing up two distinct laws of logic: the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) and the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM). LNC says it's impossible for a proposition to be both true and false: i.e., it can't be both at the same time. LEM says every proposition must be either true or false: i.e., there's no third option available.

These are distinct laws. After all, you could deny LEM and accept LNC: allowing propositions to have some sort of perplexing neither-true-nor-false status while insisting that they can't be both true and false at the same time. Likewise, you could deny LNC and accept LEM: allowing propositions to be both true and false at the same time while insisting that it's impossible for a proposition to have a neither-true-nor-false status.

Anyway, Payne's mistake was that he called LNC by the wrong name: he called it the Law of Excluded Middle. Also, the counterexamples he presented aren't very convincing, but perhaps they were meant jocularly.

OK, as a person who actually studies logic for a living, I have to take issue with this. The Law of Non-Contradiction says roughly "that it's impossible for a thing to be a thing and not be that thing simultaneously". (Not my preferred phrasing, but has the advantage of avoiding pedantic-sounding logician-speak. I guess I'd say that where A is any sentence, it's impossible for "A and not A" to be true.) The Law of Excluded Middle says, roughly, that where A is any sentence, "A or not A" must be true. This may not sound like much of a distinction, but it does sometimes make a difference: some logical systems reject the Law of Excluded Middle but accept the Law of Non-Contradiction, and some go in the opposite direction. If Payne must misuse my discipline to defend homophobes (which I really wish he wouldn't), he should at least get the goddamn logic right!

@ Artsynomad: Heterosexist would work but I feel like the implication is one of prejudice against heteros and not a radical promotion of heterosexual via bigotry towards homosexuals. But it gets a gold star on the catchiness scale. :)

@ Charlie: That is absolutely perfect. This is one of those "D'oh" moments. It makes so much more sense and its so much more parsimonious. Thanks for the help- though I was kind of looking forward to inventing a word. :P

There's nothing wrong with the term 'homophobia': a word's meaning only rarely corresponds to its etymology. Indeed, if we just looked at etymology, 'homophobia' would mean 'pathological fear of sameness' (and 'pedophile' would mean 'someone with a friendly love of children' instead of 'someone sexually attracted to children', and 'hemophilia' would mean 'having a friendly love of blood'). Also, if you want another example of a '-phobia' having to do more with animosity and bigotry than fear, consider 'xenophobia'.

I GOT BANNED BECAUSE A FEW OF THEIR GAY, DAILY SNARKERS LABELED ME AS SUCH. THE CONSTANT COMPLAINING TO THE EDITOR ON-LINE AND OFF-LINE SEALED MY BANISHMENT. BY ME USING WORDS LIKE COCKSUCKER, HOMOSEXUAL AND EXPRESSING MY RIGHT AS A DC RESIDENT BY NOT BEING ABLE TO VOTE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BILL LABELED ME SOMETHING THAT I WAS NOT.

I CHALKED IT UP TO RACISM AND AN OVERSWELL OF GAY PRIDE DURING THE TIME THAT I WAS MAKING MY COMMENTS. SOME OF THE GAY FOLK OVER THERE HAD MY BACK BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT I SAID IT DIDNT AFFECT THEIR PSYCHE. THEY SOMETIMES APPLAUDED MY ATTEMPT AT HUMOR AND BEING AN ASSHOLE BECAUSE IT BOUGHT SOME FORM OF EITHER COMICAL OR OUT RIGHT RELIEF.

MY DISCLAIMER IS I HAVE HOMOSEXUAL AND GAY FRIENDS. MOST OF THEM ARE BLACK AS AM I. WE HAVE HAD SOME HEATED EXCHANGES ON HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE GAY MARRIAGE BILL ALONG WITH OTHER ISSUES (GAY AND NON-GAY) AS IT AFFECTS POLITICS AND OUR COMMUNITY. WE AGREE TO DISAGREE IN MOST INSTANCES, SOMEONE BUYS THE NEXT ROUND AND WE MOVE ON. I ALSO CALL THEM NAMES LIKE COCKSUCKER, GAY ASS AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT COMES TO MIND. THEY RECIPROCATE, WE LAUGH AND IT'S LIKE WHATEVER. SO I MISTOOK THE RELATIONSHIP I HAVE WITH THEM AND APPLIED IT TO MY COMMENTS AND BOY WAS I VILIFIED.

LOOK I DONT HATE ANYONE. I AM AGAINST TWO MEN GETTING MARRIED (I CANT SPEAK ON TWO WOMEN GETTING MARRIED BECAUSE IM NOT ONE. SHIT MY WIFE AND I DISAGREE ON THIS ISSUE AS WELL. SHE IS ALL FOR IT TO MY SURPRISE BECAUSE MOST BLACK WOMEN AREN'T.) HOWEVER IF IT WAS PUT TO A VOTE AND THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY VOTED FOR IT THEN I WOULD NOT HAVE A GRIPE. THAT WAS MY POSITION AND I EXPRESSED IT AS SUCH. IT WAS BECAUSE OF MY STANCE ON THAT ISSUE AND THE USE OF GAY SLANG FREELY THAT CREATED THE BLACKBALLING.

IF I DIDNT HATE HOMOSEXUALS THEY SURE GAVE ME REASONS TO START. HOW CAN A GROUP OF FOLK WHO CLAIMS DISCRIMINATION BE DISCRIMINATORY? HOW CAN FOLK WHO CLAIM THEY WANT TO BE THOUGHT OF IN THE MAINSTREAM NOT ACCEPT MAINSTREAM THOUGHT. JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IS AGAINST SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY HATE IT.

TO SUM IT UP IM NOT A "HOMOPHOBE" BECAUSE I DONT FEAR HOMOSEXUALS. IM NOT A (WHATEVER WORD IS TO DISCRIBE SOMEONE WHO HATES GAY FOLK) BECAUSE I DONT HATE OR PROMOTE HATRED TOWARDS GAY FOLK. I DO HAVE SOME SENSE AND IT MAKES NO SENSE THAT EVERYTIME SOMEONE IS ANTI-GAY THAT SOME GAY PERSON AUTOMATICALLY RINGS THE HATE BELL OR CALL THEM A HOMOPHOBE!

In a way it would be better if we didn't have such a huge stigma for people acting racist and homophobic, that way you could call someone out for it when they're being casually racist and homophobic, and rather than freak out and get hugely defensive they could think about how what they said is wrong and why they shouldn't say something like that. Maybe this would be worse, but I think it would be more honest because it would force us all to acknowledge that being racist or homophobic isn't something that doesn't kick in until you're like crazy bad, but rather it's something that exists in almost all of us.