Homophobia is a funny word. Defined as prejudice against gay men and women, it is, strictly speaking, a misuse of language. The prefix “homo” comes from the Greek meaning similar, so homogeneity means sameness, homonyms are words with identical forms and homosexuality means physical attraction to those of the same sex. Logically, therefore, homophobia should mean “fear of the same”. And, in a curious way, it does.

Researchers at the University of Georgia recently showed homosexual pornography to a group of straight men, some of whom were self-proclaimed homophobes and some of whom professed no prejudice towards gay lifestyles. One might have expected the blood of the avowed homophobes to boil. But it did something else. They were much more aroused by their exposure to homosexual pornography than those straight men with no such prejudice. It would seem that, psychologically, anti-gay feelings are actually a form of self-hatred.

But why go all the way to Georgia to discover that? If you want to prove that homophobia really does mean fear of the same, look at those institutions in Britain most hostile to equality for gay men and women — the Church of England and the Tory party. One thing unites them. Gay people are strikingly over-represented in their ranks.

Society as a whole is moving towards a sane, humane and overdue acceptance of homosexual equality, not least by offering gay couples full partnership rights. Yet both the established Church and the loyal Opposition still keep getting themselves into right old buggers’ muddles.

The Church is threatening itself with schism over the appointment of an openly gay canon to a bishopric. Yet there have been many closeted gay bishops who have served the Church well, from Cosmo Gordon Lang to Mervyn Stockwood. And the number of Anglican priests who are homosexual is anything up to one fifth of the total, significantly more in cities such as Liverpool, London and Brighton.

To be fair to the Church, which as a supporter I wish to be, Rowan Williams, its leader, has sought to ease it away from its confused, hypocritical and prejudiced position. But he faces a formidable fight. As does, in a different way, the Tory leader.

Iain Duncan Smith has shown a certain willingness to grapple with prejudice. During his leadership campaign he argued that Section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act, which forbids the promotion of homosexuality, was an unfortunate, “stigmatising”, measure. By contrast, his opponent, Ken Clarke, pledged to uphold the status quo and won the endorsement of the Daily Mail for his stance. Much good that did him.

But whatever generous intentions Mr Duncan Smith may have, his party has wandered down some curious paths. A solid phalanx of Tory MPs, including some of his strongest supporters, is opposed to repeal of Section 28, stood in the way of adoption rights for gay couples and is made uneasy by moves towards civil partnerships. What makes this opposition so curious is not just its weak foundation in logic, but also its remarkable denial of the world in which the Tory party lives.

Women and members of the ethnic minorities may be under-represented on the Conservative benches in the Commons, but there has never been any shortage of homosexual Tory MPs. Very few may have the courage of Alan Duncan, in being open to all about their orientation, but you’d have to be a blushing naif not to realise why certain MPs remain resolute bachelors. And that’s just the half of it.

Given the number of gay men, and women, in its ranks, one would have thought the Tory party would have realised that Section 28 is a nonsense. Sexuality is incapable of being swayed by “promotion” in schools. You can no more “promote” the idea of becoming gay to a testosterone-fuelled, Key Stage 4-taking, FHM-reading, Jordan-ogling male teenager than you could have persuaded the young Graham Norton to make an honest woman of Ann Widdecombe.

The intractability of your sexual orientation, and the folly of trying to change it to fit in with social pressure, forms one of the running gags in Channel Four’s marvellous comedy Will and Grace. As the title itself prompts us to realise, your sexuality is not a simple matter of free will. It is something beyond your power to effect. Like the operation of divine grace.

But even if homosexuality were a straightforward matter of personal choice, why should we wish to discriminate against those who might find fulfilment through love for someone of the same sex? If sexual acts which can encourage us to feel devotion for another, but which are by their very nature barren, are to be discouraged, then why do moralists not insist on celibacy for pensioners? Indeed if homosexuality were an elementary matter of free will, there would be every reason for both the Conservative Party and the Church to smile on its embrace. It is seldom observed, as it should be, that one of the principal reasons fiercely liberal New York turned Republican is that its night-clubbing, high-earning, aesthetically conscious gay citizens were those most agitated about violent street crime, wasted taxes and urban squalor in Manhattan. It is rarely noticed, as it should be, that homosexual clergy, unencumbered by family and animated by compassion, are those most likely to be found in those difficult urban areas of London or Liverpool where the Gospel most needs to be heard.

It may not be a perfect translation from the Greek, but looking at its practitioners, it strikes me that perhaps the best definition of homophobia is simply “self-defeating”.

Join the Debate on this article at comment@thetimes.co.uk

Times Recommends

• Britain doesn’t need a dose of shock therapy
• Why the sea eagle has no right to land here
• Let older women have a voice at the BBC